Eighty-one percent of Iowans consider it a “worthy goal” to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children, according to the latest statewide poll by Selzer & Co. for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom. The same survey indicates that 65 percent of Iowans support a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants.

An estimated 800,000 DREAMers (including 2,681 Iowans) are protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Barack Obama enacted in 2012. Some 11 million immigrants are thought to be living in the U.S. without legal authorization, including about 40,000 in Iowa.

Jason Noble reported on the key Iowa poll findings for the Sunday Des Moines Register.

Ninety-three percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 74 percent of Republicans believe citizenship is a worthwhile objective for DACA recipients. So do 86 percent of city dwellers and 73 percent of rural residents. Likewise do 83 percent of Iowans under age 35 and 84 percent of Iowans over 65.

It’s even strong among Iowans who say they’ll vote to re-elect Trump in 2020: 64 percent believe a pathway to citizenship is a worthy goal for people previously covered by DACA. […]

The 65-to-26 percent majority favoring a pathway to citizenship for all undocumented workers marks a sharp increase from the last time the Iowa Poll tested the question. In June 2013, 54 percent of Iowans called the opportunity for citizenship a worthy goal, compared to 38 percent who said it wasn’t.

Among all the demographic distinctions picked up by this year’s poll, just one showed less than majority support for a pathway to citizenship: committed Trump 2020 voters, of whom just 41 percent support citizenship for the undocumented against 51 percent who oppose it.

The survey of 801 Iowa adults was in the field between January 28 and 31, less than ten days after an impasse over a legislative fix for DREAMers led to a partial federal government shutdown. Congress agreed on short-term spending bill to reopen the government after three days, but that funding runs out on February 8.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to allow a vote on DACA. Even if he keeps that promise, House Speaker Paul Ryan is unlikely to bring the legislation to the House floor. Although dozens of Republicans in Congress have said they want to provide a legal pathway for DREAMers, that view is not a majority position in the House GOP or Senate GOP caucus.

The Selzer poll did not ask whether Iowans who support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants are so committed to that stance that they think Democrats should refuse to fund the government until Congress addresses the problem. A nationwide POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, which was in the field on January 20 and 21, found that 47 percent of voters “thought passing a DACA fix was worth shutting down the government,” up from 42 percent in a poll by the same firm taken just before the shutdown. A Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll taken in mid-January indicated that 58 percent of Americans “oppose Democrats voting to shut the government down” over the issue. In a CBS News poll taken last month, respondents who support allowing DREAMers to stay in the country were almost evenly divided over whether the issue was worth risking a shutdown.

The only Iowa Democrat in Congress, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02), is on record supporting a DACA fix. However, he has not demanded protection for DREAMers as a condition for approving a spending resolution. I remain pessimistic that Congress will act before DACA protections expire on March 5. Democrats had more leverage in December than they do today.

UPDATE: Seung Min Kim reported for Politico on February 5,

As lawmakers grasp for a solution for the young undocumented immigrants, one option is a temporary extension — perhaps one year — of their legal protections paired with a little bit of cash for border security.

“That may be where we’re headed because, you know, Congress is pretty dysfunctional,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the few to publicly acknowledge the possibility of a temporary fix. “That’d be a real loss. But that’s probably where we’re headed, OK?”

Some senators are already deriding a yearlong patch as “misguided,” a “Plan Z” and a proposal that would keep immigrants “in fear.” But lawmakers have only until March 5 to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program under President Donald Trump’s deadline. […]

The DACA punt appears inevitable, Fresco said — particularly as Trump continually hints of an extension to the March 5 deadline. Trump would be hamstrung from doing that unilaterally, [veteran immigration attorney Leon] Fresco argued, because his Department of Justice has said DACA, enacted under President Barack Obama, was done illegally.

Top image: Screen shot of Karen Ventura from her 2016 YouTube video describing her story as a DREAMer in Iowa.

The post Four in five Iowans support citizenship for DREAMers appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The deal to keep the federal government open until March 23 revealed unusual fissures among Republicans who represent Iowa in Congress.

Under the compromise, which President Donald Trump signed early Friday morning, the defense budget will rise by about 10 percent to $700 billion, with non-military domestic spending rising to $591 billion for the current fiscal year, Sarah Ferris reported for Politico. “Those record increases, however, will only go into effect after Congress has drafted and passed” an omnibus bill “with detailed spending levels for each government program,” Ferris noted. The deal also raises the debt ceiling by enough to cover what federal tax cuts and spending increases will add to the national debt for the next thirteen months.

The U.S. House and Senate were supposed to approve this deal on February 8, but deficit chickenhawk Senator Rand Paul delayed action until after midnight with a bit of showmanship on the Senate floor. As Democratic Senator Brian Schatz pointed out on Twitter, “Rand Paul voted for a tax bill that blew a $1.5 trillion hole in the budget. Now he is shutting the government down for three hours because of the debt. The chance to demonstrate fiscal discipline was on the tax vote. Delaying a vote isn’t a profile in courage, it’s a cleanup.”

GOP leaders needed Democratic votes in both chambers. Senators passed the bill by 71 votes to 28 (roll call) at about 1:30 am on February 9. Senator Joni Ernst was one of 34 Republican yes votes; Senator Chuck Grassley was among sixteen who voted no. Iowa’s senators have voted opposite ways on major legislation only a handful of times in the past three years.

House members approved the bill by 240 votes to 186 (roll call) four hours later. Representative David Young (IA-03) was among the 167 Republicans voting yes, and Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among the 73 Democrats who joined them. The 67 Republicans who opposed the deal included Representative Steve King (IA-04). House Freedom Caucus member Rod Blum (IA-01) was one of five representatives who did not vote.

It’s not clear whether Grassley and King objected to raising the debt ceiling, the massive increase to the defense budget, or the increase to non-military domestic spending. Neither Grassley nor Ernst released a statement on the vote, a departure from their usual practice when the Senate has passed major legislation. None of Iowa’s four House members sent out a press release either, and none of the Iowans in Congress have commented about this vote on their social media feeds. (I will update this post as needed.)

Final note: as anyone could have predicted following the Democratic capitulation last month, Republicans did not include any protection for the 800,000 Americans who could face deportation when the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program expires on March 5. Democrats gave up their best leverage when they failed to insist on justice for DREAMers as a condition for keeping the government open in December.

The post Iowa Republicans in Congress split on deal to keep government open appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The U.S. House approved a five-year farm bill on June 21 by 213 votes to 211, with support from Iowa GOP Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04). Every Democrat present, including Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02), voted against the bill, as did 20 Republicans (roll call).

A conservative bloc had voted down the same legislation in May, seeking to force House Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule a vote on an immigration bill drafted by Robert Goodlatte. The tactic worked, in the sense that House leaders brought Goodlatte’s bill to the floor shortly before the farm bill. However, the immigration measure lacked the votes to pass the chamber.

According to Politico’s Catherine Boudreau, the legislation was “the first farm bill to pass either chamber with only one-party support,” because “Democrats revolted over its proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as food stamps.”

House Democrats walked away from the bill in committee because it would impose stricter work requirements on between 5 million and 7 million recipients of food stamps while pouring billions of dollars into state education and job training programs. […]

The House farm bill would also tighten eligibility criteria under SNAP — changes that would result in some 400,000 households losing SNAP benefits. Thousands of children would also risk losing their enrollment in free and reduced-price school meal programs.

Republicans contend the plan would put people on a pathway to self-sufficiency. Democrats and anti-hunger groups say it would make it more difficult for millions of needy Americans to receive nutrition assistance, and also would invest in a state-run job training bureaucracy under SNAP that has yet to prove it helps people move out of poverty.

The Center for Rural Affairs highlighted some other problems with the House legislation.

“This bill undercuts rural communities in numerous and serious ways,” stated Anna Johnson, senior policy associate with the Center for Rural Affairs. “By passing this bill, the House of Representatives is demonstrating limited vision and investment in rural communities.”

The draft includes the elimination of the Conservation Stewardship Program, and would cut funds for working lands conservation by nearly $5 billion over 10 years.

“In addition to the troubling cuts to working lands conservation, we are very concerned that this bill would roll back existing payment limits and create new loopholes for very large operations to exploit,” Johnson said. “Senator Grassley has made clear he plans to bring proposals for payment limitations to the Senate floor – we are very disappointed that the House of Representatives chose to take the opposite approach.”

The bill also would eliminate funding for programs such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, the Value-Added Producer Grant Program, and the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program.

I enclose below statements from Loebsack, Young, and King about the House farm bill. (I haven’t seen public comments from Blum but will update as needed.) Tim Gannon, Democratic candidate for Iowa secretary of agriculture, posted on Twitter, “Sorry to see the House pass their version of the Farm Bill full of radical ideology rather than legislation that would be good for farmers & rural America. Fingers crossed the bipartisan Senate bill will be the blueprint for final passage.” UPDATE: Added a longer statement from Gannon at the end of this post.

The Senate will likely pass its farm bill during the next two weeks. That legislation “would not seek new work requirements or make significant changes to eligibility standards for SNAP.” Its biggest innovation is language to “remove industrial hemp from the list of controlled substances under federal law.” The Center for Rural Affairs characterized the Senate bill as a “mixed bag”; click through for details on various provisions.

Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee approved the farm bill on June 13 by 20 votes to 1. Iowa’s own Senator Chuck Grassley was the lone dissenter, “because his amendment to limit subsidy payments wasn’t added to the proposed bill.” He said in this written statement,

“Farm programs should provide temporary, limited assistance to farmers when there’s a natural disaster or an unforeseeable, sudden change in market prices. Setting sound, enforceable limits to farm safety net payments is a straightforward way to exercise fiscal responsibility and close loopholes that exploit the intent of farm programs that allow some non-farmers to game the system and take resources away from real, working farmers. I’ve been an advocate for making these reforms for more than a decade, so you can imagine my disappointment that they weren’t included in the committee’s legislation. I intend to offer an amendment on the Senate floor to include commonsense payment limits in the 2018 Farm Bill. A similar amendment passed the Senate in the last Farm Bill and should pass again.”

Grassley spoke earlier this week at the Heritage Foundation about the importance of fiscally responsible reforms to the Farm Bill. Grassley also wrote an op-ed about his work to make the 2018 Farm Bill more fair to farmers.

Assuming senators approve a farm bill by July 4, as expected, a conference committee would have nearly three months to work out a compromise before the current farm bill expires on September 30.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

Representative Dave Loebsack didn’t issue a statement after the June 21 vote, but his press release from last month explains why he didn’t support the bill:

Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today [May 18] after House Republicans failed to push their partisan farm bill through the House. This legislation fails to address falling farm income, eliminates the energy title, which includes the popular Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and eliminates important crop insurance and risk management education efforts. Additionally, the bill cuts billions of dollars in food assistance for millions of children, seniors and veterans.

“House Republicans today showed they care more about being partisan than passing a farm bill to support Iowa’s farmers and rural communities. In what has historically been done in a bipartisan manner with a rural-urban coalition, this farm bill has devolved into a partisan food fight. This bill did not go far enough, nor make the necessary investments in providing our farmers and rural communities in Iowa with the tools they need. Farmers are facing some of the lowest farm incomes in years and this partisan farm bill does little to provide economic benefit or market certainty in rural communities.

“While there are many things in this bill that I support, I was unable to support it today because this bill is too extreme. For example, the elimination of the Energy title goes against our rural priorities. This title supports many renewable energy and energy efficiency investments made by our farmers and small businesses, such as REAP. This initiative has always been incredibly popular and has more people interested in it than funding available.

“I am also disappointed that this bill does not raise reference prices at a time when farm incomes are falling. Increased reference prices would go a long way toward providing greater assistance to farmers in times of low prices. Additionally, this bill cuts $800 million from conservation programs that help farmers care for the land and soil. On top of that, this farm bill eliminates important crop insurance and risk management education efforts that protect farmers in times of an emergency.

“I feel as though this whole process was truly a missed opportunity to support rural Iowa while making investments that put farmers first. It is time to go back to the Ag Committee and craft a bipartisan bill that can actually pass both chambers and be signed into law. But most importantly, we have to have a farm bill that puts farmers first.”

Excerpts from June 21 press release from Representative David Young (video of his brief floor speech is here):

Young’s water quality, farmer suicide bills pass in Farm Bill
June 21, 2018 Press Release
Iowa Congressman David Young’s bills, the WATER Act and the STRESS Act were included in the final version of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, commonly known as the Farm Bill.

“The Farm Bill includes important provisions for farmers from crop insurance to addressing farmer suicide and I fought to make sure Iowans’ priorities were included in the bill,” said Congressman Young. “The WATER Act will help farmers find the best practices to protect water quality and improve soil health and the STRESS Act will help farmers struggling with their mental health get the resources they need.”

Also included in the Farm Bill was the creation of a Food Loss and Waste Reduction Liaison at the Department of Agriculture. Congressman Young co-founded the Food Waste Caucus as a way to combat hunger and participated in a food waste roundtable with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue.

June 21 press release from Representative Steve King:

King: Swift Enactment of House Farm Bill Will “Protect Our Family Farms”

House Passed Farm Bill Contains King’s PICA, Funds Ag Export Programs and ISU Research, Creates FMD Vaccine Bank

Washington, D.C.- Congressman Steve King, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, released the following statement following House passage of HR. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (Farm Bill). The Farm Bill contains several of Congressman King’s initiatives, including legislation he introduced, the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA), which prevents activist states like California from unconstitutionally regulating interstate commerce in agriculture by imposing regulatory hurdles on other states. The Farm Bill passed the House of Representatives this afternoon on a vote of 213-211 with Congressman King voting in favor of the bill.

“The rural economy is hurting, and we need to get the House’s Farm Bill enacted into law as quickly as possible to ensure a vibrant farm economy that will protect our family farms,” said King. “This farm bill safeguards the Crop Insurance program, increases funding for important export programs, and furthers agriculture research being done at Iowa State University. It also includes my PICA provision that will ensure Iowa’s agricultural products are not denied access to some of the nation’s largest markets. This bill is too important to our rural communities to be left sitting on Senator McConnell’s desk. I encourage the Senate to pass it quickly so that President Trump can sign it into law and bring rural communities the assurances they seek.”

In addition to PICA, the Farm Bill also contains several initiatives championed by Congressman King:

The House-passed Farm Bill contains a King amendment which strengthens the EQIP Soil/Water Conservation Program by making Drainage Districts eligible for EQIP Contracts.
The House-passed Farm Bill includes “Genome to Phenome” language that allows universities such as Iowa State University to further research weather, environmental, and production system impacts on crops.
The House-passed Farm Bill includes provisions creating and funding the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccine Bank.
The House-passed Farm Bill makes important changes to the SNAP program, placing work requirements of 20 hours a week on some food stamp recipients.

UPDATE: Democratic secretary of agriculture candidate Gannon released this statement on June 22.

“I am disappointed that the House passed an extremely ideological Farm Bill yesterday along party lines. Farm Bills are too important for all Americans to become litmus tests. Due to the Trump Administration’s approach to trade and the EPA’s issuance of waivers that damage the Renewable Fuels Standard, farmers and ranchers need the certainty of a strong safety net that Farm Bills usually provide. Yet, because House Republicans followed such a partisan process, this Farm Bill does not enjoy the robust support it should. The House version cuts much needed conservation funding that helps Iowa farmers continue to implement practices that improve soil health and enhance downstream water quality.

“The GOP did not stop there. They eliminated the Energy Title which helped many Iowan farmers improve their farm operations over the last decade through efficiency projects. And, notably, they cut nutrition assistance. This bill seeks to sever the important rural/urban coalition of lawmakers who historically worked together to craft Farm Bills that gain bipartisan support, not just that of one party.

“Next week, the Senate will take up consideration of their version of the Farm Bill, one which has been developed in a bipartisan manner and enjoyed overwhelming support in the Senate Agriculture Committee. The leaders and members of that Committee show us the two parties can work together to craft strong legislation. The Farm Bill plays a unique role in our economy and in the everyday lives of countless Americans. Rural or urban, we need a Farm Bill that provides our farmers a strong safety net, supports those in need of assistance, and provides rural America with the programs that help improve local economies and communities.”

The post House approves Farm Bill with food assistance cuts: How the Iowans voted appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Democratic Representatives Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) and Cindy Axne (IA-03) joined a long list of “firsts” when they were sworn in on January 3. Iowa had never elected a woman to the U.S. House before 2018, but now women make up half of our state’s delegation. The “most diverse Congress in history” includes record numbers of women and members of religious, racial, ethnic, or LGBTQ groups that have not previously represented their states in Washington. Finkenauer also became the second-youngest woman to serve in Congress, after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

The first votes in the 116th Congress involved some drama within the Democratic caucus, but Iowans did not rock the boat.

Choosing a speaker is always the first order of business, and Nancy Pelosi was elected with 220 votes, only a few to spare (roll call). Finkenauer, Axne, and seven-term Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) all made clear in November they would support Pelosi; click here to read their public statements at that time. The fifteen House Democrats who voted for other candidates were mostly freshmen. Cameron Joseph broke down their votes for Talking Points Memo.

Six House Republicans voted for speaker candidates other than Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, but Representative Steve King (IA-04) voted for his party’s establishment this time. Four years ago, King and newly-elected Republican Rod Blum declined to support Speaker John Boehner.

Next on the January 3 agenda came several procedural votes, notably the first part of a new rules package, which passed mostly along party lines by 234 votes to 197. The Iowans all voted as expected. Three progressive Democrats voted against the rules, while three Republicans voted for them. The sticking point for the Democratic dissenters related to legislation that could increase the federal deficit. Lindsey McPherson explained the controversy well in an article for Roll Call.

[Ro] Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez had announced on Twitter Wednesday that they would oppose the package over a pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, provision that requires legislation that would increase the deficit to be offset by spending cuts or revenue increases.

Many progressives oppose PAYGO because they feel that some policies that will have a larger economic benefit do not need to be paid for and don’t want the provision to interfere with their goals of passing costly legislation like “Medicare for All.”

PAYGO, however, is also a law that would allow the administration to make cuts to mandatory spending (although many programs like Social Security and Medicare are exempt) to offset any net annual deficit increase due to legislation passed by Congress.

Give the existence of the law, which like the House rule can be waived by a vote of Congress — and often is — many progressives did not feel the need to vote against the rules package despite opposing PAYGO as a principle.

At the Wonkette blog, Doktor Zoom provided a more colorful–and not safe for work–commentary on why the rules package would be a stupid hill for progressives to die on: “We’re stuck with paygo for now, and rejecting the rule at the moment is an utterly empty gesture that would actually hand power to Team Trump.”

The last votes on January 3 concerned two “clean” spending bills to reopen the government without allocating funds to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. From yet another good synopsis by McPherson:

The House first passed a bill 239-192 to reopen the Department of Homeland Security with a continuing resolution lasting through Feb. 8. Five Republicans voted with the Democrats.

The Homeland bill is where debate over border funds occur, and Democrats argue a stopgap extending fiscal 2018 funding would bide them time to continue negotiations while keeping the government open.

The second measure the House passed provided funding through fiscal 2019 for the six annual appropriations bills that have yet to be signed into law that have nothing to do with the border security debate. The vote was 241-190. Seven Republicans voted with the Democrats.

Democrats feel the roughly a dozen agencies funded under these measures shouldn’t be held hostage over the border wall debate.

But Trump and congressional Republicans have rejected both Democratic bills — which contain no money for a border wall, just a continuation of the $1.3 billion authorized for fencing in fiscal 2018 — as show votes, not a serious attempt to reach a solution.

Finkenauer, Loebsack, and Axne voted for both spending bills, while King opposed them. But five Republicans in vulnerable House districts joined Democrats on the Homeland Security spending bill, and seven GOP members did the same on the other appropriations measure. As time passes, more Republicans may feel pressure to vote to reopen the government, even without funding for President Donald Trump’s obsession.

Any comments about Congress or the shutdown are welcome in this thread. I enclose below statements Iowa’s path-breaking women released on their first days at work in the House.

Final note: like most of the women who served before them, Finkenauer and Axne have chosen the title of “Congresswoman” for their official communications. When writing about the Iowans in the U.S. House, Bleeding Heartland has long preferred the gender-neutral “Representative” to “Congressman.” I will continue to identify all four members the same way.

Statements released by Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03) on January 3:

CONGRESSWOMAN CINDY AXNE SWORN INTO OFFICE
~ Congresswoman Axne today took the oath of office to serve as the U.S. Representative from Iowa’s Third Congressional District ~

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Cindy Axne (IA-03) was sworn-in to serve as the U.S. Representative from Iowa’s Third Congressional District in the 116th Congress. Congresswoman Axne’s husband John, her two sons Gunnar and Rafe, and her father Terry Wadle joined as guests in the House gallery to watch the oath of office.

“I am incredibly honored to serve as the U.S. Representative from Iowa’s Third Congressional District. I will work tirelessly to deliver the highest level of constituent services and ensure the voices of all Iowans are heard in Washington.

“With the start of the 116th Congress, we have an opportunity, and a duty to our constituents, to put party aside and work together to move our country forward. I remain committed to serving as a champion of bipartisan, commonsense solutions to improve the lives of all Iowans.

“Over the next two years, I will fight to strengthen our rural communities, support our farmers, and provide all Iowans with the skills they need to get a good paying job. I will work relentlessly to ensure we maintain protections for people with pre-existing conditions, protect crucial programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and lower the cost of health care for all Iowans.

“While I look forward to passing crucial legislation to help hardworking Iowa families, my first order of business will be to re-open the government and ensure that every single federal employee receives the paycheck they’ve earned.”

CONGRESSWOMAN AXNE VOTES TO OPEN THE GOVERNMENT

Washington, D.C – On her first day in office, Congresswoman Cindy Axne (IA-03) voted to open the government as the partial government shutdown enters into its 14th day. Congresswoman Axne voted for two bills to open the government. The first was a package of six appropriations bills that were previously approved with bipartisan approval in the U.S. Senate in December, 2018. The second bill would fund the Department of Homeland Security through February 8th, allowing time for Congress and the President to reach an agreement to strengthen border security while keeping this critical department open.

“I voted to end the government shutdown that has threatened our national security, hurt our economy, and put hardworking Iowans on the hook. We have a responsibility to our constituents to find solutions to strengthen our border security without holding the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of federal employees hostage. This legislative package allows us to do just that,” said Congresswoman Axne.

“Today marks the first day of the 116th Congress. It’s time Washington takes responsibility for our actions. I am ready and willing to work with Republicans and the President in order to reach a deal to effectively strengthen our border security, while also keeping our government functioning. I strongly urge the Senate to pass and the President to sign these bills.”

Statements released by Representative Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) on January 3:

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer today released the following statement on the occasion of being sworn in to the United States House of Representatives to represent Iowa’s First Congressional District:

“I was honored to share this day with my parents and the people of Iowa’s first district, who taught me the Iowa values that I will fight for here in Congress. Quality schools, affordable health care, and serious investments in infrastructure are on the line. I am ready to get to work for everyone in the First District and to make sure the voices of those Congress has forgotten are heard loud and clear.”

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer today released the following statement on her vote to re-open the federal government:

“I’m proud to have voted to re-open our government, putting it back to work for the American people. We can and must make sure that both parties negotiate and work together. But, that should never mean that TSA officials are protecting us without pay or that our farmers can’t turn to the Farm Services Agency for help. Iowans know that compromise and common sense go hand-in-hand. And it’s what they expect from their elected officials.”

The post History made in U.S. House: How the Iowans voted appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Clive native T.J. Foley is a Harvard College undergraduate. -promoted by Laura Belin

As shutdowns abound and federal workers around the country continue to celebrate the holidays without their paychecks, the fiscal practices of our state and federal government continue to destabilize economic outlook. Day after day, elected officials in Washington bicker about spending cuts and public expenditures with no end in sight, all from the supposed guardians of fiscal responsibility.

The GOP has consistently and habitually wasted taxpayer money but continues to be perceived as the party of budget stability. The present shutdown alone is estimated to cost the taxpayer $5.6 billion per week, which is just a small drop in the enormous bucket of wasteful Republican spending. The 2017 Trump Tax Cut will add over a trillion dollars to the national debt over 10 years. A survey of recent history indicates that the present administration is not the only culprit. President George W. Bush shredded the Clinton budget surplus and exploded the budget deficit and the oft-touted fiscal warrior, President Ronald Reagan, exploded the debt during his tenure in the Oval Office.

On the state level, Iowans are afflicted by a massive budget shortfall that falls squarely on the shoulders of Governor Kim Reynolds and her predecessor. The distressing fiscal situation of the state is fueling speculation of further spending cuts to already shelled out education and human services budgets. These spending changes will not increase economic output, nor will they permanently pull Iowa’s budget out of its present dire straits. Instead, it will create a brutal cycle of diminished revenue, budget shortfalls, spending cuts, and darker futures for the people of this state.

History tells us that the songbirds of fiscal responsibility and careful spending go mute whenever they take the reins of government. Despite the well-documented record of expenditure-happy republicans, they continue to campaign as the party of the balanced budget. Such a message continues to mask their tenuous record and deliver victory after victory at the ballot box, election cycle after election cycle.

In a political climate where what you say matters less than how you say it, Democrats must begin preparing a rhetorical counterweight to the GOP’s tired “fiscal responsibility” ploy. Such a message must illuminate the priorities and values of the left while also appealing to fiscally-minded voters. In doing so, Democrats can push back on the glaring inconsistencies belying the promises of our Republican friends. To this end, I advocate erecting a new budgetary message centering around one core premise: fiscal sustainability.

Put simply, fiscal sustainability encompasses a government funding strategy that doesn’t break the bank or the backs of hard-working Americans. It recognizes that tough choices must be made in budget decisions, but that those decisions must never compromise the well-being of workers and families. Fiscally sustainable policies recognize that the government, just like individuals and families, must spend within its means—failing to do so creates a debt trap that would burden futures generations with the bills of their forebears. However, fiscally sustainable budgeting requires adherents to prioritize policies and programs that sustain or enhance the lives of the people, with education and human services at the topping the list.

Fiscally sustainable economic policies are not new or revolutionary. While the term itself is used in economic parlance, it has not yet permeated the mainstream rhetoric of either political party. This represents an opportunity for Democrats to claim it as their own, offering clarity to what was previously a scattered and disorganized budgetary message.

Rhetoric alone will not dispense with the current President, narrow the margins in the General Assembly, or pull our society out of its present peril. But for Democrats to counter the prevailing, albeit inaccurate GOP economic narrative, they will need a new message in their political toolbox. I beseech to my fellow Democrats to establish a cohesive and easily understandable appropriations vehicle of our own, with fiscal sustainability as its framework, smart policymaking as its fuel, and the will of the people at the wheel.

T.J. Foley is a second-year student at Harvard College studying social studies with a focus on technology policy.

The post The case for a Democratic message of fiscal sustainability appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The federal government reopened as of 9:23 pm Eastern time on January 25. Earlier in the day, President Donald Trump retreated from his demand that any spending bill include money for a wall along the U.S. southern border.

Why cave now? For weeks, media around the country have been reporting on the hardship faced by some 800,000 federal workers and at least 1 million contractors going without pay. Trump changed course largely for two reasons: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied him permission to deliver a State of the Union address while the government was shut down, and several major east coast airports experienced delays on January 25 due to air traffic controller staff shortages.

Shortly after Trump announced his new position, the U.S. House and Senate approved by voice votes a continuing resolution to fund the government for three weeks. Congressional leaders and White House representatives will attempt to work out some kind of immigration compromise by February 15. The deal includes an extension and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which expired near the beginning of the shutdown.

House Democrats including Iowa’s Representatives Abby Finkenauer (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Cindy Axne (IA-03) had previously voted ten times for bills to reopen various government agencies and provide back pay to federal workers. A few House Republicans had supported those bills, but Iowa’s Representative Steve King (IA-04) stuck with the rest of the GOP caucus, opposing them all. King has been among the most vocal supporters of a wall on the Mexican border since long before Trump ran for president.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had refused to bring up any of the spending bills House Democrats approved. As the shutdown dragged on, some GOP senators grumbled about their decision. Senator Joni Ernst voiced support for McConnell’s stance, repeatedly telling Iowa reporters and constituents that she wanted the government to reopen, but Congress needed to pass a bill Trump would sign. According to CNN’s Manu Raju, McConnell called Trump on January 24 to warn him “he didn’t know how much longer he could hold the line.”

McConnell brought two spending bills to the Senate floor on January 24. Ernst and Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley voted for the GOP leader’s proposal, which included funding for a wall. It fell ten votes short of the 60 needed (roll call). A short while later, a “clean” resolution received 52 votes, with six Republicans joining the all the Democrats present (roll call). Ernst and Grassley opposed that bill.

In November, Ernst joined the Senate leadership team for the first time, elevating her status. But this episode points to a risk of being so closely aligned with McConnell. If talks break down in February and the government shuts down again, Ernst could be locked into an increasingly unpopular position. Several of the Republicans who voted for the Democratic spending bill on Thursday are up for re-election in 2020, like Ernst.

I enclose below comments on the government reopening from all the Iowans in Congress except for King, who did not release a statement or post about the deal on his Twitter feed. I will update as needed.

P.S.–Pelosi proved beyond any doubt that she is the right House speaker for this moment. None of the “Five White Guys” or their supporters could have navigated this shutdown as skillfully.

P.P.S.–Trump seems to be struggling to adapt to the reality that Democrats control the House. In fairness, it can take a while to get used to a big change. A few days ago, Raju tweeted about 22 House Republicans (mostly from the Freedom Caucus) opposing a bipartisan resolution expressing support for U.S. membership in NATO. Seeing the words “House Freedom Caucus members,” I habitually clicked on Raju’s photo of the roll call vote, looking for Rod Blum’s name. A second later, I remembered I don’t have to worry about Blum anymore.

Statement released by Representative Abby Finkenauer on January 25:

“For 35 days, this unnecessary and hurtful shutdown has put the American dream on hold. This is not how our country should work. This is not how we treat people. We owe it to our federal employees, farmers, and every American impacted by this shutdown to come together with a core understanding that working families should never again be used as bargaining chips, by this administration or the next.”

Statement released by Representative Dave Loebsack:

“It is way past time for the President to take this step. While I wish Congress would pass a bill funding the government for a full year and not another short-term extension, it is imperative that we get the government open and working on behalf of the American people. While the shutdown wreaks havoc on the financial security of our nation, across the country folks are feeling its very real negative economic impact. In the next three weeks, Congress must put aside the games and work together to find a reasonable way to permanently reopen the government. Hardworking Iowans can no longer afford to be caught in the middle of these games. It is beyond unacceptable that we are in this position!”

Statement released by Representative Cindy Axne:

“I am incredibly grateful for our dedicated federal workforce, those who worked without receiving a paycheck and those who were furloughed for the past 35 days.

“I’m pleased Congressional leaders and the President reached a deal to re-open the government and provide backpay to our federal workers. But no matter which political party is in charge, the practice of using a shutdown to advance any political or policy agenda is unacceptable.

“The significant hardship this shutdown has caused our economy, our communities, and our families was completely avoidable. Iowa federal contractors, farmers and small business owners won’t get reimbursed for the economic hit they took because of this government dysfunction.

“Over the next three weeks, I will work with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to keep our government open while negotiating a bipartisan deal to strengthen our border security. I’m ready to get to work to lower the cost of health care, support our farmers and strengthen our rural communities.”

Since assuming office on January 3, Congresswoman Axne voted 11 times to re-open the government.

Statement released by Senator Chuck Grassley:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following statement on President Trump’s announcement to reopen the government and allow Congress more time to address the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis on the southern border.

“Congress has a responsibility to reach a compromise that funds the government and addresses key humanitarian and immigration challenges facing our nation. Today President Trump demonstrated yet again that he is willing to be flexible and negotiate a solution to end the government shutdown. It’s high time Minority Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi end their blockade and come to the table to work out a solution that funds the government for the remainder of the fiscal year and addresses the border crisis. Saying ‘no’ to every compromise proposal put forth by the president without providing a counterproposal that can be agreed to by all sides isn’t leadership, it’s abdication. And the American people are paying the price. The final package should also end government shutdowns once and for all.”

Statement released by Senator Joni Ernst:

Ernst: “The American people expect us to do better; we have an opportunity to step up and do the right thing, and that’s find a solution.”

WASHINGTON—The partial government shutdown has gone on for too long. Yesterday, Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) joined her colleagues—Republicans and Democrats—on the Senate floor in calling for a bipartisan solution that will secure our borders and immediately reopen the federal government.

In her speech, Ernst outlined the fundamental duties of Congress: to provide for our nation’s security and to fund the government. She also outlined the impact that the partial shutdown has had on Iowans, and the urgent need for Congress to find a path forward and get federal workers back to work.

Click here or on the image above to watch.

On the Senate floor, Senator Ernst said:

“Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski and Senator Cardin. Thank you for your leadership in organizing this floor colloquy.

“I do want to join my colleagues in expressing how urgent it is that we not only secure our borders but that we open our government.

“We really do have to come together. We’ve got two sides of the aisle here, our Democrats and our Republican friends. Certainly we can come to a solution. We’ve got to figure out a path forward, folks, and I’m glad that we’re here to do that.

“We have a duty to provide for our nation’s security and it’s also our job to fund the government. We just voted on a sensible and smart proposal offered by the president that every Democrat and Republican should have supported, but unfortunately it was rejected today.

“You know, back home our hardworking Iowans, and of course Americans all across the country, they’re tired of government shutdowns and they are disappointed in the dysfunction of Washington, D.C.

“The impacts of this government shutdown are tangible for families. They feel it. People are hurting all across this nation.

“Most families don’t have a rainy-day fund. Money only lasts so long when you have zero income. Prolonged periods without a paycheck are unsustainable.

“I have a friend who works for federal law enforcement, and fortunately he’s up in seniority but he told me the other day, he said, ‘Joni, our young workers, our young federal workers, they just can’t make ends meet.’ Children don’t stop growing, people don’t stop getting sick, and the obligations of caring for families don’t stop just because we have.

“Washington has stopped working, folks. We’ve got to get it together.

“I’ve heard from businesses on the brink of collapse. I’ve heard from first-time home buyers that are trapped in limbo right now. And there are serious consequences that I’ve heard about from our farmers who work every day with the United States Department of Agriculture, the USDA.

“Our food banks, our churches, and other charities that spend their time and their resources helping families and communities through these tough times, helping those furloughed workers and those who are in need, they’re running out of resources.

“They’re running out of time. And it only can last so long.

“We need our DOJ working to stop crime and violence. We need our vital government agencies back up and running. We can do that.

“I support a stronger border, and I support the president’s sensible proposal, which does include a barrier, manpower, ports of entry, technology, and infrastructure. I think it’s necessary that these investments be part of an overall deal.

“Our lack of border security has resulted in a humanitarian crisis at the border. We have tens of thousands of illegals and inadmissible immigrants on our southern border every month.

“I agree with President Trump and many of my colleagues that securing our southern border is a must-do to discourage illegal immigration, curb the human trafficking, stop drugs, stop gun trafficking, in addition to stopping the ability of gangs and terrorists to exploit the holes in our system.

“You know what, folks? The American people expect us to do better; we have an opportunity to step up and do the right thing, and that’s find a solution. We have to do it by working together.

“So again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for coming together today on the floor. Again, Senator Cardin, Senator Murkowski, thank you for organizing the effort and hopefully we will come to a solution.

“So, folks, the nation is watching us. We can do better. I’ll yield the floor.”

The post Iowa Congressional reaction to ending government shutdown appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

“Whatever a national emergency may be, that’s not it,” tweeted experienced Supreme Court litigator Neal Katyal, after President Donald Trump admitted during his February 15 press conference, “I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.”

The courts may stop Trump from using funds appropriated for other purposes to have the military build a wall along the southern border, which Congress has repeatedly declined to authorize. But the president’s warlord-like behavior can still do lasting harm to democratic institutions.

Iowa Republicans in Congress are either unconcerned about this “reckless disregard for the separation of powers” or cheering it on.

Commentators on the left and right largely agree that Trump is abusing his legal authority. Charles Pierce wrote at Esquire,

This is a direct assault by this president* on the Congress’s Article I powers. Usually, presidents use these powers to do things like levy sanctions on countries that are slaughtering their own people. What this president* is trying to do is to redirect money already appropriated for a project that Congress already has declined to fund—the last time only a couple of days ago. That is purely a dictatorial action. It is an abuse of power. It cannot be allowed to stand.

David French argued in the conservative National Review, “If you look at the plain language and clear intent of the relevant statutes, they do not permit Trump to defy Congress and build his wall. He knows it. Congress knows it. His own lawyers know it.” The rarely-discerning Jonah Goldberg noted, “The simple fact is that failing to get the budget you want from Congress isn’t a national emergency, regardless of how much you invoke national security and talk about invasion.”

The editors of The Bulwark, another conservative publication, warned, “The upcoming vote on the emergency order will be a defining—if not the defining—vote of this Congress and it will test the GOP’s commitment both to constitutional norms and to limited government.”

To all appearances, Iowa Republicans will fail that test.

Senator Chuck Grassley has spent 60 years serving in the legislative branch. Yet he had nothing to say publicly after Trump’s embarrassing February 15 press conference. In a statement released the previous day, Grassley shifted the blame to Congressional Democrats:

As I’ve said many times, I have concerns about the precedent that could be set with the use of emergency action to re-appropriate funds. Accordingly, I will study the President’s declaration closely. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I’m sure such action will be litigated in the courts. What’s clear, however, is that the president takes the situation at our border seriously and that Democrats do not. It defies reason that Democrats are so committed to an open borders agenda.

Congress could pass a motion to disapprove of Trump’s action, but Grassley doesn’t sound inclined to go down that road. Politico’s Burgess Everett, Andrew Desiderio, and Melanie Zanona quoted him as saying, “I wish he wouldn’t have done it […] If [Trump] figures that Congress didn’t do enough and he’s got to do it, then I imagine we’ll find out whether he’s got the authority to do it by the courts.”

Senator Joni Ernst did not comment on today’s developments. Her February 14 news release falsely accused Democrats of trying to slip “radical and unreasonable positions […] like abolishing ICE and borders all together” into the federal government funding bill. That statement ended on an ambiguous note: “At the end of the day, this legislation is a key starting point that will allow the president to move forward on desperately needed border security efforts.”

Does Ernst support a national emergency declaration to build the wall? Her staff did not respond to my inquiry.

Iowa’s leading wall enthusiast, Representative Steve King, was thrilled by the news from the White House. The self-styled “constitutional conservative” had this to say in a written statement:

I have been asking the President to declare a National Emergency to address border security for months, and I support his doing so today. President Trump is on solid Constitutional ground, and I hope he uses this authority to build all of the wall that’s needed, which means extending it until illegal aliens stop going around the end. Americans understand that if a 2,000 mile wall facilitated illegal immigration, Democrats would be clamoring for a National Emergency of their own to build it.

Meanwhile, the Iowa GOP re-tweeted some cheerleading from the head of the Republican National Committee:

I haven’t seen any public comment from Democratic Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) about the funding bill or national emergency.

Fellow Democrat Cindy Axne (IA-03) tweeted on February 14, “Tonight I voted for the bipartisan, bicameral deal to keep the government open and strengthen our border security. I strongly urge the President to sign this deal. It’s time to move our country forward.” Although her Congressional office did not release a statement on February 15, her campaign sent a list-building e-mail asking supporters to sign a petition to “TELL TRUMP NO ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY”: “Let Trump know that this decision is wrong and that these resources are needed for education, healthcare and rural infrastructure!”

Representative Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) tweeted,

We need to keep our borders secure & our government running. That’s why Congress came together & passed a bipartisan spending bill. Declaring a national emergency, defying our constitution, taking billions of unauthorized taxpayer dollars ignores important checks & balances.

I urge my Senate colleagues to put country and Iowa over party and call out this Administration’s reckless games. This chaos and dysfunction are now risking funds that #IA01 is counting on for the CR flood wall. I’ll fight every day to not let that happen.

Iowa Democratic Party chair Troy Price denounced the “act of unconstitutional political theatre”:

The wall is unnecessary, ineffective, and wrong for our country.

However, if the President wants to address a real crisis, he could end this pointless Twitter Trade War that he alone started.

Amen to that.

I enclose below full statements released by the Iowans in Congress.

February 14 press release from Senator Joni Ernst:

Ernst Statement on Border Funding Bill

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) released the following statement on the Senate’s passage of compromise legislation to provide funding for border security and complete the appropriations process to fund the government through fiscal year 2019:

“Negotiating in good faith and working towards a compromise means both sides get things they want and things they don’t. There’s a lot of good in this compromise legislation, but there are also parts that fall short,” said Senator Joni Ernst.

“We successfully fought back against radical and unreasonable positions from our Democratic colleagues—like abolishing ICE and borders all together—in order to reach a deal that provides critical funds for border security and gives the president the tools to curb illegal immigration and the flow of drugs into Iowa and the rest of the country.

“However, I’m frustrated this bill fails to extend the Violence Against Women Act, legislation I have long called on to be modernized and reauthorized. It also contains a provision that could hamstring federal law enforcement efforts and open the door for illegal criminals to evade deportation using vulnerable children. While it sets up the critical framework for a border wall, I’m concerned there are provisions tucked into this compromise bill that will actually establish roadblocks for wall construction in areas where it is needed.

“At the end of the day, this legislation is a key starting point that will allow the president to move forward on desperately needed border security efforts.”

February 14 press release from Senator Chuck Grassley:

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following statement after the U.S. Senate voted to approve funding legislation that will keep the government open.

“No bill is perfect. But Congress has a responsibility to find compromises that keep the government funded and address the issues facing our country. President Trump has demonstrated time and again that he is willing to be flexible and negotiate a solution to the humanitarian and security crisis at the border. I appreciate that leadership and wish Democratic leaders would do more to negotiate in the same spirit.

“As I’ve said many times, I have concerns about the precedent that could be set with the use of emergency action to re-appropriate funds. Accordingly, I will study the President’s declaration closely. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I’m sure such action will be litigated in the courts. What’s clear, however, is that the president takes the situation at our border seriously and that Democrats do not. It defies reason that Democrats are so committed to an open borders agenda.”

February 14 press release from Representative Steve King:

King Statement on National Emergency Declaration for Border Security

“Americans understand that if a 2,000 mile wall facilitated illegal immigration, Democrats would be clamoring for a National Emergency of their own to build it.”

Washington, D.C.- Congressman Steve King releases this statement following the announcement that President Donald Trump will be declaring a National Emergency to address the national security and humanitarian crisis on our border with Mexico that has been caused by years of virtually unchecked illegal immigration.

“I have been asking the President to declare a National Emergency to address border security for months, and I support his doing so today. President Trump is on solid Constitutional ground, and I hope he uses this authority to build all of the wall that’s needed, which means extending it until illegal aliens stop going around the end. Americans understand that if a 2,000 mile wall facilitated illegal immigration, Democrats would be clamoring for a National Emergency of their own to build it.

In fact, the government shutdown allowed the President to show the American public that the Democrats just cannot be trusted to place the security interests of the American public over Democrats’ political interests in an open borders agenda which places the desires of illegal aliens above the needs and wishes of the American people. The conference report that was produced in the wake of the shutdown is woefully insufficient to begin to address our border security needs, just as the Democrats who helped draft it wanted and ensured.”

February 14 press release from Representative Abby Finkenauer:

Finkenauer Statement on Reports President Trump Will Declare a National Emergency

Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) released the following statement on the bipartisan border security package and statements from the White House that President Trump will declare a national emergency:

“I’m glad that Republicans and Democrats were able to come together on a border security package, avoiding another government shutdown and devoting real resources to our nation’s security. Iowans are sick and tired of government by chaos and dysfunction. This bipartisan agreement increases funding for security at our border and provides our law enforcement officials with the technology and resources they need to keep us safe.”

“The potential declaration of a national emergency is concerning and could take essential money from critical projects like the Cedar Rapids flood wall. That federal commitment, made to the people of Eastern Iowa, should not be up for debate.”

February 15 press release from the Iowa Democratic Party:

DES MOINES – In response to the President declaring a national emergency in order to get funding for his stupid border wall, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price issued the following statement:

“This is just another act of unconstitutional political theatre from our President. The wall is unnecessary, ineffective, and wrong for our country.

However, if the President wants to address a real crisis, he could end this pointless Twitter Trade War that he alone started.

Because he continues to grandstand, thousands of Iowa farmers, their families, and their communities can’t afford to put food on the table. Since he started it, this is the one real crisis our country is facing that he can end today.”

The post Iowa Republicans complicit in Trump’s fake national emergency appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Iowa is not among the sixteen states that filed suit yesterday to block what they called President Donald Trump’s “unconstitutional and unlawful scheme” to declare a national emergency in order to divert federal funds toward building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Attorney General Tom Miller has joined dozens of multi-state legal actions challenging Trump administration policies, and his office has not ruled out joining this lawsuit, communications director Lynn Hicks told Bleeding Heartland on February 19.

“We are concerned about the emergency declaration and are watching its impact on Iowa. At this time, we are not aware that any funding to Iowa would be diverted. If that changes, we will work with our congressional delegation, Gov. Kim Reynolds and other attorneys general to consider our options.”

Staff for Reynolds did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the governor’s position on Trump’s declaration or possible legal action if the president diverted funds designated for Iowa programs. I will update this post as needed.

Though presidents have declared national emergencies on many occasions, they have never employed that power as a means of financing a project Congress repeatedly declined to fund. The U.S. House will soon take up a resolution to disapprove of Trump’s order and could sue the president if the U.S. Senate does not pass the measure, or if the president vetoes it.

Sixteen states (mostly with Democratic governors) are not waiting. Their lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeks to

protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution. Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive. Defendants must be enjoined from carrying out President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful scheme. […]

Use of those additional federal funds for the construction of a border wall is contrary to Congress’s intent in violation of the U.S. Constitution, including the Presentment Clause and Appropriations Clause. Such use would divert counter-drug programming funds directed to the states, and military construction funds to be spent in the states, for the non-appropriated purpose of constructing a border wall. Even if the Administration could constitutionally redirect funds toward the construction of the border wall, the Administration does not satisfy the criteria in the statutes that it invokes to enable it to do so.

The lawsuit describes potential harm to plaintiff states, which “stand to lose millions in federal funding” for National Guard units, law enforcement, or military construction projects.

There is also no objective basis for President Trump’s Emergency Declaration. By the President’s own admission, an emergency declaration is not necessary. The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data show that unlawful entries are near 45-year lows. The State Department recognizes there is a lack of credible evidence that terrorists are using the southern border to enter the United States. Federal data confirm that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born Americans. CBP data demonstrate that dangerous drugs are much more likely to be smuggled through, not between, official ports of entry—rendering a border wall ineffectual at preventing their entry into this country.

Notwithstanding the illegality of and wholesale lack of necessity for the Emergency Declaration, the Trump Administration has expressed its intent to move quickly with the construction of the border wall. A senior advisor to the White House reportedly said the Administration will proceed with construction at a speed that will “shock” people. The thwarting of congressional intent to fund a vanity project that not only will fail to safeguard national security, but is positioned to cause significant harm to the public safety, public fisc, environment, and well-being of Plaintiff States’ residents, cries out for judicial intervention.

The post Why Iowa’s not challenging Trump’s emergency declaration–for now appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The U.S. House voted on February 26 to terminate President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build a wall that Congress repeatedly declined to authorize or fund. All 232 Democrats present, including Iowa’s Representatives Abby Finkenauer (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Cindy Axne (IA-03) backed the resolution, joined by thirteen House Republicans (roll call). Representative Steve King (IA-04) was among 182 Republicans who opposed the joint resolution.

In statements enclosed in full below, Finkenauer, Axne, and Loebsack highlighted the need to defend the checks and balances prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, which grants spending power to Congress.

The National Emergencies Act requires a U.S. Senate vote within eighteen days on any House-approved joint resolution to terminate a presidential declaration. Three Senate Republicans have already pledged to vote for the resolution. More than half a dozen others criticized Trump’s decision and seem open to formally rejecting it.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst are not seen as potential supporters of this bipartisan effort. They have never defied the Trump administration and had little to say about the president’s power grab. But given their stature in the Republican caucus and their forceful denunciations of President Barack Obama’s executive actions, Iowa’s senators have an excellent opportunity to show some principles matter more to them than political loyalty.

Luke Hartig explained at the Just Security blog,

President Trump’s national emergency declaration lays out three sources for the funding he intends to use for the border wall. The first two sources — $600 million from a Treasury asset forfeiture fund and $2.5 billion from Department of Defense (DOD) counter-narcotics accounts — are not contingent on the emergency declaration. The third source of money, $3.6 billion from military construction accounts, is the one that draws on the emergency declaration authority and requires the concurrent deployment of U.S. military forces to the border to open up the account.

As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, Ernst had no official comment about Trump asserting his power to redirect funds Congress appropriated for other purposes. Grassley had warned in January,

“The president is threatening emergency action, a national emergency declaration. I don’t think he should do that. I think it’s a bad precedent. And it contravenes the power of the purse that comes from the elected representatives of the people,” […]

But after Trump pulled the trigger, Grassley expressed only mild “concerns about the precedent.” He told reporters, “I wish he wouldn’t have done it,” but punted the question about presidential authority to the courts. UPDATE: Bloomberg’s Sahil Kapur quoted Ernst as saying on February 26, “I am leaning no on the resolution of disapproval,” because “We do have a crisis at the border.” Grassley told Iowa reporters on a February 27 conference call, “I’m leaning towards voting against the disapproval resolution. And I could maybe say I’m leaning quite heavily in that.”

Iowa’s senators would be smarter to stand up to Trump’s lawlessness. Consider:

In the coming weeks, Iowa’s senators have a chance to show whether their professed commitment to the Constitution is a core value or only a rhetorical weapon to use against Democratic presidents.

Statement released by Representative Abby Finkenauer on February 26:

“The Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress. By trying to go around Congress and repurpose funds meant for military readiness and our troops, the Administration is defying the Constitution and violating our system of checks and balances. Republicans and Democrats joined together today to make clear that we in Congress take our responsibilities under the Constitution seriously and that this emergency declaration should not stand.”

Statement Representative Cindy Axne provided to Bleeding Heartland on February 26:

“President Trump’s emergency declaration proclamation sets a dangerous precedent and clearly violates Congress’s exclusive power of the purse. Congress has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and defend our system of checks and balances.”

UPDATE: Staff sent this statement from Representative Dave Loebsack on February 27:

“The President’s move to declare a state of emergency sets a bad precedent and may very well be unconstitutional. Now that the House has made its position clear, instead of wasting time and taxpayer dollars dragging this through the courts, it would be best for the President to put aside his political games and work with Congress. There are many issues that are important to the American people, like creating jobs and growing the economy, that must be addressed. I stand ready to work with anyone to secure the border in a way that is smart and effective.”

The post Grassley, Ernst can show they’re serious about executive overreach appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

President Donald Trump will soon cast his first veto. The U.S. Senate approved on March 14 a resolution disapproving of Trump’s declaration of emergency powers. All 47 members of the Democratic caucus and twelve Republicans voted for the resolution (roll call). Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst were among the 41 Republicans to oppose terminating Trump’s power grab.

Ernst’s office released this statement a few hours after the vote.

“There is a humanitarian crisis at our southern border that demands attention and action. Iowans have been clear on their desire for a strong, secure border and to curb human trafficking and the flow of drugs into our state.

“Under the National Emergencies Act, the president has the authority to make this decision, and while I’ve consistently stated this is not the approach I would have preferred, I do recognize the need to secure our border.

“I hope to see Congress work diligently to enact legislation that will restore the balance of powers. That’s why I’ve cosponsored Senator Lee’s bill that gives Congress more oversight and puts a check on presidents’ authorities for emergency declarations.”

Earlier in the day, Ernst told Iowa reporters on a conference call, “We have sorted through this from top to bottom and bottom to top. And from what I have been able to learn is that the president does have the ability to do this.”

No serious constitutional scholar shares that opinion.

Grassley’s office put out seven news releases on March 14. None were about why he backed up Trump’s unconstitutional move to build a wall Congress declined to fund. Last month he expressed some “concerns about the precedent” while making clear he would stand with Trump.

Iowa’s senior senator frequently denounced what he perceived as executive overreaches by President Barack Obama. But as attorney Armando Llorens explained on Twitter today,

I know Republicans like to compare DACA and DAPA [Obama’s immigration-related executive orders] to this, but it is fundamentally different. Whether you think Obama acted illegally or even unconstitutionally, he was exercising Article 2 powers. Here Trump is usurping Article 1 powers. It’s simply unacceptable.

Llorens added, “The Muslim Ban, as heinous as it was, was much more defensible Constitutionally than this,” because “Trump’s usurpation of the Congressional Article 1 power of the purse is a direct assault at the basic framework of the Constitution.”

In other news about Iowans in the Senate, this week Ernst co-sponsored what she called a “paid family leave” proposal. Alexia Fernández Campbell noted in this story for Vox,

But the truth is, it’s not paid leave at all. It’s another version of unpaid leave that working parents in the United States would have to fund themselves.

Here’s how it would work: The Cradle Act would let workers access some of their Social Security retirement income in advance to make up for some of the wages they would lose when taking parental leave. Workers would still bear the cost of taking time off — by delaying their retirement by twice as many months as they took off for parental leave. Someone who takes the maximum three months off, for example, would need to delay their Social Security retirement by six months. […]

[T]he Cradle Act would raid the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already at risk of being depleted. Ernst and Lee say their plan will address that by moving money from other parts of the budget to cover the borrowed Social Security funds until they are repaid — a move that would likely expand the already ballooning budget deficit.

Tara Siegel Bernard and Claire Cain Miller highlighted flaws in a similar proposal Senate Republicans introduced last year.

Ernst’s bill generated a lot of publicity, and the Des Moines Register even put her inaccurate spin in the headline for their online story: “Sen. Joni Ernst introduces plans for paid family leave through retirement deferral.” The headline in the print version was more accurate: “Plan: Take family leave, delay Social Security.”

Final note: the American Democracy Legal Fund, a 527 organization funded by the Democratic-aligned super-PAC American Bridge 21st Century, last week requested an investigation of how Ernst claimed eligibility for the homestead tax credit in the nation’s capital. The Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth reported in February that Ernst “repaid almost $1,900 for a tax break that she had claimed on her Washington, D.C., condo since 2016, while simultaneously claiming a similar tax break in Iowa.”

Homestead tax credits are available only to people who own property and claim the property as their primary residence.

Her office said her claim of the homestead tax credit in Washington, D.C., was an error that she rectified with the check. Ernst wrote the check to the Washington, D.C., Office of Tax and Revenue Friday [February 8], two days after the Des Moines Register inquired about the matter.

On March 4, a video tracker for American Bridge caught up with Ernst and asked her who applied for the DC property tax credit. She did not respond. The same day, the American Democracy Legal Fund asked the Washington, DC Office of Tax Revenue to investigate the matter.

After repeated inquiries, staff for that office told Bleeding Heartland on March 13, “OTR considers the matter corrected and closed in this instance,” because the benefit has been rescinded. The office normally would not conduct further investigation on how a tax exemption was improperly claimed.

OTR routinely audits for tax compliance, and inspects each application that is submitted. The homestead deduction is typically applied for at closing, where the form is included in and executed during the closing process along with many other documents. The overwhelming majority of residential closings in the District are homestead deduction eligible, and therefore the form may be erroneously included as a matter of routine.

The post 59 senators defended the constitution. Not Chuck Grassley or Joni Ernst appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Matt Sinovic is the executive director of Progress Iowa. -promoted by Laura Belin

This week, the Trump administration released its proposed budget for fiscal year 2020, which revives a call to repeal the Affordable Care Act and lays out massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration’s budget reveals just how steadfast it remains in trying to take away Americans’ health care.

Here are five things you need to know about Trump’s Health Care Sabotage Budget:

1. President Trump’s Budget Revives The Failed Graham-Cassidy Repeal Bill That Would Repeal Medicaid Expansion And ACA Subsidies Only To Replace Them With Inadequate Block Grants, Ultimately Cutting Medicaid By More Than $1 Trillion.

By shifting to a block grant program and eliminating funding for Medicaid expansion, the administration would cut Medicaid by more than $1 trillion over 10 years.

[Editor’s note: The U.S. Senate never voted on Graham-Cassidy, but Governor Kim Reynolds endorsed the legislation.]

2. The Budget Would Impose Onerous Work Requirements On Medicaid Enrollees Nationwide, Which Is Estimated To Cause Up To 4 Million People To Lose Coverage.

This unprecedented move would completely alter Medicaid as we know it, requiring people nationwide to meet onerous work and reporting requirements in order to maintain their Medicaid coverage. The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that a national Medicaid work requirement would cause up to 4 million people to lose coverage, most of them losing coverage due to paperwork and red tape.

3. The President’s Budget Could Impose Premiums On Up To 4.2 Million Low-Income Uninsured People Who Are Currently Eligible For A Plan That Requires $0 In Premiums.

As CQ’s Mary Ellen McIntire noted, “The budget proposes all exchange enrollees who are eligible for subsidies ‘contribute something’ to their coverage, meaning people who currently pay $0 in premiums would have to make some sort of payment. Kaiser found that could apply to 4.2M uninsured.” (Click here for the Kaiser report.)

4. Trump’s budget would slash funding for the Department of Health and Human Services, the department responsible for administering the Affordable Care Act, by 12 percent.

As Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes reported for Politico, the budget request “assumes that Congress will succeed in repealing and replacing Obamacare.”

5. The Budget Proposes Cutting More Than $800 Billion From Medicare Over A Decade.

Although Trump repeatedly promised not to cut Medicare, his budget would cut roughly 10 percent of Medicare’s funding over the next ten years to help pay for tax cuts to insurance and big drug companies.

The post Five things to know about Trump’s sabotage budget appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Thomas Nelson of the Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier was first to report last week that former U.S. Representative Rod Blum’s campaign has spent $11,365 on polling this year. Blum’s quarterly filing with the Federal Election Commission showed two disbursements to the candidate’s longtime pollster in early January.

The payments exceeded the $4,119 Blum for Congress owed The Polling Company at the end of December, indicating that Blum commissioned new surveys in the first district and wasn’t merely settling debts left over from the 2018 campaign.

While I have not been able to find details about the questions asked, his campaign likely tested voters’ views on key issues as well as approval and favorability numbers for himself and Representative Abby Finkenauer. Blum hasn’t ruled out running for office again. Nelson noted that he appeared at a Jones County GOP event on April 11.

No Republican has confirmed plans to run against Finkenauer. I see Blum as a weaker challenger than State Representative Ashley Hinson, who has said she’s considering the race and will make her intentions known after the legislative session ends.

BLUM’S CASE FOR A COMEBACK

Blum previewed the case he might present to voters in a lengthy, friendly interview with 1540 KXEL radio’s Jeff Stein in February. Asked to describe highlights from his tenure in Congress, he named three accomplishments:

Blum added,

I’m not a career politician, Jeff. You know that. I stand against career politicians. I’m for term limits, for example.

So I never went to Washington, DC to just get along. I never went to Washington, DC to put my finger in the wind. […] I know what my true north is, and I went there to try to make a difference, and I took the tough votes.

You know, and I knew those votes would be tough votes back here in the district. And they ended up, yeah, they ended up running $15 million in tv ads against me because of those votes. But that’s ok, because I didn’t go there to be a career politician. I went there to make a difference, and I think it’s for big bills, especially the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, has been, has had an amazing positive impact on our country.

Note: I cannot confirm the $15 million figure, but Blum was the focus of extensive negative advertising in 2017 and 2018. The OpenSecrets database shows Finkenauer spent about $4.5 million during last year’s campaign, largely for a mix of positive and negative commercials. Outside groups spent about $1.8 million against Blum as well. Those numbers do not include spending considered “issue advocacy,” such as the Not One Penny coalition’s ads about the GOP tax bill, which began in August 2017 and continued later the same year. Blum was also a top target of the End Citizens United PAC.

Stein asked Blum sympathetically whether any of the ads unfairly distorted his record. (He didn’t mention the negative and sometimes race-baiting spots Blum ran.) Blum recalled ads portraying the tax bill as a cut for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. Bleeding Heartland covered a couple of those commercials here.

According to Blum, his internal polling four or five months before the election showed that more than 50 percent of respondents thought their taxes were going up because of the 2017 tax cut. “That tells you the power of these television ads.”

Blum also mentioned an ad accusing him of being against people with pre-existing conditions. He claimed the bill he supported wouldn’t hurt such consumers because it called for setting up a government fund to pay part of the premiums for people in a high-risk pool. One independent analyst calculated that the funding House Republicans set aside for that purpose would cover “approximately 110,000 individuals with a pre-existing chronic condition” nationwide. In Blum’s district alone, an estimated 318,300 non-elderly people have a pre-existing condition.

A few minutes after touting his vote for the tax cut, which greatly increased the federal deficit, Blum told Stein he would not have voted for the bill to reopen the federal government, partly because it “increases our deficit once again, and we’re at $22 trillion in debt. And at some point, we need to say enough is enough. We need to get control of this deficit.” He added that the lack of focus on reducing the deficit and the national debt is “probably my major disappointment with President Trump.” As for the main issue that triggered the shutdown, Blum supports a border wall and felt the compromise reached in February was insufficient on border security.

Asked about his future plans, Blum said he’s “not sure” and is “embracing not knowing.” He alluded to “opportunities,” including an unspecified Trump administration job (he stays in touch with Mulvaney, who is now the president’s acting chief of staff). Blum also said he’d been approached about a possible national radio show or appearing on The Blaze, Glenn Beck’s television network. He wouldn’t rule out “elective office” and gave what sounded like a candidate’s pitch to me:

I care too much about the country […] and I love America, and I’ve lived the American dream. […] I will always care, I will always fight. I know what my true north is. And I think I know what made the American dream possible, and I just want to see that possible for everybody’s children and grandchildren.

Near the end of the interview, Blum acknowledged that although public service takes a toll on people and cuts into family time, “I just so believe. I’m so passionate about the American dream in this country, that I just, I can’t let it go. If I tried to, I can’t. I could maybe for a day, and then I’m back yelling at the tv set and at the radio station, and here we are on Valentine’s Day [laughs].”

SIZING UP A BLUM-FINKENAUER REMATCH

As Bleeding Heartland discussed in January, many Republicans have encouraged Ashley Hinson to run for Congress in 2020, instead of for another term in the Iowa House.

I’d be surprised if Blum is getting as much encouragement in GOP circles. While he was in some ways unlucky to be a Republican incumbent in a Democratic-leaning district in a Democratic wave year, Blum underperformed Governor Kim Reynolds.

Click on any red, pink, or blue county on this map to bring up the vote totals and percentages for Blum, Finkenauer, Reynolds, and Democratic candidate for governor Fred Hubbell. The color scheme reflects the voting for Congress. While Finkenauer carried four of the 20 counties in IA-01, Hubbell carried only three in that part of the state: Black Hawk, Linn, and Dubuque (barely).

Osceola Mayor Thomas Kedley is the first declared Republican candidate in Iowa’s second Congressional district, Zachary Oren Smith was first to report for the Iowa City Press-Citizen on May 6. Kedley filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission on May 3. At this writing I haven’t found a Congressional campaign website. The candidate is on Twitter @tjkedley and has a Facebook page for his mayoral campaign.

Kedley has been mayor of the Clarke County seat since 2015. He told Oren Smith his top priorities would be education, agriculture and a balanced budget.

While Republicans are more often associated with policies promoting charters schools and school vouchers, Kedley, a public school teacher, said current funding levels are insufficient.

For Kedley, a candidate that does not take seriously the 2nd District’s farmers misses an important voice. Looking around the state, he said the government needs to be doing more to get farmers back on their feet.

“We have a big ag focus here in southern Iowa,” Kedley said. “We need to make sure we have farmers to feed America. We need to get back to basics on helping out farmers and focusing on our education.”

His final point, more of a thesis statement, is government spending is out of control. Kedley is a proponent of balanced budgets. If spending were focused on core services like education and agriculture, the country would not have the $22.3 trillion national debt, he claimed.

Kedley spoke to Bill Lukitsch of the Quad-City Times on May 7.

As he campaigns for the office, Kedley pointed to public education, mental health, agriculture and conservative spending as key issues he’d like to focus on if elected to Congress. He also drew on his experience as a mayor, saying his city has made strides toward increased recreation and quality-of-life initiatives under his leadership, and he wants to see if he can help “on a bigger stage.”

A native of Clinton who calls himself a “Mississippi (River) boy” at heart, Kedley said he understands the diverse needs of the congressional district — from the family farmers to the city dwellers — because he’s “born and bred” here. And he says he plans to hit the road this summer to build a grassroots organization, listening to the issues voters care about.

Most of the other Republicans often mentioned as possible candidates in IA-02 have more political experience and stronger fundraising networks than Kedley, and most of the district’s 24 counties have a larger population than Clarke. Kedley would be an underdog against any of the state legislators who may run (State Senators Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Mark Lofgren, and Roby Smith, or State Representative Bobby Kaufmann). Republican Party of Iowa state chair Jeff Kaufmann hasn’t ruled out the race either, nor has Bobby Schilling, who represented the Illinois side of the Quad Cities in Congress for two years but now lives in Scott County.

No Democrats have confirmed plans to run for the seat Loebsack is vacating, but Scott County Supervisor Ken Croken is exploring the race, and State Senator Rita Hart may become a candidate soon.

As of May 1, the IA-02 counties contained 165,405 active registered Democrats, 143,004 Republicans, and 185,242 no-party voters. Despite the registration advantage for Democrats, leading election forecasters consider this district a toss-up as an open seat. Loebsack substantially outperformed his party’s nominees for president and governor in the last two general elections; Bleeding Heartland published county-level results from those races here.

UPDATE: Responding to a Facebook message on May 9, Kedley said his campaign website and news release formally announcing his candidacy “will be available within the next few weeks.”

The post Thomas Kedley is first Republican candidate in IA-02 appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Iowans awaiting federal flood relief money will have to wait a little longer.

Congressional leaders thought they had a deal to approve $19.1 billion in disaster aid before the Memorial Day recess. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on May 23 by 85 votes to 8. (Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both supported the measure and said they’d worked to secure “specific relief for farmers whose grain bins busted because of flooding.”) President Donald Trump was willing to sign the legislation. House passage seemed assured, so most representatives left town for the holiday weekend.

Then a first-term Republican from Texas used a procedural move to hold up the bill on May 24. While most of the blame lies with U.S. Representative Chip Roy and the GOP leaders who failed to dissuade him, top House Democrats should not have put themselves at the mercy of any member of the minority.

Most bills clear the House by receiving a majority of votes on the floor. But leaders planned to pass this bill quickly by unanimous consent–meaning any one legislator could block it. Jeff Stein and Mike DeBonis reported for the Washington Post,

Roy said he was objecting to the bill because it would add to the country’s debt, as well as because it left out $4.4 billion in additional spending for federal operations along the U.S.-Mexico border. […]

Following Roy’s objection, the House ended its session. The House is set to have another “pro forma” session — one with few lawmakers present — on Tuesday, at which time the chamber is expected to try again to pass the legislation by unanimous consent. […]

The full House is not due back in Washington until June 3. […]

Roy, when asked whether Trump or House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had tried to dissuade him from objecting, said he did not want to discuss private conversations. […]

Democrats said they did not know before Friday morning of Roy’s plans. Roy said he called Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Friday morning to let him know his intentions.

Representative Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) released this statement on May 24:

“It is unconscionable to play politics with Americans’ lives. Neighbors throughout Iowa are hurting and still devastated by natural disasters and need assistance. Now isn’t the time for a publicity stunt. I was proud to preside over the initial passage of the Supplemental Appropriations Act in the House earlier this month, as Congresswoman Axne added billions to assist Iowans who have been impacted by flooding. Iowans aren’t asking for a handout – they just want a government that will have their backs. Our communities need this funding to recover and rebuild and Congressman Roy and U.S. House Republicans deliberately went out of their way to slow that support down.” […]

The bill is critical for Iowa communities recovering from flooding, including on the Mississippi River. It includes $3 billion in Agriculture Department funding to assist farmers with crop losses, in addition to $558 million for the Emergency Conservation Program and $600 million to assist with flood mitigation, long-term recovery, and infrastructure restoration. $1.65 billion would go to the Federal Highway Administration’s emergency relief program to repair damaged roads.

Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) called Roy’s move “outrageous,” adding in a tweet, “One person in DC is playing politics and holding up the disaster relief that is badly needed by Iowans trying to recover from the floods. This bill must be passed.”

Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03) tweeted, “I am beyond fed up. This is wrong. This bill is about helping people – not about playing Washington politics. Congress needs to do its job and pass this bill. Iowans deserve better than this.” The previous day, Axne had hailed Senate approval of the disaster package and highlighted her role in crafting amendments. I enclose that statement in full below, along with official comments from Senators Ernst and Grassley.

I haven’t seen any public comment from Representative Steve King (IA-04). He was among 34 Republicans who supported an earlier disaster relief package. Senate GOP leaders refused to bring that bill to the floor. In a conference call with reporters on May 23, Ernst claimed that the House measure was “DOA” in the upper chamber because it had “partisan issues,” including (she said without specifying) “abortion language.” It seems unlikely that King–one of the most uncompromising abortion opponents in Congress–would vote for any such bill.

Some of Roy’s GOP colleagues are upset, so McCarthy will presumably lean on the freshman not to object when the House tries to move the legislation through unanimous consent on May 28. If he is stubborn like his former boss, Senator Ted Cruz, final passage may need to wait until June 3.

Roy’s stunt was idiotic and inexcusable. But the buck stops with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. While she obviously didn’t anticipate any objection, she should not have relied on the good faith of 197 House Republicans–even if she had assurances from the minority leader. Democrats should have been told to stay nearby in case their votes were needed on this critically important bill.

I hope Democratic leaders learn the right lesson from this debacle.

May 23 news release from Representative Cindy Axne’s office:

AXNE APPLAUDS SENATE PASSAGE OF BIPARTISAN DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL
~ Senate passes disaster supplemental with Axne provisions to increase funding by almost a billion dollars for crucial programs Iowa needs to recover ~

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) praised Senate passage of the much-needed bipartisan disaster supplemental bill that will provide Iowa with crucial funding to rebuild and recover following devastating flooding that hit Southwest Iowa in March. The legislation now heads back to House for final passage before heading to the President’s desk. Rep. Axne has fought tirelessly to include Iowa and the Midwest in disaster funding since March.

Earlier this month, the House passed the emergency disaster supplemental bill with two Axne amendments that increased funding for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Program.

The Senate-passed bill included the funding increases for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Program. This bill builds on legislation that passed the House in January and failed to pass the Senate – with an additional $3 billion for Midwest flooding, thanks to the leadership of Rep. Axne.

“I’ve been down to flood zones multiple times to speak with families, business owners and farmers who have lost everything. Their resilience is inspiring but the damage is heartbreaking,” said Rep. Axne. “These communities need our help. I’m glad the Senate put politics aside and passed this crucial bill with funding for programs that Iowans need to rebuild and recover. It’s time to pass this bill in the House and send this legislation to the President’s desk immediately.”

Congresswoman Axne has worked tirelessly to ensure that Iowans receive the federal assistance they need following this devastating flood. In addition to fighting for Iowans in Washington, Rep. Axne even rolled up her sleeves and helped a family in Pacific Junction muck out their home.

A timeline of Congresswoman Axne’s work to protect Iowa is available below:

On March 22, Rep. Axne urged President Trump to support Governor Kim Reynolds’ request for a major disaster declaration. On March 23, President Trump issued a disaster declaration, ensuring the full availability of federal resources to support Iowa’s efforts to guarantee public safety and rapid recovery.

On March 26, Rep. Axne requested House and Senate appropriators increase funding for federal disaster aid to ensure that programs, which are vital to rebuilding Iowa communities, do not lapse or expire. Given the ongoing effects of climate change and severe weather that is affecting communities in Iowa and across the country, Rep. Axne urged House and Senate appropriators to provide sufficient funding to ensure Iowa’s rural communities receive the aid they need.

On March 28, Rep. Axne invited the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to join her on April 6th to tour the flood damage in Southwest Iowa. As the Secretaries of two vital agencies that handle disaster recovery, Rep. Axne believes it is critical for them to survey the damage in order to fully understand the scope of federal assistance needed to rebuild these rural communities.

On March 29, Rep. Axne sent a letter requesting USDA immediately authorize emergency relief programs to assist Iowa farmers impacted by the severe flood. President Trump’s disaster declaration allowed for the USDA to authorize specific recovery programs which were authorized in Nebraska, including Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), which are vital to helping Iowa farmers recover and rebuild.

On April 5, Rep. Axne urged House and Senate leadership to immediately pass a disaster relief bill that fully funds recovery programs for all affected areas, including Iowa. Rep. Axne expressed disappointment in the Senate for failing to pass a disaster supplemental funding bill and called on both chambers to immediately pass a bill to ensure Iowa communities receive the federal assistance they need to rebuild and recover.

On April 5, Rep. Axne requested funding for specific programs to be included in any new supplemental emergency disaster bill.

On April 8, Rep. Axne introduced legislation to ensure Iowa is included in any new emergency disaster supplemental funding legislation following the Senate’s failure to move forward a $13 billion appropriations bill last week. Specifically, the bill would ensure that the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) is amended to include Iowa flooding.

On April 10, Rep. Axne’s request for Iowa relief funding was successfully included in the new House appropriations emergency disaster supplemental bill which was introduced by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-NY). The new emergency appropriations bill includes an additional $3 billion to address urgent needs following flooding in the Midwest and tornadoes in the South. In addition to the $3 billion, the new bill also includes funding for specific recovery programs Rep. Axne requested in a letter to House appropriators last Friday.

On April 11, following Rep. Axne’s request, USDA authorized emergency relief programs in Iowa.

On April 23, Rep. Axne was appointed to sit on Governor Kim Reynolds’ Flood Advisory Board. Axne joined the board’s first meeting on April 24.

On May 10, the House passed the disaster supplemental bill that U.S. Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) successfully amended to increase funding for crucial programs vital to Iowa recovery efforts. Following the adoption of the Axne amendments, the House passed the robust emergency disaster supplemental bill to help disaster-stricken communities across the country. It builds on legislation that passed the House in January – with an additional $3 billion for Midwest flooding, thanks to the leadership of Rep. Axne.

May 23 news release from Senator Joni Ernst:

Ernst Applauds Bipartisan Agreement on Disaster Package, Aid for Lost Stored Grain
The disaster aid package includes a provision Senator Ernst championed to extend USDA relief to cover Iowa farmers who have lost stored grain in the flooding

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) released the following statement after passage of a bipartisan disaster aid package in the U.S. Senate:

“This spring has brought devastation and difficult times for so many Iowans across our state. Our families, farmers, and small business owners have waited a long time for Congress to get its act together. But, at long last, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan disaster relief package that will deliver desperately-needed aid to folks across the country,” said Senator Joni Ernst. “I’m extremely pleased this bipartisan disaster aid package includes a provision to extend aid for Iowans who are facing losses from the destruction of their stored grain in the floods. As Iowans continue down the road to recovery, I stand ready to work across the aisle in providing help and assistance to those in need.”

Background:
Since April, Senator Ernst has been working to include a provision into a Senate disaster relief package that would extend federal aid from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to include crops that are already harvested and stored, such as grain. Currently, there are no federal disaster programs that cover the loss of grain that was being stored on farms. This measure, which was included in the final Senate relief package that passed today, would give the USDA the authority to cover the loss of on-farm stored grain.

In the wake of the flooding, Senator Ernst has worked tirelessly to provide aid to Iowans in need. She helped introduce legislation, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019, to allow individuals in disaster areas of Iowa to be eligible for a number of tax benefits. She also hosted and chaired a field hearing in Glenwood, Iowa to examine the Army Corps of Engineers’ response to the flooding. As a result, Senator Ernst sent a letter to the Corps describing the feedback and concerns she has heard from stakeholders about the Corps’ communications shortcomings during and after the floods. The letter specifically describes issues with communications between the Corps and local levee sponsors and those in harm’s way and urges the Corps to immediately address the problems.

For Iowans impacted by floods, there are many resources available. For a list highlighting resources for Iowa families, businesses, and farmers, as well as information about contacting Senator Ernst’s office for assistance, click here.

May 24 news release from Senator Chuck Grassley:

Grassley Praises Passage of Disaster Aid Package to Help Iowa Flooding Recovery

May 24, 2019
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) issued the following statement after the Senate voted to approve a package of disaster aid, which included Grassley’s amendment designed to provide relief to farmers that lost stored grain in recent floods.

“It’s important that we approved this disaster package. It’s long-past due. Politics shouldn’t be played when Americans need help recovering from disasters. I secured specific relief for farmers whose grain bins busted because of flooding. This should help those affected, especially in Southwest Iowa, in the continued effort to rebuild and recover. This package is a good start for addressing Midwest flooding needs. I will continue to work with farmers, communities and the state on what further assistance will be needed.”

More information about the disaster aid package passed in the Senate can be found HERE. Some of the provisions that will assist disaster-affected Iowans follows.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary – Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP) – $3,005,442,000
For necessary expenses related to losses of crops (including milk, on-farm stored commodities, crops prevented from planting in 2019, and harvested adulterated wine grapes), trees, bushes, and vines.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA) – Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) – $558,000,000
For repairs to damaged farmland.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) – Emergency Watershed Protection Program – $435,000,000
For rural watershed recovery.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development – Rural Community Facilities Program – $150,000,000
For small rural communities impacted by natural disasters.

Economic Development Assistance (EDA) Programs – $600,000,000
To provide grants to communities directly impacted by disasters.

Army Corps of Engineers, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) – Mississippi River and Tributaries – $575,000,000
To address emergency situations at Corps projects and rehabilitate and repair damages to Corps projects caused by natural disasters.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Emergency Relief Program (ER) – $1,650,000,000
For repair and reconstruction of federal-aid highways and roads which have suffered serious damages as a result of natural disasters.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – $2,431,000,000
For disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, economic revitalization, and mitigation in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

The post Republican’s stunt holds up flood relief funding appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

For the second year in a row, Iowa’s U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst voted to advance a budget plan that would require massive cuts to most federal government programs in the coming decade. Senator Rand Paul’s plan was so extreme that only 22 Senate Republicans–less than half the GOP caucus–supported the motion to proceed with considering the legislation.

By not drawing attention to the June 3 vote, Iowa’s senators successfully kept the story out of the news in their home state.

It was another example of a phenomenon Bleeding Heartland has flagged before: if our members of Congress don’t brag about it in a press release or a conference call with reporters, Iowa newspaper readers and television viewers are unlikely ever to learn that it happened.

David Lerman reported for Roll Call,

Paul’s plan would require cutting all programs except Social Security by 2 percent a year from fiscal 2019 levels for the next five years. Spending would then be allowed to grow at an annual 2 percent rate for the following five years, according to a summary statement.

In fiscal 2020, the plan would require $183.1 billion in spending cuts, a level of austerity that could bring the appropriations process to a halt because of bipartisan objections. By contrast, congressional leaders already have begun negotiations to raise discretionary spending limits for the coming fiscal year to avoid having to cut about $125 billion from current spending levels to comply with limits imposed under a 2011 deficit reduction law.

Over 10 years, Paul’s plan would require cutting $11.3 trillion from projected spending levels, his office estimated. But it said the plan would still allow for spending to grow by 18.2 percent from current levels over the decade.

Paul claims his plan would balance the federal budget in five years. He hasn’t always been truthful about the impact of similar plans, and his math skills are lacking. Bobby Kogan, the chief mathematician for the Senate Budget Committee, tweeted last week that Paul’s “budgets are, without fail, the most poorly constructed I’ve ever analyzed.” Kogan identified many problems in this year’s model, from typos to double-counting and errors of addition or subtraction.

Although the proposed reductions appear small–just 2 percent a year, Paul claims–they would lead to deep cuts over the next decade. Spending on programs other than Social Security would drop by 51 percent.

What would that mean? Paul’s budget implies:
-a $3.4 trillion cut to Medicare, ripping health insurance from 39 million people
-a $1.9 trillion cut to Medicaid, ripping health insurance from 40 million people
-a $223 billion cut to SNAP, taking food away from 16 million people

— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) May 30, 2019

“And that’s in the scenario where I generously assume he’s cutting the military and veterans funding in half, the same as everything else,” Kogan added. “If he protects them, the cuts for everything else get much, much deeper.”

So it’s not surprising that just 22 Senate Republicans voted for the latest attempt to move the Kentucky senator’s budget forward.

Hundreds of thousands of Iowans would be affected by cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or food assistance, and thousands more would feel the loss if the federal government greatly reduced discretionary spending, such as U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidies for farmers or rural development programs. Yet I found no report about yesterday’s Senate vote on any Iowa news website. Staff for Ernst and Grassley haven’t mentioned it in this week’s news releases (see here and here).

Neither Grassley nor Ernst called attention to their May 2018 vote to proceed with considering Paul’s last budget plan, which would have forced comparable cuts. Just 21 Senate Republicans supported that motion. The only Iowa media reference I found was a column by Adam Sullivan for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. He approvingly noted that Iowa’s senators backed Paul’s effort, in contrast to other Republicans who “don’t really mean it” when they promise to balance the budget.

Grassley and Ernst voted against the budget amendment Paul offered in January 2017. Only fourteen members of the GOP caucus supported that plan.

It’s been eight years since any Iowa-based news organization had a correspondent in Washington. Our U.S. House and Senate incumbents benefit from this state of affairs. Understaffed newsrooms can’t closely follow what happens at the Capitol and are unlikely to write up Congressional stories not offered to them.

The latest Democrat to enter the 2020 Senate race, Theresa Greenfield, tweeted on June 3 that Ernst “should explain why she voted today with Rand Paul & far right DC Republicans for a budget that threatens devastating cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, critical ag programs & crucial veterans funding.”

Whether the fourth estate will hold her accountable for that vote is an open question.

The post Grassley, Ernst again vote for extreme budget, hope no one notices appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The U.S. House on July 12 approved a draft National Defense Authorization Act, setting military policy for the coming fiscal year. The final vote on passage split mostly along party lines, 220 to 197 (roll call).

Along the way, House members considered dozens of amendments, and the controversial ones received separate roll call votes. On most of those votes, Iowa’s delegation divided as one would expect: Democratic Representatives Abby Finkenauer (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Cindy Axne (IA-03) voted with most of the Democratic caucus, while Republican Steve King (IA-04) was on the other side.

But one or more Iowa Democrats voted with the majority of House Republicans on quite a few proposals. Axne did so most often, siding with most GOP colleagues rather than with her own caucus on fourteen amendments.

This post uses official amendment descriptions as published on the Govtrack website. Where necessary, I’ve linked to other sources for explanations of the various proposals. I’ve grouped the votes into four categories.

IOWANS SPLIT ALONG PARTY LINES

Most often, Finkenauer, Loebsack, and Axne sided with the majority of House Democrats when the chamber was considering the defense authorization bill. If you want to see which other House members crossed party lines on any given proposal, click on any of the vote numbers below to view the roll calls.

Smith amendment to “require an annual report on strikes undertaken by the United States against terrorist targets to be submitted by the Director of National Intelligence instead of the Secretary of Defense”: passed 236 to 193

Speier amendment to “require that qualifications for eligibility to serve in an armed force account only for the ability of an individual to meet gender-neutral occupational standards and not include any criteria relating to the race, co”: passed 242 to 187

Speier amendment to “require the Department of Defense to establish a standardized educational program across all branches of the military to be provided during the first year of service for a member”: passed 231 to 199

Brindisi amendment to “require stainless steel flatware procured by the Department of Defense to be reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States”: passed 243 to 187

Torres amendment to “prohibit the President from removing items from Categories I through III of the United States Munitions List […]”: passed 225 to 205

Connolly amendment to “prohibit the President or his designee from transferring or consolidating any functions, responsibilities, programs, staff or resources of the Office of Personnel”: passed 247 to 182

Shalala amendment to “require the Secretary of Defense to publish online the distribution of DOD Tuition Assistance Funds at institutions of higher education, and audit any proprietary institution receiving DOD Tuition Assistance funds”: passed 251 to 178

Smith amendment to “amend the current statutory prohibition on members of Congress contracting with the federal government to include the President, Vice President, and any Cabinet member”: passed 243 to 186

Sherman amendment to “prohibit funds from being used to transfer defense articles or services to Azerbaijan unless the President certifies to Congress that the articles or services do not threaten civil aviation”: passed 234 to 195

Lieu amendment to “prohibit funds from the Special Defense Acquisition Fund to aid Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates if such assistance could be used to conduct or continue hostilities in Yemen”: passed 239 to 187

Lieu amendment to “prohibit funds from being used to transfer any defense articles or services to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates under the emergency authority”: passed 246 to 180

Smith amendment to “prohibit support to and participation in the Saudi-led coalitions military operations against the Houthis in Yemen”: passed 240 to 185

Engel amendment to “make changes to current law related to policies and planning to ensure civilian protection, including procedures for incidents involving civilian casualties”: passed 241 to 183

Engel amendment to “expresse [sic] that the U.S. should seek to extend the New START Treaty, unless Russia is in material breach of the Treaty, or the U.S. and Russia have entered into a new agreement that has equal or greater constraints”: passed 236 to 189

Lieu amendment to “prohibit the use of funds from being obligated or expended at properties owned by the President or that bear his name, with a waiver made available if the President reimburses the Department of the Treasury”: passed 223 to 205

Raskin amendment to “prohibit the use of funds for an exhibition or parade of military forces and hardware, except for the display of small arms and munitions appropriate for customary ceremonial honors”: passed 221 to 207

Khanna amendment to “prohibit unauthorized military force in or against Iran”: passed 251 to 170

Lee amendment to “repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”: passed 242 to 180

Malinowski amendment to “provide for a one-year prohibition on the sale of air-to-ground munitions used in the conflict in Yemen to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates […]”: passed 236 to 182

Jayapal amendment to “require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to Congress independent studies regarding potential cost savings with respect to the nuclear security enterprise and force structure”: passed 230 to 189

ALL IOWANS VOTED THE SAME WAY

On six amendments to the defense authorization act, all four Iowans landed on the same side. One of those was a successful Democratic proposal:

Cicilline amendment to “repeal existing restrictions on the United States from transferring and exporting weapons, and defense articles and services to the Republic of Cyprus”: passed 252 to 173, with an unusual amount of aisle-crossing (31 Democrats voted no, while 50 Republicans including King voted yes)

One was an uncontroversial Republican proposal:

Tipton amendment to “express the sense of Congress that military aviation training in Colorado, including the training conducted at the High-Altitude Army National Guard Aviation Training Site,” is critical to national security: passed 417 to 6

The other four instances involved failed Democratic amendments.

Blumenauer amendment to “require an independent study on options to extend the life of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and delaying the ground-based strategic deterrent program”: failed 164 to 264 (68 Democrats voted against)

Lee amendment to “decrease funding for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account by $16.8 billion”: failed 115 to 307 (120 Democrats voted against a budget reduction for what is often described as the Pentagon’s “slush fund”)

Ocasio-Cortez amendment to “prohibit the President from deploying troops on the southern border if the purpose of this deployment is to enforce immigration law”: failed 179 to 241 (52 Democrats voted against)

Ocasio-Cortez amendment to “prohibit the President from using the authorized funds to detain undocumented immigrants in Department of Defense facilities”: failed 173 to 245 (58 Democrats voted against)

FINKENAUER, AXNE VOTED WITH REPUBLICANS

During the debate on the defense authorization bill, there were four instances of Loebsack sticking with most of the Democrats, while Axne and Finkenauer voted with Republicans.

One involved a Democratic amendment that passed anyway:

Lee amendment to “express the sense of Congress that the 2001 AUMF has been utilized beyond the scope that Congress intended; and that any new authorization for the use of military force to replace the 2001 AUMF should include a sunset”: 237 to 183 (sixteen Democrats voted against)

One was an unsuccessful Democratic amendment:

Blumenauer amendment to “require the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security to conduct a study on the unexpected cost increases for the W80-4 nuclear warhead life extension program and prevents $185 million from being obligated or expended”: failed 198 to 229 (35 Democrats voted against)

One was a proposal from longtime Republican (recently turned independent) Justin Amash:

Amash amendment to “eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained under AUMF authority in the U.S., territories, or possessions by providing immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court […]”: failed 187 to 236 (50 Democrats voted against ending indefinite detention without trial)

Finally, Axne and Finkenauer supported the GOP motion to recommit, which is the last vote before final passage and represents the minority party’s final chance to amend a bill:

Motion to recommit with instructions: failed 204 to 212. Sixteen Democrats voted for this motion, which “would have increased the military pay raise and poured additional funds into military maintenance accounts,” Patrick Kelley reported for Roll Call.

AXNE VOTED WITH REPUBLICANS

Five times on July 11 or 12, Finkenauer and Loebsack stuck with the majority of House Democrats, while Axne voted with most Republicans. Three times, the Democratic amendments (barely) passed anyway:

Omar amendment to “require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the financial costs and national security benefits of operating, improving, and maintaining overseas military infrastructure”: passed 219 to 210, only because eight Republicans voted for it. Axne was among 22 Democrats who opposed even gathering this information.

Thompson amendment to “prohibit DoD funding to house any foreign nationals who are in the custody of and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement”: passed 213 to 204 (sixteen Democrats voted against)

Frankel amendment to “prohibit funding for missiles noncompliant with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty until the Secretary of Defense meets certain conditions”: passed 215 to 214 (seventeen Democrats voted against)

One instance involved an unsuccessful Republican proposal:

Turner amendment to “strike the provision relating to the prohibition on the use of funds for the deployment of low-yield ballistic missile warheads […]”: failed 201 to 221 (ten Democrats voted for this amendment) Jonathan Cohn noted, “Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (WA-09) eliminated funding for this weapon in the committee markup, rightfully viewing it as unnecessary.”

One was an unsuccessful Democratic proposal:

Garcia amendment to “prevent DOD facilities from being used to house or detain unaccompanied migrant children”: failed 198 to 223 (34 Democrats voted no)

I will seek comment from Finkenauer, Loebsack, and Axne on why they voted with the Republican caucus on any of the proposals described above and update this post as needed. Typically, Democrats join Republicans on such votes for one of two reasons: they agree with the minority party on the substance of the policy, or they don’t want to give conservatives fodder for attack ads during the next campaign.

Finally, I enclose below official statements from Finkenauer, Loebsack, and King regarding this bill. (I did not see any news release about the NDAA from Axne’s office.) Finkenauer and Loebsack highlighted provisions they had supported, which made it into the legislation. King called attention to one of his proposals, added to the bill through a voice vote. His news release did not mention that King voted against final passage of the defense authorization bill.

July 12 news release from Finkenauer’s office:

FINKENAUER-LED PRIORITIES PASS HOUSE IN DEFENSE BILL

Military readiness and rural small business initiatives pass with bipartisan support

Washington, DC –Today, Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) voted for the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. This bill authorizes $733 billion for the Department of Defense, defense-related activities of the Department of Energy, and the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

Congresswoman Finkenauer successfully secured key provisions in the bill that will benefit Northeast Iowa. The House passed Finkenauer’s amendment to the bill to shore up federal contracting opportunities for rural small businesses, building on the work of her first bill, the Stimulating Innovation Through Procurement Act.

The House Armed Services Committee included Finkenauer’s report language with the bill, requiring the Department of Defense to study shortfalls in military painter training. University of Northern Iowa’s STAR4D program is a national leader in this training, which is critical to helping reduce corrosion of military assets to ensure military readiness and reduce waste.

“I’m proud to be Northeast Iowans’ voice in Congress and to secure critical priorities for our district in this bipartisan legislation,” said Finkenauer. “It’s vitally important that our small businesses have opportunities to grow and innovate, whether they’re in our larger cities or more rural towns. I’m also proud that the Department of Defense will study military painter training, which I hope will bring attention to the good work already being done at the University of Northern Iowa.”

The legislation also includes a pay raise for servicemembers and numerous provisions to take care of military families including: improving military housing and childcare, cleaning up contaminated drinking water at military bases, and increasing access to educational opportunities for military spouses.

“We must ensure that our servicemembers and their families have the resources they need,” said Finkenauer. “Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for our freedom and it’s essential we support them and their families and expand opportunities for them.”

July 12 news release from Loebsack’s office:

FY2020 Defense Policy Bill Passes House with Loebsack-backed Jobs Provisions Included

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement on the House passage of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which included provisions he authored. Loebsack, a former member the House Armed Services Committee, helped incorporate several provisions in this year’s legislation that will help create jobs here at home, increase defense research and strengthen the Rock Island Arsenal. The Senate will now consider its version of the bill and a joint House-Senate Conference Committee will convene to work out the differences between the two bills.

Loebsack worked to include a provision to extend Temporary Installation Reutilization Authority for leasing excess space at Army arsenals, depots, and plants through September 30, 2025. This will allow the Rock Island Arsenal to continue leveraging private investment through long-term facility use contracts, property management contracts, leases or other such agreements. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the information technology, logistics, and security requirements necessary to create an internal listing service of Army assets available for lease. Loebsack also authored language included in the overall bill to boost STEM jobs and address the STEM jobs gap within the Department of Defense (DoD).

Additionally, Loebsack worked with the Armed Services Committee to include language in the bill report that will require the Secretary of Defense to report on the status of legislation included in last year’s defense bill that directs DoD to work with private industry and academia to accelerate development of human factors modeling and simulation technologies to support soldier training and performance. This will help strengthen cooperation between the DoD and existing human factors modeling and simulation research projects, including the University of Iowa’s Virtual Soldier Research program, further enhancing academic research and development and the University.

“Ensuring the men and women in our military have the tools and resources to properly defend our nation remains a top priority of mine. As a parent of military children, I am proud to have worked to deliver the level of support our troops need and deserve,” said Loebsack. “While this legislation does not include everything I would have hoped, the amendments I worked to incorporate into the bill will help ensure the Arsenal has the tools and resources it needs to remain competitive. I am also pleased that we have taken steps to drive more workload to the Rock Island Arsenal, which helps both the Arsenal and Quad Cities create jobs and help their economy remain strong.”

Congressman Loebsack helped author three provisions, which were included in the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act:

· Extension of Temporary Installation Reutilization Authority – This Loebsack-Bustos amendment extends the Temporary Installation Reutilization Authority for leasing excess space at Army arsenals, depots, and plants through September 30, 2025. This amendment is intended to help Army facilities, including the Rock Island Arsenal, leverage private investment through long-term facility use contracts, property management contracts, leases, or other such agreements. The extended leasing authority is designed to utilize unused administrative and warehouse space on the Island, helping to bring workload and continued employment to the Island. The amendment also requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the information technology, logistics, and security requirements necessary to create an internal listing service of Army assets available for lease. This reporting requirement will help shed light on the feasibility of creating an internal listing service that could facilitate greater and more streamlined use of the leasing authority between Army facilities and private entities.
· STEM Jobs – This amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to perform an assessment of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, as well as Maintenance and Manufacturing (STEM) workforce within the DoD, identify the types and quantities of STEM jobs needed to support future mission work, and develop a plan of action to address the STEM jobs gap. These jobs are a critical part of the organic industrial base workforce, and this amendment enhances the mission and the role of our nation’s arsenals and depots to ensure that maintenance and manufacturing are recognized as specialized, protected skills that DoD retains and protects. Representatives Bustos and Porter joined in support of this amendment as well.
· Human Factors Modeling and Simulation – This report language will require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the implementation status of a provision included in the FY19 NDAA, which required the Secretary of Defense to develop and carry out human factors modeling and simulation activities to accelerating research and development that enhances capabilities for human performance, human-systems integration, and training for the warfighter. Under this reporting requirement, DoD will be required to brief Congress on the status of this requirement, specifically to what extent the activities are being carried out, the effects of these activities, activity participants such as academia and the private sector, locations of the activities, and the plan to sustain these activities in the future. This language will help ensure that human factors modeling and simulation research activities, like the University of Iowa’s Virtual Soldier Research program, are being utilized by the defense department to enhance training practices and improve outcomes for our nation’s warfighters. Senator Ernst successfully included identical language in the Senate-passed version of the bill.

Additionally, Loebsack pushed to include many provisions important to our troops and their families, including:

· Provides for a 3.1 percent pay increase for the troops;
· Repeals the “widow’s tax” which requires military surviving spouses to forfeit all or part of their military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity if they become eligible for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments when their spouse dies.
· Creates greater protections for military families by establishing a tenant’s bill of rights for residents of privatized military housing, requiring DoD to identify and measure health and safety hazards in housing, and providing additional funding to improve oversight and management of military family housing.
· Prohibits an additional round of BRAC.

July 12 news release from King’s office:

House Passes King Amendment Targeting China’s Abusive Surveillance State
“U.S. policy, including defense policy, should by no measure assist, intentionally or unintentionally, the growth of China’s surveillance.”

Washington, D.C.- Congressman Steve King releases these remarks following House passage of an amendment he offered to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that requires the Department of Defense to analyze China’s growing surveillance state to determine the threat it poses to American security interests. King’s amendment is now included within the House version of the NDAA legislation, which itself passed the House of Representatives on a nearly party-line vote of 220-197 this afternoon.

“I am encouraged that my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year passed the House of Representatives by voice vote on July 11th, 2019. This important amendment requires the ‘Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China’ to include an assessment of (1) China’s expansion of its surveillance state; (2) Any correlation of such expansion with its oppression of its citizens and its threat to United States national security interests around the world; and (3) An overview of the extent to which such surveillance corresponds to the overall respect, or lack thereof, for human rights.

This matter is one that I have long been attuned to and concerned about, ultimately leading me to draft and introduce the ‘Protect American IPR Act’, which is H.R. 902 this session, and seeks to stop Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property through duties on Chinese merchandise. For this reason, I have been encouraged to see President Trump prioritizing the Chinese stealing of American intellectual property.

Mass and unabated government surveillance does not only offend individual liberties; in the hands of an authoritarian government, it poses the Orwellian threat of the government always watching, and ultimately using this ability, made possible to an unprecedented extent by modern technology, to spy on, steal from, intimidate and persecute not only those it views as “political enemies” and “threats”, but anyone it deems as expedient.

This Orwellian threat is becoming a reality, perhaps nowhere more so than in China, where the government vigorously pursues a national video surveillance network. The affinity of the Chinese government to control its population in part by mass monitoring is not a new phenomenon, but advancing technology makes its prospects more frightening every day for those within and outside of the Mainland.

One internet privacy expert warns, “What China is doing here is selectively breeding its population to select against the trait of critical, independent thinking”. Since China is a neighbor to many and more importantly an actor on the world stage, that erosion will not simply negatively impact the Chinese, it will spread—it arguably has already. A world with continually less critical, independent thought is a prospect to tremble at.

It is my strong belief that U.S. policy, including defense policy, should by no measure assist, intentionally or unintentionally, the growth of China’s surveillance. Instead, it should discourage the expansion of the Chinese government into the rest of the world, while at the same time encouraging greater human rights for the Chinese people, including expectant mothers and Christians and other religious minorities.

I have heard from many individuals who warn against China’s rapid expansion and influence into the rest of the world, including Africa and Central America, our nation’s own backyard. Although the government-connected interests bring economic promise (and exploitation) to the developing world, they also bring the Chinese surveillance state with them. To counter this very real and growing threat, we need to first understand its scope, its impact for individuals in China as well as those around the world, and the extent to which it threatens the U.S. national security interests.”

The text of King’s House passed NDAA amendment may be read here.

Congressman King has also introduced legislation (HR 902) that is designed to provide redress to the holders of US intellectual property who have been victimized by Chinese theft. King’s legislation directs the President to impose duties on merchandise from China in an amount equivalent to the estimated annual loss of revenue to holders of U.S. intellectual property rights. The revenue raised by the imposition of duties on Chinese merchandise will be proportionally distributed to provide compensation to holders of United States intellectual property rights.

The post House approves defense authorization bill: How the Iowans voted appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Forty-three years ago this week, Congress overrode a presidential veto to enact an appropriations bill containing the first ban on federal funding for abortion. Republican U.S. Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois had proposed language prohibiting Medicaid coverage of abortion during House debate on what was then called the Health, Education, and Welfare budget. Ever since, the policy has been known as the “Hyde amendment.”

Four Iowans who served in Congress at the time spoke to Bleeding Heartland this summer about their decisions to oppose the Hyde amendment and the political context surrounding a vote that had long-lasting consequences.

THE IOWANS IN CONGRESS IN 1976

The 94th Congress represented a high-water mark for Democrats in Iowa and nationally, as the party expanded its majorities in the post-Watergate 1974 landslide. Democrat John Culver defeated David Stanley in Iowa’s open U.S. Senate race, joining fellow Democratic Senator Dick Clark. Tom Harkin and Berkley Bedell defeated Republican incumbents in U.S. House races, a feat not repeated in Iowa until Abby Finkenauer and Cindy Axne prevailed against Rod Blum and David Young last November.

For only the second time in Iowa history, Democrats represented all but one of the state’s U.S. House districts. (The same was true for one term after the 1964 election.)

Here’s the Iowa Congressional map from the 1970s.

Representing each district in 1975 and 1976:

IA-01 (red): Democrat Ed Mezvinsky
IA-02 (orange): Democrat Mike Blouin
IA-03 (yellow): Republican Chuck Grassley
IA-04 (green): Democrat Neal Smith
IA-05 (light blue): Democrat Tom Harkin
IA-06 (dark blue): Democrat Berkley Bedell

Mezvinsky, Smith, Harkin, and Bedell shared memories about the Hyde amendment debate and its aftermath in telephone interviews during June or July.

Blouin did not reply to multiple phone messages and e-mails seeking an interview. Staff for now-U.S. Senator Grassley did not respond to Bleeding Heartland’s interview requests or questions submitted by e-mail.

THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE ON THE HYDE AMENDMENT

Although the Hyde amendment went into effect on September 30, 1976, the crucial House votes happened three months earlier. The indispensable Govtrack website shows all of the June 24 votes on the health, education, and welfare appropriations bill.

Hyde offered an amendment “prohibiting funds under Title II to be used to pay for abortions or to promote or encourage abortions.” The Illinois Republican would have preferred a broader prohibition, he said during debate: “I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the HEW Medicaid bill.”

House members approved Hyde’s amendment by 207 votes to 167. Grassley and Blouin (who represented the heavily Catholic Dubuque area) voted yes, while Iowa’s other four House members voted no.

The proposal came up for another vote later the same day. The Congressional Record shows that Representative Bella Abzug, a Democrat from New York, said in a speech,

A good number of Members who voted on this amendment indicated to us that they had not really understood the depth or the breadth of this amendment. This amendment, in effect, provides that no funds will be permitted in the medicaid program for any abortion whatsoever. […]

The important thing that was not realized by Members voting on this amendment was that this amendment is a very broad one, one that would prevent a therapeutic abortion and prevent action being taken to save the life of a mother. […]

I know again that there is much too much humanity and compassion in this House not to expect that some would want to reconsider their votes.

Before a vote on final passage of the appropriations bill, House Speaker Carl Albert gave members an opportunity to demand a separate vote on any amendment that had previously been debated. Abzug called for a vote on Hyde’s amendment, which passed by 199 votes to 165, with 67 not voting. Again, Blouin and Grassley supported the policy, while Mezvinsky, Smith, Harkin, and Bedell voted no.

Normally, legislation needs 218 votes (a majority of the 435 House members) to be approved. Hyde’s proposal passed with fewer votes, because of the large number not voting. Many of those lawmakers were in Washington that day but preferred not to take a public stand on this issue.

The dispute over Medicaid abortion funding split both party caucuses. The roll call shows 107 Democrats (about 45 percent of those voting) and 92 Republicans (74 percent) for the Hyde amendment, while 133 Democrats (55 percent of those voting) and 32 Republicans (26 percent) opposed the policy.

Twitter user Barry (@BMcM2018) gave me permission to republish the map he created in June to commemorate this vote.

Govtrack visually represented the Hyde amendment vote this way.

The Senate removed the Hyde language from the appropriations bill in a June 28 vote that divided both caucuses. Iowa Senators Clark and Culver both supported deleting the section that banned the use of federal funds for abortion.

The bill then went to a conference committee, where negotiators agreed on a compromise in August. The House approved the conference report, but in a separate vote, refused to agree to the Senate amendment striking the Hyde language. The Iowans split the same way they had in June, with Grassley and Blouin insisting on the abortion funding ban.

Senators weren’t ready to concede this fight. In late August, the Senate refused to concur with the House amendment and insisted on deleting the Hyde language. Back to conference committee the bill went.

All six Iowans voted for the second conference report on the House floor in mid-September. Harkin recalled during our interview, “Sometimes you just have to vote for an appropriations bill, even though it’s got stuff in it you don’t like.” Culver and Clark voted against the bill with the Hyde language on the Senate floor, but it passed anyway.

President Gerald Ford vetoed the spending bill for reasons unrelated to the Hyde amendment. Every Iowan was a “yea” on the House and Senate votes to override that veto on September 30.

Since 1976, Congress has repeatedly reauthorized the Hyde language. It’s not a stand-alone law, but has been “attached as a temporary ‘rider’” to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Medicaid program. As Alina Salganicoff, Laurie Sobel, and Amrutha Ramaswamy wrote in this Kaiser Family Foundation explainer, “For many low-income women, the lack of Medicaid coverage for abortion is effectively an abortion ban.”

Did you ever consider voting for the Hyde amendment? Was it a hard choice?

“Everybody considered voting both ways. Everybody did,” Smith told me. “Whichever way you voted, it was a difficult vote.”

Mezvinsky recalled, “No. Never thought of it. I mean, I analyzed it, looked at it. But it wasn’t on my radar screen.”

Bedell concurred. “It was not difficult. I didn’t have to worry particularly about pleasing my constituents on how I voted. I won by enough that I could vote whatever I believed in.” Was he ever concerned about opposing something the residents of his district wanted? “When I voted against [President Ronald] Reagan’s tax cut [in 1981], that was about the worst vote I could have possibly made for northwest Iowa. [laughs] But they still re-elected me just the same.”

Harkin and Blouin were the only Catholics in Iowa’s Congressional delegation. Harkin had attended Catholic high school and law school too. Asked whether the Hyde amendment was a hard vote for him, Harkin said, “Not really.” He talked it over with his staff and his wife Ruth Harkin ahead of time. “I don’t remember it as a very difficult decision, no. It was just something I wasn’t going to support.”

Why didn’t you support the Hyde amendment?

Mezvinsky tied his decision to his Jewish faith and his upbringing. Growing up in Ames, his father taught him that “when someone was hurting financially, you helped them out. And in comes the Hyde amendment, that basically discriminated” against the poor, as well as against African Americans.

Several women in the House Democratic caucus influenced Mezvinsky’s views as well. Barbara Jordan was a good friend; the two sat next to each other on the House Judiciary Committee. He was close to Elizabeth Holtzman and Pat Schroeder too. He regularly discussed controversial issues with them, which “really made a big difference.” He also greatly respected Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm, among the most vocal Congressional opponents of the Hyde amendment.

Mezvinsky remembered that many House Democrats felt Congress should work on reducing unplanned pregnancies, “instead of focusing on discrimination.”

Harkin and Bedell were first-termers representing traditionally Republican areas. Nevertheless, Harkin told me the two decided “we couldn’t support this because it was obviously discriminatory against poor women. That’s all it was.” With the Hyde amendment in place, “if you’ve got money, and you’re well situated, yeah, you can terminate a pregnancy. But if you’re poor and you rely on Medicaid, tough luck.”

Bedell had “about a million reasons” for voting against the Hyde amendment, he said. High on his list: women should be able to control their own bodies. In addition, overpopulation was perceived as a global problem during the 1970s.

How did a Republican amendment to an appropriations bill get a vote on the House floor?

Nowadays the minority party is restricted from offering amendments on much of the legislation that reaches the House floor. But the chamber operated differently then.

“It wasn’t unusual at all. We had open rules,” Harkin said. “Anybody could offer an amendment.” He was able to get the first human rights amendment added to a foreign aid bill in 1975. “This whole thing about closed rules is a recent phenomenon initiated by Republicans. And now Democrats are starting to play that game too. It’s terrible.”

Bedell confirmed it “wasn’t unusual back then” for members of the minority caucus to offer amendments on the floor.

Was there pressure ahead of time to vote for or against the Hyde amendment?

No one recalled Democratic leadership in the House pushing members to vote either way. “Right away it was recognized as something that was, no matter which way you vote, somebody’s going to have a legitimate criticism,” Smith said.

Harkin didn’t remember any large Democratic caucus meeting to discuss this issue. Having reviewed the roll call on the vote before our interview, he was struck by the fact that 32 Republicans voted against the Hyde language. Although many Democrats representing conservative areas were yes votes, there were a lot of Democratic opponents even in the southern states. (Those districts are brown on Barry’s map, posted above.)

Harkin noted that his good friend Bob Drinan, a Jesuit priest from Massachusetts, also voted against the Hyde language, because of its impact on the poor. “In my memory, this was not so much an abortion/anti-abortion vote as it was a fairness kind of vote. Should poor women be discriminated against?”

While some Catholics may have seen the Hyde amendment as an abortion vote, Harkin acknowledged, “I don’t remember it as an anti-abortion vote, I remember it more as a discriminatory vote in 1976. Now later on [as the policy came up for reauthorization], it became an abortion vote.”

As for members of the public, Bedell didn’t recall getting a lot of communications before the vote. Smith heard from some constituents on both sides of the issue. Mezvinsky noted that while IA-01 contained some largely Catholic communities, “I didn’t have the pressure point that [Blouin] had, coming from Dubuque.”

Did members of the Iowa delegation talk about the vote beforehand?

“Yes, yes they did,” Smith told me. “Everybody talked about it,” and everyone understood it was a particularly difficult vote for Catholic members.

Smith added that Hyde wasn’t sure he had enough support to pass his amendment. Entering the House chamber that day, he saw the Republican “standing there as people came in the door asking for votes.” Someone must have already told him Smith planned to oppose the amendment, because “He said, ‘Go on, I know I’ve lost your vote.’” (According to Hyde’s New York Times obituary, “he was surprised to win that vote.”)

Harkin said there was no lasting animosity in the House Democratic caucus after the Hyde amendment passed. People didn’t talk much about it.

A lot of House members dodged this vote. Did you ever consider not voting on the Hyde amendment?

“That was the easy way out,” and in some respects “the best way out,” Smith said. “I don’t think anybody can fully understand the pressure that was on members of Congress at that time.” But he wasn’t going to avoid the vote. “You just have to hope that people understand the explanation, but a lot of people don’t understand.”

The others also said they didn’t seriously consider not voting. Mezvinsky had dealt with other contentious matters, going through hearings on impeaching President Richard Nixon. He remembered that after voting for all five articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee, “it was a volatile time.” Some people yelled at him or even threw stones when he was back in the district. Still, “You don’t avoid those issues. […] It wasn’t a question, not at all.”

Was there a lot of backlash after you voted against the Hyde amendment?

Bedell doesn’t remember getting a lot of letters from constituents. “It was not a controversial issue in my district.”

Mezvinsky commented that the reactions were “not as extreme then,” though “the right to life movement was vocal.” While some people expressed strong views, “You didn’t have quite the evangelical response that you have now. It wasn’t as organized, per se.”

He generally didn’t focus on public opinion. In politics there is a philosophical debate over how much representatives should reflect the views of constituents, Mezvinsky explained. While some “simply try to mirror others,” he “took a Burkean” approach.

My view was that it’s also part of your responsibility as a member of Congress to lead your constituency, to try to educate them. They may not accept the education, they may not like what they hear, but that’s the philosophy that I felt was important as a representative.

Mezvinsky thought the way to talk about abortion was to emphasize how public policy should tackle unplanned pregnancies for “all races and wealth levels.”

Looking through the Des Moines Register archives from late June 1976, I couldn’t find an article or editorial about how the Iowans in Congress had voted on Medicaid funding for abortion. That surprised me, since the Register had an active Washington bureau in those days and frequently reported on Congressional happenings. Bedell didn’t recall a lot of media attention afterwards either.

Smith posited, “There was no way to realize at the time that it would become such a controversial amendment.” People didn’t know “whether it was going to survive the next step.” It hadn’t passed the Senate and eventually was tied up in court for years. (A federal judge initially put an injunction on the Hyde amendment and ruled it unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban on federal Medicaid funding for abortion in 1980.)

Did your vote on the Hyde amendment affect your 1976 re-election campaign?

Smith represented relatively safe Democratic territory. He was re-elected that year with more than two-thirds of the vote. (Click here for county-level numbers for all Iowa Congressional races.)

Though his district was more conservative, Bedell typically won easily and took 67 percent of the vote that year. “It was a completely different world back then,” he told me. “And the partisanship was not nearly what it is, well, it’s nothing like today.” Bedell continued to win by large margins until he retired in 1986. No Democrat has represented northwest Iowa in Congress since.

Harkin didn’t recall abortion coming up at all during his 1974 campaign, even though it was the first election after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision. Because IA-05 was a “tough district,” Harkin anticipated a difficult race in 1976 against Kenneth Fulk, who was the head of the Iowa State Fair. But as far as he remembers, Fulk didn’t bring up the Hyde amendment. “I don’t know, I think it was just too soon,” and the anti-abortion forces hadn’t coalesced at that point. Harkin carried nearly 65 percent of the vote.

Abortion became a more salient issue in the 1978 race to represent IA-05, when the GOP challenger was Julian Garrett (who now serves in the Iowa Senate). Harkin remembered a picture being taken that year with people trailing behind him in mostly-Catholic Carroll carrying anti-abortion signs, protesting his vote on the Hyde amendment. It was a big issue again during his 1980 re-election campaign, even though Harkin continued to win Carroll County.

The only Iowan in Congress to lose his 1976 re-election bid was Mezvinsky. Jim Leach defeated him by 51.9 percent to 47.8 percent. Mezvinsky didn’t think the Hyde amendment played a role. The main argument against him was his voting record was “too progressive” and didn’t reflect Iowa.

Mezvinsky allowed that the Hyde amendment “may have been an undercurrent.” The Quad Cities and some other southeast Iowa towns had a large Catholic population. Then again, Mezvinsky lived in Iowa City and also represented Grinnell, where most people were in line with his views on abortion. “In the grand scheme of things,” other factors were more important.

Leach agreed, telling Bleeding Heartland via e-mail, “I doubt if the issue had electoral consequences in the 1976 election.” He didn’t campaign on the topic and speculated that in the Democratic-leaning district, activists opposing the Hyde amendment probably outnumbered supporters of the policy. During 30 subsequent years in Congress, Leach was a progressive Republican, pro-choice but with a mixed voting record on abortion-related legislation.

Blouin, the only Iowa Democrat to vote for the Hyde amendment, was barely re-elected in 1976 with 50.3 percent of the vote to 49.1 percent for Republican Tom Riley. Two years later, he lost his bid for a third term to Tom Tauke.

Top image: Official photos of U.S. House members from Iowa during the 1970s. From left: Ed Mezvinsky (IA-01), Neal Smith (IA-04), Tom Harkin (IA-05), and Berkley Bedell (IA-06).

The U.S. House and Senate managed to wrap up their work for the year without shutting down the government, an improvement on the state of affairs when the fully Republican-controlled Congress left for the winter holiday break in 2018.

The two huge bills contained about $1.4 trillion in spending, which will keep the federal government open through the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 2020. President Donald Trump signed the legislation.

WHAT’S IN THE BILLS

The Associated Press reported on some of the important compromises.

The legislation delivers Trump a victory on his U.S.-Mexico border fence and gives Democrats long-sought domestic spending increases and a repeal of Obama-era taxes on high-cost health insurance plans. It blends spending increases for both sides — reelection fodder for lawmakers — with tax and benefit add-ons that will mean a roughly $400 billion boost to the deficit over 10 years. […]

The core of the spending bill is formed by the 12 annual agency appropriations bills passed by Congress each year. It fills in the details of a bipartisan framework from July that delivered about $100 billion in agency spending increases over the coming two years instead of automatic spending cuts.

The bill exceeds Trump’s budget requests in virtually every domestic category, except for Trump’s request for $8 billion-plus for the U.S.-Mexico wall. It was cut back to $1.4 billion, equal to last year’s appropriation. The measure preserves Trump’s ability to use his budget powers to tap other accounts for several times that amount. That’s a blow for liberal opponents of the wall but an acceptable trade-off for Democrats who wanted to gain $27 billion in increases for domestic programs.

Other notable provisions:

• $25 million for research on gun violence, which hasn’t been federally funded for 20 years;
• $425 million for election security, but without mandates for paper ballots and post-election audits;
• An increase in funding to conduct the 2020 census;
• The minimum age to buy smoking and vaping products will be raised to 21 (but anti-smoking advocates criticized the provisions as less effective than other regulations the tobacco industry has fought);
• The Export-Import Bank will be reauthorized for seven years.

HOW THE IOWANS VOTED

The domestic spending package passed by 297 votes to 120 in the House and by 71 votes to 23 in the Senate. The military and security bills passed by 280 votes to 138 in the House and by 81 votes to 11 in the Senate. The roll calls show many House Democrats supported the domestic spending but opposed the defense package because of the wall funding, while many Republicans voted the opposite way.

However, no one in Iowa’s delegation split their votes on the appropriations deal. Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst voted for both bills, as did Democratic Representatives Abby Finkenauer (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Cindy Axne (IA-03). Republican Steve King (IA-04) opposed both measures.

Side note: It’s difficult to follow Congressional happenings just by looking at the roll call votes in the House and Senate, because the bill titles often have nothing to do with the content. Shortly before the final votes, H.R. 1865 was amended to include fiscal year 2020 appropriations from eight other bills, covering most domestic spending, and H.R. 1158 was amended to include the contents of four appropriations bills, including Defense and Homeland Security funds.

The Congressional Research Service website explained the context, fortunately. Otherwise you’d never guess that the vote on the “National Law Enforcement Museum Commemorative Coin Act” contained the domestic spending package, and the “DHS Cyber Hunt and Incident Response Teams Act” contained the defense appropriations for the remainder of the 2020 fiscal year.

Among the Democratic presidential candidates who serve in the Senate, Michael Bennet voted for both bills, while Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren did not vote while campaigning elsewhere.

WHAT THE IOWANS SAID ABOUT THE BUDGET DEAL

As is typical for members of Congress, the Iowans issued statements highlighting provisions they had co-sponsored or fought to include in the spending package. Even King, who defended his vote against both appropriations bills, released a long list of items he was proud to have supported.

All of the Iowa representatives and senators mentioned the retroactive extension of the biodiesel tax credit, and most touted funding to expand broadband access in rural communities. I enclose below all of those official comments in full.

Notably, Ernst released a statement about the defense bill but did not highlight her vote for the domestic spending agreement, which many conservative commentators criticized.

Statement from Representative Abby Finkenauer, December 17:

Finkenauer Secures Child Care and Rural Broadband Investments for Iowa’s First Congressional District in Appropriations Package

Package funds the government for Fiscal Year 2020 along with five-year biodiesel tax credit extension

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) ) voted to provide new investments in high-quality child care, rural broadband, registeredskilled apprenticeship programs, as well as a historic five-year extension of the biodiesel tax credit. These Iowa priorities were secured as part of a legislative package to fund the government through Fiscal Year 2020. The package included both appropriations and tax provisions and passed with bipartisan support.

“From day one, I have worked across the aisle to get this done for our district and state. From passing legislation through committee, to holding hearings with biodiesel producers testifying, it has been a bipartisan effort to get here,” Finkenauer said. “I came to Congress to make sure Iowa’s voices and working families were heard. From constituents visiting the office to roundtables and town halls in the district, this package covers the priorities we heard and its effects and funding will be felt in homes across Iowa. Provisions included will help doctors serving patients in rural communities, invest in our crumbling infrastructure, expand access to high-quality child care, fund rural broadband projects, and provide certainty for our biofuel and soybean producers who work hard every day for a strong Iowa economy. Without a doubt, the package we passed today is a big win for Iowa.”

The House passed two separate appropriations packages today, both with significant bipartisan support. The packages fund federal departments and agencies, along with the nation’s military. In addition, they include a package of tax provisions that are being extended and expired last year, like biodiesel and second-generation biofuels.

Finkenauer Priorities Included in the Appropriations Package 

• Early childhood programs get an increase of $1.1 billion, helping ensure that northeast Iowans can access child care and early education no matter where they live
• Provides $175 million for registered skilled apprenticeship programs, a $15 million increase over last fiscal year
• Repeals the Cadillac Tax which would have made it harder for employers to offer high-quality health care plans.
• Invests $640 million in the expansion of broadband in rural areas.
• Includes increased funding for rural bridge repairs and replacements.
• Keeps tax relief in place for our small brewers and distillers.
• Extends important health care programs that help improve access to healthcare in Northeast Iowa, including the Work Geographic Index Floor which ensures fair reimbursements for physicians in rural areas and has been a legislative priority for Rep. Finkenauer as well as the Conrad 30 Program to address health care workforce shortages.
• Includes the increased federal funding—that Rep. Finkenauer fought for—to help entrepreneurs grow and start their businesses, including Small Business Development Centers, Women’s Business Centers, and the State Trade Expansion Program (STEP) program.
• Provides $41.7 billion for NIH, an increase of $2.6 billion above the previous year, to develop life-saving treatments and make sure that the United States continues to lead the way when it comes to medical innovation.
• Increases investments in K-12 education.
• Restores the Short Line (45G) railroad tax credit.

Finkenauer’s Work on Extending Biodiesel Tax Credit

The biodiesel tax credit has been expired since 2018 and is important to farmers and biofuels producers around the country. Finkenauer helped lead a bipartisan effort in the House to bring attention to the credit through new legislation, pass it through the House Ways and Means Committee and include it in this final package.

Monday, Finkenauer also offered an amendment to H.R. 5377 This is part of her efforts to make sure the biodiesel tax credit is extended before the end of the year.

• Finkenauer Introduces Bipartisan Extension of Biodiesel Tax Credit(04/04/2019)
• Finkenauer Advocates for Biodiesel Tax Credit Extension (05/01/2019)
• Finkenauer Secures Biodiesel Tax Credit in Ways & Means Package(06/20/2019)
• Finkenauer Invites Iowan Biodiesel Producer to Hearing on Clean Energy Jobs (09/10/2019)
• Finkenauer and Horn Lead Letter to Leadership Urging Extension of Key Biofuels Tax Incentives (11/06/2019)

Congress had previously extended the tax credit retroactively for 2017, but left it expired for 2018 and beyond. This year, Finkenauer was joined by Senators Grassley and Ernst, as well as industry leaders, at a press conference supporting the legislation. Finkenauer testified before the Ways and Means Committee earlier this year, sharing the stories of Iowa producers and businesses that would benefit from the legislation.

Statement from Representative Dave Loebsack, December 17:

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement today after the House passed legislation to fully fund the government for fiscal year 2020 and ensure the government remains open. The bill contains many important provisions that Loebsack fought to get into the bill, including a retroactive extension of the biodiesel tax credit, a robust infrastructure package, an expansion of broadband access in rural areas, and robust investments in our veterans and healthcare systems. Additionally, Loebsack successfully fought to increase the funding set aside for distributed wind technologies, increasing the amount available from $5 million to $10 million. The bill now heads to the Senate for its consideration.

“I am pleased an agreement to fully fund the government was finally agreed to, avoiding another needless shutdown. The legislation that passed today represents a bipartisan compromise that while not what I would have written, does contain many provisions that are important to the people of Iowa. I am especially pleased that a last minute agreement was reached to extend the biodiesel tax credit that is vital to the thousands of people working in the industry and benefits our environment and fuel supply. These job-creating, life-saving investments will help grow our economy and ensure the government won’t shutdown,” said Loebsack.

 

Highlights of funding in the legislation include:

TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING

• $1 billion for National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER/BUILD). The bill also ensures parity between urban and rural grant awards.
• $3.4 billion for Community Development Block Grants.
• $1.35 billion for HOME Investment Partnership Program.
• $2.8 billion for Homeless Assistance Grants.
• $2.2 billion for highway infrastructure projects.

 

EDUCATION

• $1.2 billion for Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, which go toward school counseling and mental health services, technology investments and STEM education.
• A $150 boost to the maximum Pell Grant award, which would be set at $6,345.
• Increases for Head Start, TRIO, IDEA, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and Title I-A grants, which go to schools with high percentages of low-income children.
• $120 million for NASA STEM engagement programs for young and future scientist and engineers.
• $8.28 billion for the National Science Foundation

 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

• $3.28 billion overall for total State and Local Law Enforcement Activities; including $547.2 million for the Byrne-JAG program and $180 million to address sexual assault kit and DNA evidence backlogs.
• $440 million for the Legal Services Corporation which helps provide legal assistance to underserved communities.

 

HOMELAND

• $17.8 billion for FEMA disaster response and recovery efforts.

 

AGRICULTURE

• $3.8 billion for rural development programs, including $1.45 billion for rural water and waste program loans and more than $545 million in water and waste grants
• $640 million for the expansion of broadband service
• $6.9 billion for rural electric and telephone infrastructure loans

ENERGY AND WATER

• $2.79 billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), including $10 million for distributed wind technologies.
• $7.65 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers

 

VETERANS AFFAIRS

• $9.4 billion for VA mental health services and programs, a $1 billion increase over last year.
• $125 million above the budget request for hiring additional claims and appellate staff to continue reducing the disability claims backlog.  This includes funding to hire additional staff to process incoming Blue Water Navy Claims as a result of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019.

 

HEALTH CARE

• $41.7 billion for National Institutes of Health including $2.8 billion for Alzheimer’s Research and $3.1 billion for HIV/AIDS research.
• $19 million for the national Suicide Lifeline operations and $16 million for the Zero Suicide program.
• $286 million for Title X Family Planning program.
• Additional $492.5 million for cancer research at the DOD.
• $1.5 billion in funding for state opioid epidemic response efforts.
• Raises tobacco age to 21

 

FINANCIAL SERVICES

• $261 million for Entrepreneurial Development Programs at the Small Business Administration, including $135 million for Small Business Development Centers and $22.5 million for Women’s Business Centers.

 

LEG BRANCH

• Prevents an increase in pay for Members of Congress

 

SERVICE

• $1.1 billion for the Corporation for National and Community Service, including $221 million for Senior Corps.

 

Statements from Representative Cindy Axne, December 17:

Axne Votes to Fund our Military, Increase Grants for Local Police, Invest in Cancer Research, and Protect our Elections

Bipartisan legislation to support national security and fund remainder of Fiscal Year 2020 passes House

Washington D.C. — Today, Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) joined Democratic and Republican colleagues in the House in voting to pass a four-bill package of appropriations bills and provide funding certainty to support our national security for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2020.

 

The bill passed by the House today, H.R. 1158, provides funding for the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Commerce, and other key executive branch agencies tasked with protecting our nation and its citizens.

 

“I’m proud to have the backs of those Americans who work every single day to keep our country safe by voting today to keep their agencies open and increase investments in programs that are essential to the national defense,” said Rep. Axne. “This legislation will protect our elections, support our local law enforcement, and invest in our national security.”

 

A number of provisions in the final bill reflect priorities for Iowa and issues which Rep. Axne wrote to members of the House Appropriations Committee to advocate for:

• $65 million for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program, which the Iowa National AirGuard participates in
• $847 million for the Small Business Administration, including $261 million for Entrepreneurial Development Programs and $135 million for Small Business Development Centers
• Allows Customs and Border Protection to hire an additional 240 Agriculture Specialists to help protect against the African Swine Fever
• $425 million for State Election Security Grants to improve election systems and protect our elections from interference
• $492.5 million for Department of Defense Cancer Research, including breast, kidney, ovarian, and rare cancer research
• $22.3 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including $17.8 billion for disaster response and recovery efforts and $2.9 billion for state and local grants
• $3.28 billion in grants to local and state law enforcement, including the Byrne JAG program and funding to address blacklogs in sexual assault cases

The bill also provides the funding to support a 3.1% pay raise for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces.

 

A product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, this legislation also ensures that the government remains open for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2020, providing budget certainty to federal employees and their families ahead of the holidays.

Axne Votes to Invest in Health and Education, Infrastructure, and Rural Communities

The bill includes extension of the biodiesel tax credit, repeal of harmful healthcare taxes, and Axne-led provision blocking Congressional pay raises

Washington D.C. — Today, Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) voted to pass a package of appropriations bills and tax extenders, investing in key programs that help Iowans and provides funding certainty for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2020.

 

“These investments in Iowa will be key to increasing access to health care and a quality education, investing in our rural communities, growing small business investments, helping our seniors, ensuring environmental protections and honoring our responsibilities to our veterans,” said Rep. Axne. “In addition, I’m happy to see much-needed tax provisions to extend critical biofuel tax credits andpermanently repeal health care taxes that would hurt Iowans.”

 

The bill includes a revival of the biodiesel tax credit until 2022 and an extension of the second generation biofuel tax credits until 2021, provisions that Rep. Axne has fought for since coming to Congress — and which will create good-paying green jobs, support Iowa farmers and producers.

 

The bill passed by the House today, H.R. 1865, provides funding for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and other key executive branch agencies and programs.

 

A number of provisions in the final bill reflect priorities for Iowa and issues which Rep. Axne wrote to members of the House Appropriations Committee to advocate for:

 

• $3.4 billion for Community Development Block Grants to provide grants to cities, counties, and rural areas to help meet the needs of low-income families
• $1.5 billion in unspent 2017 funds for disaster relief, which can now go to those impacted by the 2019 flooding
• $2.8 billion for Alzheimer’s disease research, $27 million for Diabetes Prevention Program, and $195 million for the Cancer Moonshot research initiative at the National Institutes of Health
• $10.6 billion for Head Start and $13.9 billion for Special Education
• $640 million investment in rural broadband to support education, healthcare, and economic development
• $196 million for Family Caregiver Services, which supports those who are providing care to their families and loved ones
• $405 million for the Senior Community Services Employment for Older Americans Program
• $2.8 billion for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Grants for skills training programs
• Increases the maximum Pell Grant to $6,345.00, to help keep pace with inflation
• $16 million for the Zero Suicide program at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, including for children and youth; and $19 million for the Suicide Lifeline
• $80.2 billion for medical care at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, including $222 million in suicide prevention outreach activities
• $400 million for Airport Improvement Grants and $2.2 billion for Highway Infrastructure Programs

The bill also includes a provision championed by Rep. Axne to block a pay raise for her and her fellow members of Congress, and a permanent repeal of the health insurance, ‘Cadillac,’ and medical device taxes – which Rep. Axne called on House leadership to include in the year-end deal.

 

In addition, divisions of this legislation include bills that Rep. Axne has supported, including: H.R. 1175, the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act; H.R. 510, the Building Rail Access for Customers and the Economy (BRACE) Act; H.R. 2147, the Revitalizing Underdeveloped Rural Areas and Lands (RURAL) Act; H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act; H.R. 2284, the Disaster Tax Relief Bill Act; H.R. 3851, the Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act; andH.R. 4634, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019.

 

A product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, this legislation also ensures that the government remains open for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2020, providing budget certainty to federal employees and their families ahead of the holidays.

Statement from Representative Cindy Axne, December 21:

President Trump Signs Axne-Supported Bills Included in Year-End Spending Legislation

Renewals for biodiesel and biofuel tax credits, support for small business and rural development, and repeal of health care taxes are now law

Washington D.C. — Yesterday, President Donald Trump signed into law numerous measures supported by Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) that will eliminate the threat of burdensome healthcare taxes, bring investment to Iowa’s green economy and rural communities, help with disaster recovery and support local farmers, producers and small businesses.

 

“I’m happy to see measures that are critical for helping Iowa families and businesses in 2020 become law,” said Rep. Axne. “I’m thankful that the President has signed these bills that I supported this year, and I’m proud of the work we have done in the House to get them included in the final law.”

 

Biodiesel & Biofuel Tax Credits

 

Provisions to extend the biodiesel tax credit through 2022 and the second-generation biofuel producer credit through 2020 were included in the appropriations package that was signed into law yesterday.

 

“Since coming to Congress, I have made it a priority to address these expired tax credits,” Rep. Axne said. “Farmers are taking it on the chin with the ongoing trade war and the EPA undermining the RFS at every turn. We have seen plants stall or shut down, causing folks to lose their jobs and farmers to lose their buyers. I am glad to see the provision signed into law to bring our farmers and producers some market certainty, create jobs, and set us on a path towards a cleaner environmental future.”

 

These critical tax credits expired at the end of 2017, leaving Iowa farmers and producers with significant uncertainty. Rep. Axne hasconsistently advocated for these provisions from the beginning of the year.

 

Repeal of the Health Insurance Tax, ‘Cadillac’ Tax, and Medical Device Tax

 

The new law includes a permanent repeal of a mandated health insurance tax (HIT), ‘Cadillac’ tax, and medical device tax. These repeals will protect middle class Iowans from higher health care costs and end the cycle of delays that have spread uncertainty in the health care markets.

 

“These taxes were looming over Iowans, waiting to see how much their health care will cost in 2020,” said Rep. Axne. “By permanently ending the threat of these burdensome taxes, I am not only making sure Iowa families aren’t paying even more for their care, but also creating stability in our health care.”

 

Rep. Axne has continually advocated repealing these taxes. Earlier this month, Rep. Axne wrote to House leadership to ensure that as many as 142 million Americans were spared from the implementation of the HIT.

 

In July, Rep. Axne voted to permanently repeal the ‘Cadillac’ tax, the 40 percent excise tax on the most expensive employer-provided health insurance plans.

 

Renewing Tax Breaks for Iowa Craft Brewers, Distillers

 

The new law extends expiring tax breaks for Iowa’s craft breweries, wineries, and distilleries. Authorized in 2017, the tax breaks cut per-barrel excise taxes with the largest reduction going to the first 60,000 barrels of a brewery’s production.

 

“Our small brewers and distillers are the pride of Iowa and helping give us a nationwide reputation as a hotspot for a good local brew,”said Rep. Axne. “I’m happy that their production can benefit from an extension of this vital tax credit.”

 

Iowa is home to more than 100 craft breweries, supporting thousands of Iowa jobs, and is projected to produce more than 146,000 barrels this year. Earlier this year, Rep. Axne cosponsored the House version of this reauthorization.

 

Giving Tax Relief to Aid Flood Recovery

 

The Disaster Tax Relief Act was included in the legislation signed into law, providing tax relief for Iowans affected by the 2019 floods.

 

“I’m glad that we’re lending another helping hand to those Iowans affected by recent flooding,” said Rep. Axne. “By providing them the means to keep businesses intact, deductions for their damaged property, and other tax help, our families and communities don’t have to worry that a natural disaster will break their budget.”

 

The bill would help impacted Iowans keep their paychecks coming in by providing retention credits to employers with inoperable businesses that continue to pay their employees. In addition, it would expand deductions for destroyed property, encourage donations to projects in disaster areas, and remove the penalty for early withdrawals from retirement accounts.

 

The original legislation was introduced in April in the House with Rep. Axne as a cosponsor.

 

Helping Electric Cooperatives Invest in Development, Disaster Recovery

 

The new law also includes legislation that would reopen government grants to electric cooperatives (co-ops) to allow for invests in improvements in broadband service or disaster relief.

 

“Electric cooperatives provide the power for more than 600,000 Iowans,” said Rep. Axne. “Allowing them to partner again with government to build improvements in our communities will help strengthen our energy infrastructure.”

 

Changes in tax law in 2017 blocked co-ops from accepting any kind of local, state, or federal grant funding without risking their tax-exempt status.

 

In addition, the new law contains other Axne-supported divisions, including: H.R. 510, the Building Rail Access for Customers and the Economy (BRACE) Act; H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act;  H.R. 3851, the Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act; and H.R. 4634, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019.

Statement from Representative Steve King, December 17:

King Discusses Votes Against $1.4 Trillion in Irresponsible Spending Bills

“Too much money, too little time, and no process that allowed for any kind of oversight.”

 

Washington D.C– Congressman Steve King releases the following video of comments he delivered during a Facebook Live broadcast today. In his remarks, King discusses his reasons for voting against irresponsible spending bills totaling $1.4 Trillion in spending that were rushed through the House of Representatives today with little to no opportunity for Members to review the contents prior to the votes.

 

While there are things in each of the bills that King likes (see the included list of King’s legislative successes below), such as the tax extenders package for the Bio-diesel credit (King was a cosponsor of that legislation), in the end it came down to this:

“The first thing I request is this: I want regular order.  I want an open process. I want an opportunity to weigh in on these pieces of appropriations bills with amendments. I want to hear the debate on the amendments that others might have offered. And, in the end, I want also fiscal responsibility. $1.4 Trillion in spending without scrutiny is not fiscal responsibility…The whole picture was too much money, too little time, no process that allowed for any kind of oversight by the regular members on the floor of the House of Representatives.”

 

Despite his opposition to the underlying bills, Congressman King was incredibly successful in ensuring that many of his most important legislative priorities received funding. According to a document prepared by the House Appropriations Committee, the following King priorities were included in the 12 bills passed in the House of Representatives today.

 

Congressman Steve King (IA-4)

 

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

1. $1 million is provided for the new Genome to Phenome program at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
2. No language is included to interfere with the mandatory funds provided to the Market Access Program.
3. $16.3 million is provided in the bill for the National Animal Health Laboratory Network between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
4. $315 million for the Smith-Lever Act, Section 3(b) and 3(c) programs and cooperative extension, maintaining the FY19 level.
5. $57 million for Extension Services at 1890 Institutions, an increase of $8.3 million.
6. $67 million for the Evans-Allen Program/Research at 1890 Institutions within the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which is a $9 million increase.
7. $1.3 billion is provided for the Agricultural Research Service, an increase of $44.3 million.
8. $1 billion is provided for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Research and Education account, which is an increase of $105.4 million.
9. $5.5 billion for direct electric loans for rural electric improvements as well as $750 million for guaranteed electric loans, the same level as provided in the FY19 enacted law.
10. $20 million in loans is supported by the bill for the Rural Energy for America Program.
11. $425 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, an increase of $10 million.
12. $259 million for the Hatch Act program within the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, maintaining the FY19 level.
13. $36 million for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act program, maintaining the FY19 level.
14. The bill provides $26.5 million, an increase of $5.7 million for the appropriate assistance to state wildlife agencies for the Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health Program.  The increased funds may also be used for research collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Academy of Sciences, and other public and private entities.
15. $5.7 million increase for the Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health Program to address Chronic Wasting Disease.
16. $5.7 million increase for the Equine, Cervid, and Small Ruminant Health Program includes research collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Academy of Sciences, and other public and private entities.
17. $175 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service Small Watershed Program, which is a $25 million increase.

 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

1. $547 million for the Department of Justice for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG).
2. $235 million for the Department of Justice for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring program.
3. $244 million for the Department of Justice State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
4. $2.6 billion for grants administered by the Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime.
5. $38 million for the Department of Justice for regional information sharing activities.
6. $48 million for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Grant program to support all 52 participating jurisdictions at no less than $760,000 each.
7. $146 million for the Department of Commerce for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.

 

Defense

1. $150 million provided in the Defense Health Program for Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research.
2. $10 million increase in Army research for Peer-Reviewed Military Burn research.
3. $7.1 million increase in Air Force operations and maintenance for the Civil Air Patrol.
4. $11 million provided in Air Force procurement for Civil Air Patrol aircraft.
5. $3.5 million provided in Air Force procurement for Civil Air Patrol vehicle and communication equipment procurement.
6. $20 million provided in the Defense Health Program for Peer-Reviewed Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis research.
7. $110 million provided in the Defense Health Program for Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research.
8. $6 million provided in the Defense Health Program for Peer-Reviewed Tuberous Sclerosis Complex research.

 

Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies

1. $425 million for Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).
2. $104 million for Department of Energy Wind Energy program.
3. Full use of estimated annual revenues and some additional prior year revenues in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (Corps of Engineers).
4. $3.7 billion for Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account.
5. Report language on Corps of Engineers Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program and additional funding specifically for multipurpose projects in the preconstruction engineering and design phase.
6. $145.1 million total for Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects.

 

Homeland Security

1. $1.9 billion for Customs and Border Protection Procurement, Construction, and Improvements: $1.375 billion for border barriers with no transfer restrictions, $14.8 million for coastal interceptor vessels, and $32.5 million for lightweight helicopters.
2. Includes funds as requested for intelligent enforcement systems and opioid detection.

 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

1. Report language under Indian Health Service regarding the Siouxland Human Investment Partnership.
2. $46 million in Fish and Wildlife Service – North American Wetlands Conservation Fund.
3. $1.7 million in US Geological Survey – Surveys, Investigations, and Research for Chronic Wasting Disease.
4. Report language under US Geological Survey – Surveys, Investigations, and Research, regarding Chronic Wasting Disease.

 

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies

1. $38.7 million for the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights.
2. $35 million for Sexual Risk Avoidance in the Department of Health and Human Services.
3. $1.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Health and Human Services Health Centers program.
4. $42.1 million for the Department of Health and Human Services Adoption Opportunities program.
5. $55 million for the Department of Labor Homeless Veterans Reintegration program.
6. $10 million for the Department of Health and Human Services National ALS Registry program.
7. $94.5 million for the Department of Labor YouthBuild program.
8. $12 million for the Department of Health and Human Services Healthy Athletes program.
9. $40.2 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health.
10. $5,285 maximum Pell Grant per individual in the academic year 2020-2021.
11. $770 million for the Community Services Block Grant program.
12. $1.1 billion for the Department of Education Federal Work Study program.
13. Language included related to patient identification options.

 

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies

1. Report language for Department of Veterans Affairs regarding funding of wheelchairs.

 

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

1. Language supporting the Action Plan on Children in Adversity.
2. Language included on Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS).
3. $227.5 million for Conventional Weapons Destruction.

 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

1. Bill language requiring the Department of Transportation to exempt certain agricultural haulers from electronic logging device requirements.
2. $162 million for the Department of Transportation Essential Air Service.

 

Statements from Senator Chuck Grassley, December 17:

Year-End Spending Package Includes Wins or Biodiesel, Disaster Affected Areas

Statement from Senator Joni Ernst, December 17:

Annual Defense Bill Advances with Ernst’s Support and Priorities Included

The Iowa Senator, a combat veteran, successfully secured nearly all of her priorities in the FY20 NDAA, including her proposals to:

address and prevent military sexual assault, provide oversight on resources given to the Pentagon, and invest in critical technologies.

 

WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), a combat veteran and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, proudly supported the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The final bipartisan, bicameral defense bill includes nearly all of Senator Ernst’s priorities, including her proposals to address military sexual assault, to improve Iowa’s critical contributions to our nation’s defense, and to invest in technological advancements to face the threats of today and well into the future.

 

“Having worn our nation’s uniform, I take seriously the responsibility we have to provide our servicemembers with the support, authorities, and resources they need to carry out their mission. This bipartisan defense bill includes a number of my priorities that will directly impact all Americans and bolster our national security so that we are outpacing and maintaining a strategic advantage against our adversaries.”

 

“Congress has passed an annual defense bill 58 years in a row, and in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way, and I’m proud to say that after tremendous hard work and commitment, we’ve fulfilled our obligation once again. The House and Senate have acted, and I’m confident President Trump will swiftly sign this critical bill into law,” said Senator Joni Ernst, the first female combat veteran elected to the Senate.

 

Nearly all of Ernst’s priorities from the Senate-passed NDAA were included in the FY20 NDAA Conference Report. Below are a few highlights:

• Expanding support for victims of military sexual assault and domestic violence through provisions focusing on both prevention and successful prosecution of these serious offenses;
• Improving research on TBI among servicemembers and strengthening the capacity to track and mitigate injuries caused by blast pressure exposure;
• Sustaining and enhancing the workload at the Rock Island Arsenal;
• Ensuring the production of much needed combat munitions at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant;
• Requesting a briefing on DoD’s efficient and transparent use of Iowa tax dollars through language similar to Ernst’s COST Act;
• Ensuring the Special Operations Command has the resources and authorities they need to be most effective in the fight today and in the future;
• Increasing research and development for key technologies like artificial intelligence, directed energy, and hypersonics to deter adversaries such as China and Russia.

 

For a full recap of the Ernst provisions included in the bill, click here.

Senator Joni Ernst shouldn’t be in this position.

Given Iowans’ tendency to re-elect incumbents and the state’s rightward drift this past decade, she should be running ten points ahead.

Instead, Iowa’s Senate race is universally seen as a toss-up. Ernst has led in only two polls released since the June primary. Democratic challenger Theresa Greenfield has led in fourteen polls during the same period.

Not all of Ernst’s political problems are her own creation. The COVID-19 pandemic and President Donald Trump’s disastrous leadership have put at risk several GOP-held seats that once seemed safe.

But Ernst could have set herself up better to survive a tough environment for her party. Her most important strategic error was not following the example Chuck Grassley set as a 40-something first-term senator.

“GRASSLEY’S LONG WAR WITH THE PENTAGON”

Although Grassley was considered among the more conservative U.S. senators when first elected in 1980, he quickly established a reputation as a thorn in the side of the military establishment under President Ronald Reagan.

In Hollywood, you’d call it casting against type. Republicans have long tended to support ever-increasing defense spending. But Grassley proposed a freeze in military spending and frequently highlighted waste in the defense budget. It wasn’t just showmanship. Yes, Grassley railed against $436 hammers, $640 toilet seats, a $7,622 coffee pot and “common duckbill pliers” for $1,496. But he also voted against “major weapons systems” like the MX missile.

John Hyde reviewed the efforts in an October 1985 front-page story for the Sunday Des Moines Register, titled “Grassley’s long war with the Pentagon.” Hyde recalled “spectacular episodes” such as when the senator tried “to have the U.S. attorney general held in contempt of Congress” during Reagan’s re-election campaign.

Mostly, however, Grassley’s war is fought in the trenches–at subcommittee meetings attended by a handful of reporters and even fewer senators, in speeches and articles where he argues the need for institutional change, through complicated amendments that seek to force change on an obdurate Pentagon.

Arguably, Grassley had little to show for his work. Reformers praised Grassley’s proposals, but as Hyde noted, the military budget greatly increased during Reagan’s presidency. The Associated Press reported in June 1990 that the defense budget was still covering outrageous expenses like “$999 pliers and $117 soap dish covers.” Too-costly purchases of everyday items continue at the Pentagon to this day.

Grassley did score some wins, like getting the Senate to approve new whistleblower protections during the 1980s. (Insiders aided his investigations of waste and fraud in the defense budget.)

Perhaps most important for the senator’s political future, he showed he would take on a powerful interest group usually aligned with his party. And it wasn’t kabuki theater. Republican Barry Goldwater, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, publicly attacked Grassley’s military budget freeze proposal as “superficial,” “impulsive,” and ill-suited to “the realities of the dangerous world in which we live.” Reagan’s Navy secretary “regularly denounces Grassley in speeches around the country, saying the senator’s activities harm the nation’s military posture,” Hyde reported.

Grassley also was willing to sacrifice some clout in the pursuit of Pentagon reforms. James Flansburg, the Des Moines Register’s political columnist, wrote in June 1988 that Reagan’s Justice Department had “been punishing” Grassley “for his apostasy.”

Quietly and firmly–and, to Grassley detractors, deliciously–they’ve given him a politically impotent image in the eyes of Republican insiders. It has been one of the better kept secrets in Iowa politics.

In the three years since Dick Turner died, Grassley hasn’t even been able to get a U.S. attorney named for the Southern District of Iowa. […]

A Grassley vote against the Reagan administration was interpreted as retaliation–never mind that he’d voted right nine of 10 times–that must be retaliated against.

This history of conflict with a Republican president explains why many old-timers are so deeply disappointed by Grassley’s willingness to cover for Trump’s abuses of power. That’s a topic for another day.

The salient point for this discussion is that Grassley became wildly popular in a relatively short time. The party in power tends to lose seats, and that pattern held in 1986. Democrats regained control of the Senate by defeating seven of the Republicans who had won in 1980. Against that backdrop, it’s astonishing that Grassley beat his challenger John Roehrick by a two to one margin.

A LOYAL REPUBLICAN SOLDIER

Ernst leaned in to the persona of rising Republican star. Only months after her election, she delivered the GOP response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union. She landed on Trump’s short list for vice president and gave a prime-time speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention. She joined the Senate GOP leadership team shortly after the 2018 election.

The flip side was that Ernst gained a reputation as unfailingly loyal to her party and president. As Republicans floated several bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act in 2017, Capitol Hill reporters maintained “whip counts” of GOP senators whose votes were in question. Ernst was never on any of those lists, because it was obvious to all that she would support any Obamacare repeal legislation, regardless of its content or potential impact on Iowa patients and hospitals.

When Ernst was chosen as vice chair of the Senate Republican Conference, “after months of quiet campaigning” among her colleagues, I commented,

One downside to being in leadership: it guarantees that Ernst will continue being a rubber-stamp for anything and everything GOP leaders want. She won’t be able to brag about standing up for Iowans against her own party when necessary.

Indeed, Ernst has regularly presented the Republican talking points of the day on national television networks over the past two years. She also echoed the White House position throughout the impeachment process. When voting to acquit the president, she couldn’t even bring herself to voice mild criticism of Trump’s attempt to get a foreign leader to assist his re-election campaign.

Most recently, she put party over principle by reneging on a 2018 promise not to confirm a Supreme Court justice during a presidential election year.

Over six years, Ernst failed to carve out even one issue where she could consistently speak truth to Republicans in power. She claims to have opposed Trump’s tariffs, but has bent over backwards to praise his overall approach to trade policy. She has postured as standing up for Iowa ethanol producers, but often vouched for Trump’s sincerity when he promised his administration would change course on oil refinery waivers.

While Democratic-aligned groups have spent lots of money on commercials claiming that “Washington changed Joni Ernst,” the Lincoln Project’s message seems more effective to me: “You’d think Joni Ernst would stand up, speak up, and fight for us. But Iowa’s figured out Joni never had it in her to do the right thing. […] A real Iowa leader would do everything she could to protect us. A real Iowa leader would stand for what’s right, not for what’s easy.”

DIFFERENT FRAMES OF REFERENCE

In fairness to Ernst, she had some grounds to assume she didn’t need to display any political independence. Iowa Republicans romped up and down the ballot in 2014 and again two years later. Moreover, no sitting senator had lost a re-election bid here since 1984. Why couldn’t she go on to serve for decades? I certainly didn’t expect Iowa to have one of the most competitive U.S. Senate elections in 2020.

As a new senator, Grassley had a different frame of reference. Results from the six U.S. Senate races preceding his first re-election campaign:

During that era, Grassley had no reason to expect he could coast to re-election on incumbency advantages.

Ernst did embrace one element of her mentor’s winning formula, and it has become a drumbeat in this year’s campaign.

“VERY IMPORTANT TO GET OUT AND SPEAK DIRECTLY TO IOWANS”

Grassley popularized the practice of visiting all 99 counties in his official capacity every calendar year. The “full Grassley” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be; most events are closed to the public, especially in large, Democratic-leaning counties. But it has indisputably become part of the senator’s brand.

Ernst has followed suit and brings up the 99-county tour in every conceivable context. Here’s a comical exchange from the first IA-Sen debate, broadcast on Iowa PBS last month.

David Yepsen: Senator Ernst, the criticism of you is that Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act but don’t put any alternatives on the table. We all are concerned about health care. I wonder if you could be as specific as you can about some of the types of things you want to do to fix Affordable Care or what happens if you have to replace it?

Ernst: Again, I have been out on the road, I have just completed my sixth consecutive year of the 99-county tour, very important to get out and speak directly to Iowans. My opponent has not been out to probably 40 or so counties —

Yepsen: Excuse me, Senator, this question is not about 99-county tours, it’s about the Affordable Care Act.

Ernst: Yes, and David, it is about hearing from Iowans, directly from Iowans. So when I’m out and we’re talking about those health care issues, again pre-existing conditions, one is making sure that those insurance companies are covering people with pre-existing conditions. […]

Greenfield: Well, first let me start with Senator Ernst wants to talk about travel schedules because she can’t come back to Iowa and explain to Iowans how she sold them out, sold them out to big pharma and can’t lower the prescription drug prices, sold out our farmers to big oil and put one of their people to head the EPA, sold out Iowans in general [….]

Ernst seems to have calculated that simply holding events in all counties would be enough to show she is representing Iowans well. But Grassley backed up his 99-county tours with strong constituent service and an independent streak on a few matters of national importance.

There’s another model for success in an Iowa senator’s first term. Ernst didn’t copy that one either.

THE TOM HARKIN APPROACH

Iowans elected Harkin to the House five times, beginning in 1974, and to the Senate five times, beginning in 1984. He wasn’t known for battling his own party’s establishment. And while he did travel extensively around the state, he didn’t check the box on visiting all 99 counties every year.

Rather, Harkin demonstrated his value as a fighter for Iowans by getting important bills through Congress.

The Americans with Disabilities Act would be a monumental accomplishment for any senator. Harkin championed the bill as a first-termer, and a president from the other party signed it into law.

Harkin was passionate about the cause because his older brother Frank was Deaf. In fact, he delivered a Senate floor speech in American Sign Language when the Americans with Disabilities Act passed.

The bill became a big part of Harkin’s case for re-election in 1990. Frank starred in a television commercial that year, and again in 1996.

Ernst has no comparable achievement, even though she’s been in the majority caucus for all of her six years in the Senate. During two of those years, Republicans had a trifecta in Washington. Why doesn’t Ernst have a signature bill to her name?

GOP leaders made her the point person on getting the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized, yet Ernst couldn’t deliver. She blamed Democratic intransigence, but the core problem was she wasn’t willing to stand up to the National Rifle Association on closing the “boyfriend loophole.”

Many times, Ernst claimed the Violence Against Women Act was one of her top priorities. If she had spent some of her political capital trying to move GOP senators toward broadly popular gun safety provisions in the House bill, which gained dozens of Republican votes, she’d have a stronger case to make with Iowans now.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Ernst could still win this race. Greenfield’s lead in most polls has been within the margin of error, and even if those polls are accurate, a small shift in voter sentiment could happen before election day. Nevertheless, the senator is not as well-positioned as she should be, given Iowa’s propensity to re-elect incumbents.

Dan Guild has pointed out that Ernst typically polls a little behind Trump’s re-elect number. That’s a dangerous place to be, with Trump and Joe Biden running close in recent Iowa polling.

If Ernst had shown any real independence (like Grassley during his first term) or gotten a major law enacted (like Harkin), she would probably be outperforming her party’s president.

Representation is more than 99-county tours.

______________

Appendix 1: October 20, 1985 article in the Sunday Des Moines Register by John Hyde, “Grassley’s long war with the Pentagon.” (front page and interior)

Appendix 2: June 24, 1988 column in the Des Moines Register by James Flansburg, “They finally listen to him” (top portion and bottom)

Top photo: Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley in January 2019. Cropped from a picture posted on Senator Ernst’s Facebook page.

Federal funds used to cover salaries and benefits for Governor Kim Reynolds’ staffers were routed through the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, rather than going directly to the governor’s office.

Because of the unique arrangement, state agencies’ databases and published reports on expenditures from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act do not reveal that any funding supported the governor’s office. Instead, some show allocations from Iowa’s Coronavirus Relief Fund to Homeland Security, from which $448,449 was spent on “COVID Staffing” or “State Government COVID Staffing.”

That’s the exact dollar amount Reynolds approved to pay permanent employees on her staff for part of their work during the last three and a half months of the 2020 fiscal year. Other agencies that had staff working on the pandemic response from the State Emergency Operations Center, such as the Iowa Department of Public Health, did not receive CARES Act funding through the same indirect route.

The governor’s communications director Pat Garrett and chief of staff Sara Craig Gongol did not respond to six inquiries over a three-week period about how these payments were made and recorded.

BACKGROUND

Reynolds authorized $448,449 in federal COVID-19 relief funds to cover about 62 percent of salaries and benefits for 21 staffers in her office from mid-March through June 30. Those payments had not been disclosed to the public before Bleeding Heartland reported their existence on September 13.

Asked about the matter during her next news conference, Reynolds asserted that such use of CARES Act funds met the federal government’s criteria, saying the employees’ “job requirements” had “significantly changed due to COVID.” She explained that in the early months of the pandemic, about half of her staff were working from the State Emergency Operations Center, and some who remained at the state capitol spent much of their time answering Iowans’ phone calls and emails about the pandemic.

Craig Gongol spoke with reporters immediately after that September 16 news conference. David Pitt of the Associated Press paraphrased her as saying “the money hasn’t shown up in CARES Act expenditure documents yet because the governor hasn’t signed the transfer of money but after she does, the spending will show up in public documents.”

Wrong on both counts.

AN “INTRA-STATE TRANSFER”

The Iowa Department of Management handles disbursements from the state budget and federal funding sources. Its Pandemic Recovery Report dashboard is designed to allow visitors “to explore federal awards received, expenditures and payments associated with federal funds” linked to the CARES Act. The department also maintains a database showing thousands of individual disbursements for pandemic-related costs, with details including date of the transfer and name of the government unit receiving the funds.

I kept an eye on that dataset, which is updated weekly, for signs of money allocated to the governor’s office. Department of Management staff had told me funds would be transferred by September 30, when the state was to close the books on fiscal year 2020.

That day came and went with no record of any payment to the governor’s office, even after new entries on October 5 reflected all spending from the previous week. Department of Management staff told me the funds had been disbursed as part of an inter-agency transfer, rather than directly to the governor’s office.

A google document called “Iowa Coronavirus Relief Fund Summary,” which I downloaded on October 6, showed the Department of Management had transferred $1,000,000 to Homeland Security for “State Government COVID Staffing,” from which Homeland Security had spent $448,449. The document did not and still does not mention the governor’s office.

Iowa Senate Democratic staff provided these records, which they had obtained through the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, to Bleeding Heartland on October 6.

The documents show that Craig Gongol had invoiced Homeland Security for the funds on September 14–the day after I reported that CARES Act money was covering compensation for the governor’s staff. They also show that Homeland Security transferred the funds to the governor’s office on September 15–the day before Craig Gongol told reporters Reynolds hadn’t yet signed the transfer. UPDATE: Documents Bleeding Heartland obtained in November through a separate request indicate that although the invoice was dated September 14, Craig Gongol didn’t sign it until the following day. The Department of Management confirmed that sequence of events.

Going back to the database of CARES Act expenditures: if you know what to look for, you can find a record of a $448,448.86 payment on September 15, listing the Homeland Security department as the government unit and “intra-state transfer” as the type of expenditure. But the governor’s office is not named as the recipient.

I had more questions for the Department of Management, which Linda Leto answered on October 8. Why did this expenditure run as an inter-agency transfer through Homeland Security? “There are no documents responsive to your request.”

Who decided to route it that way rather than as a CARES Act disbursement directly to the governor’s office? “There are no documents responsive to your request.”

When was the decision made to run CARES Act funds for the governor’s staff salaries through the Homeland Security department? “There are no documents responsive to your request.”

Is Homeland Security disbursing any other CARES Act funds through inter-agency transfers? “Not currently.”

How would members of the public be able to find out how much money from the CARES Act is being disbursed through inter-agency transfers? “The public can view inter-agency transfers at Intra-State Transfers by State Department on the Finance Explorer.”

I hadn’t seen that page before. Here’s how it displays the transfers.

Clicking on “Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Department” brings up this view.

The unit listed is “COVID Staffing,” even though no state government entity exists by that name. “Why isn’t this money labeled as going to the governor’s office?” I asked on October 8. “How are members of the public supposed to know what ‘COVID Staffing’ means?” Leto replied four days later, “There are no documents responsive to your request.” She directed further inquiries to Garrett, the governor’s communications director.

As mentioned above, Garrett and chief of staff Craig Gongol ignored repeated questions about this matter.

Maybe I would have better luck with the Homeland Security department.

“WE DON’T KNOW WHO WOULD HAVE MADE THAT DECISION”

When invoicing Homeland Security for governor’s employee salaries and benefits, Craig Gongol wrote, “These necessary expenditures were incurred in response to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) relief efforts in Iowa. The expenses associated with COVID-19 support were not accounted for in the Fiscal Year 2020 budget approved by the Iowa Legislature in 2019.” Her phrasing copied language from federal guidance on allowable uses of CARES Act funds.

The chief of staff attached a page purporting to show which personnel costs were “not budgeted” and related to COVID-19. (click photo to enlarge)

As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, the governor’s office has not specified what those employees were working on, which would be important for determining whether their compensation was a “substantially different use from any expected use of funds” for those jobs. A line item from the fiscal year 2020 budget covered operating expenses for the governor’s office, which would normally include salaries and benefits for positions such as chief of staff, senior legal counsel, communications director, legislative liaison, policy advisers, and so on.

Reynolds did not bring on any new employees to handle the COVID-19 workload. I have confirmed through records requests to the Iowa Department of Administrative Services (which handles payroll for state government) that no one on the governor’s staff received a raise from March through June 2020, nor was anyone paid overtime for their work during that period.

I had many questions for Homeland Security, which Lucinda Parker answered on behalf of that department on October 12.

Did Homeland Security independently verify that there were “increased salary costs” in the governor’s office associated with the pandemic?

HSEMD used the memo and spreadsheet from Sara Gongol to process the request from the governor’s office. Before processing the payment, we conveyed to the governor’s office the need to maintain their records in accordance with federal cost principles related to the CARES Act funding.

Have any other CARES Act funds allocated to Homeland Security later been transferred to other state government agencies? Can you shed any light on why this $448,449 expenditure didn’t go directly to the governor’s office?

HSEMD has not transferred any of the CARES Act funding for COVID-19 related salary expenses to other state government agencies. As this department is responsible for coordination of the state’s disaster response, the majority of payments related to the COVID-19 response have been processed through our office using our established disaster payment process.

I wondered about the unspent portion of the $1 million already transferred to Homeland Security (outlined in red here):

Does Homeland Security have plans for the remaining $551,551 from the “COVID staffing” line item? Is it fair to say those funds are likely to go to the governor’s office for salary and benefit costs incurred between July 1 and December 31, 2020?

Parker told me, “Although that funding was transferred to our department to process, we are not the decision makers on how it will be spent.”

Reynolds announced on May 29 that her staff would return to their regular offices in the state capitol the following Monday, June 1. Has anyone from the governor’s office continued to work at the State Emergency Operations Center since that time? If so, which staffers, and approximately how many hours a week have they been working from that location?

I’m not certain exactly when governor’s office staff returned to their regular offices, but even though other agencies were no longer located physically in the SEOC, the involved agencies continued their work [on the pandemic] virtually. Certainly, staff from the governor’s office were in the SEOC during the response to the Aug. 10 derecho.

Whose idea was it to display the transfer of $448,449 on the Department of Management’s website as going to “COVID Staffing”? “We don’t know who would have made that decision,” Parker wrote back. “I would think the Department of Management or governor’s office would be able to answer that.”

One would think so. But for whatever reason, they haven’t.

WAS U.S. TREASURY’S INSPECTOR GENERAL CONSULTED?

According to the AP’s Pitt, Craig Gongol told reporters on September 16 that the “governor’s office confirmed the expenditures with the U.S Department of Treasury Office of the Inspector General.”

I have been unable to verify that federal officials signed off on–or even knew about–this use of CARES Act funds.

Garrett and Craig Gongol did not respond to inquiries.

In response to open records requests, the Department of Administrative Services said it had no records related to the use of CARES Act funds to pay salaries or benefits for the governor’s staff, and the Department of Management said it had no documents or correspondence indicating Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General had approved or validated the use of federal COVID-19 relief funds for that purpose.

I was not able to get a comment from the Treasury Department in September about this story. After the State Auditor’s office revealed last week that Treasury’s Office of Inspector General had determined Iowa’s contract to upgrade computer systems “is not an allowable expenditure” under the CARES Act, I reached out to Deputy Inspector General Richard Delmar. He confirmed the advice his office gave regarding the Workday software. When I asked about the $448,449 for compensating the governor’s staff, explaining that the money had gone through Iowa’s Homeland Security department, Delmar replied, “thank you for providing this information. Our CARES Audit team will review it.”

Delmar did not respond to follow-up emails seeking to clarify whether his office was aware of that expenditure prior to my message of October 21.

THE ONLY OFFICIAL MENTION OF CARES ACT FUNDING FOR THE GOVERNOR’S STAFF

Only one publicly available official resource mentions that the governor’s office received federal COVID-19 relief funds. The Legislative Services Agency, an independent entity not controlled by the governor, published a new Iowa Coronavirus Relief Fund Update on October 7.

The list of expenditures since the previous update in late August included the following:

$1.0 million to the HSEMD for staffing costs associated with COVID-19. Of this amount, $448,500 was transferred to the Governor’s Office for salary expenses incurred in response to COVID-19 relief efforts.

And on page 2:

COVID Staffing: These funds are being used to cover increased salary costs associated with responding to COVID-19 relief efforts. A portion of the funds ($448,500) was transferred to the Governor’s Office for increased salary costs.

I asked Dave Reynolds, a legislative analyst for the Fiscal Services Division, whether the LSA independently verified that there were “increased salary costs” in the governor’s office associated with the pandemic, or “salary expenses incurred in response to COVID-19 relief efforts.” He replied,

The information included in the article concerning the Governor’s staff salaries came from the transfer documents (signed by the Governor’s Chief of Staff) that were included in the State’s financial accounting system. According to the documents, the funds were for increased salary and benefits expenses that were not previously accounted for in the Governor’s budget for the period of March 15 – June 30. As you can probably guess, we are getting a lot questions on this issue and we are continuing to look at issues surrounding the Governor’s staff salaries.

In those transfer documents, Craig Gongol stated that the expenses were not part of the budget, but did not provide supporting evidence.

I also asked Reynolds whether it was accurate to say that no one at the Legislative Services Agency was aware CARES Act money had been allocated for the governor’s staff before late August, when I received from the Department of Management a list of employees who were partly compensated with those funds. He confirmed that if LSA had known funds had been approved for that use, it would have been mentioned in their previous Coronavirus Relief Fund updates, such as the one dated August 31.

“THIS IS JUST THE LATEST PANDEMIC SHELL GAME”

Republican State Senator Amy Sinclair, who chairs the Iowa Senate Government Oversight Committee, and State Representative Mary Ann Hanusa, who chairs the same committee in the Iowa House, did not respond to messages seeking comment on the decision to route CARES Act payments to the governor’s office through Homeland Security, or the lack of disclosure on state government websites.

State Representative Karin Derry, the ranking House Democrat on the budget subcommittee that includes the governor’s office, told Bleeding Heartland on October 8,

This appears to be just one more example of the lack of transparency from the Governor’s Office about the expenditure of CARES Act funds. The State Legislature had already allocated funds to cover to cover the cost of staff for her office. So where did that money go? Iowa taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

Until we restore some much-needed balance to our state government, such irresponsible and nontransparent expenditure of taxpayer dollars will only continue.

State Senator Joe Bolkcom, the ranking Democrat on the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, characterized the indirect payment scheme as “just the latest pandemic shell game coming from Governor Reynolds and her administration.” He added, “The CARES Act money should be spent to help Iowans recover from the deadly virus instead of paying for her political advisors.”

Top image: Screen shot from Governor Kim Reynolds’ September 16 news conference, at which she answered a question about using CARES Act funds to pay her staff.