The U.S. House and Senate on December 21 approved a $2.3 trillion package to fund the federal government through September 30, 2021 and provide approximately $900 billion in economic stimulus or relief connected to the coronavirus pandemic.

No one in either chamber had time to read the legislation, which was nearly 5,600 pages long, before voting on it. Statements released by Iowans in Congress, which I’ve enclosed below, highlight many of its key provisions. The unemployment and direct payments to families are clearly insufficient to meet the needs of millions of struggling Americans. Senate Republicans blocked aid to state and local governments, many of which are facing budget shortfalls. President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to push for a much larger economic stimulus package early next year.

The legislation headed to President Donald Trump’s desk includes some long overdue changes, such as new limits on “surprise billing” by health care providers for emergency care and some out-of-network care.

Laura Olson reported for States Newsroom,

House leaders divided the bill into two parts and passed the emergency relief portion on a 359-53 vote. Another portion, which included Pentagon spending for the coming year, passed 327-85. The Senate combined the two bills and cleared the package in an overwhelming 92-6 vote shortly before 11 p.m. CT.

The roll calls (here and here) show yes votes for the three Democrats who represent Iowa in the House: Abby Finkenauer (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Cindy Axne (IA-03).

Representative Steve King (IA-04) was among a small group of House Republicans who did not vote on either bill. I didn’t see any comment on his social media feeds indicating why he was absent or whether he would have supported the legislation. Published roll call votes indicate King has missed most of the House floor action since the November election.

GOP Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both supported the legislation in the upper chamber.

Statement released by Representative Abby Finkenauer, December 21:

WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer (IA-01) released the following statement on passage of the COVID-19 relief package and Fiscal Year 2021 Appropriations:

“lowans need help as they continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. Since this summer, I have pushed the Senate and White House to work together with the House on a bipartisan agreement that provides the relief hard working families need.

“While I’m happy to have helped pass a deal to help folks just before the holidays, this package will not come close to undoing the pain this year has brought — especially to those who have lost loved ones. The package passed today provides, to an extent, urgently needed help for families, small businesses and so many Iowans struggling under the hardships caused by this pandemic. However, stimulus checks should be higher, and more support given directly to Iowans who need it most.

“While I supported this deal reached by the House, Senate, and White House, it is my sincere hope that the next Congress and Administration will provide additional help to the families, businesses, and local Iowa communities who will still need it.”

Background on relief package and funding bill:

In addition to $600 direct payments to families, supplemental unemployment benefits, and funding for struggling small businesses, the COVID-19 relief package and end-of-year government funding bill includes a number of bills and provisions Congresswoman Finkenauer fought for on behalf of northeast Iowa.

Health Care

● The package incorporates Finkenauer’s Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Extension Act, which will ensure “tweener” hospitals like Grinnell Regional Medical Center will continue to get enhanced reimbursements for the inpatient services they provide for the next five years.
● The package incorporates Finkenauer’s legislation to extend Medicare’s work geographic index floor for three years, ensuring fair reimbursements for physicians in rural areas.
● The package includes Finkenauer-supported legislation to extend Medicaid eligibility to citizens of the Freely Associated States lawfully living in the United States, including the many Marshallese residents of the First District.

Infrastructure

● Includes the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2020, which Congresswoman Finkenauer helped craft and pass through the House. This bill will include policy provisions important to Iowans, including: additional investment in lock and dam infrastructure, changes to improve federal flood mitigation benefit-cost-ratio calculations like for flood protection construction, and Rep. Finkenauer’s amendment to cut red tape and improve communication between the US Army Corps of Engineers and local governments

Appropriations Priorities

● Secured increased funding for endometriosis research, allowing the National Institutes of Health to double their investment in endometriosis research from last year’s funding levels. Endometriosis research will now also be eligible for funding through the Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program.
● Includes a provision championed by Congresswoman Finkenauer that would increase the federal funding limit for the Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area. The Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area encompasses 117 sites and attractions across Northeast Iowa, including scenic routes, farms, wineries, museums and more. The provision would increase the Area’s federal funding limit, enabling Silos & Smokestacks to continue telling the story of America’s agricultural history, as well as promoting tourism to Northeast Iowa.
● Provides a $10 million increase for the Defense Department’s Manufacturing Technology Program. This funding will be used to support the University of Northern Iowa’s Additive Manufacturing Center partnership with Youngstown State University on supply chain adoption of additive manufacturing, automation, and robotics. This funding and partnership will provide industry-tailored training, access to applied research, and technical assistance to small businesses, so that they can efficiently engage in the defense manufacturing supply chain.

Small Business

● The package incorporates Finkenauer’s PPE Act to allow businesses to use Paycheck Protection Program loan money to cover the expenses of providing personal protective equipment to their employees.

Derecho Recovery

● Includes provisions from Finkenauer’s Disaster RELIEF Act, which would provide tax relief to Iowans impacted by August’s derecho. Specifically, the package will provide direct tax relief for Iowa families and provide a tax credit to Iowa businesses to help retain employees following the disaster.

Statement released by Representative Cindy Axne, December 21:

Key Axne Priorities Included in Bipartisan Agreement to Fund Critical Programs, Secure New COVID-19 Relief

Provisions include expanded unemployment benefits, rental assistance, a new round of direct payments, an extension of the federal eviction moratorium, and measures to help Iowa’s working families, small businesses, and biofuel industry

WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives advanced a comprehensive package of legislation that includes a wide variety of priorities and provisions fought for by Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) over the past year.

The bipartisan agreement, H.R. 133, includes a new round of coronavirus (COVID-19) relief for Iowa’s families and communities, provisions to help crack down on surprise medical billing, and full funding for government programs through the end of Fiscal Year 2021.

“This is a long-overdue measure that will help Iowans in need. From direct support for Iowa families to long-term protections provided by new federal law, this legislation does a great deal to not only provide the assistance needed in the midst of a dark winter of health and economic crises, but also invest in the success of our communities and businesses for years to come,” said Rep. Axne. “While this legislation is not perfect, I’m pleased to see key priorities that I have worked to secure this Congress included in the final agreement, such as an extension of unemployment benefits and another round of direct payments, rental assistance and an extension of the eviction moratorium, authorization to roll over unused child care savings into 2021, and provisions to support expansion of broadband connectivity, assistance for our biofuels industry, and much more.”

The COVID-19 relief sections of the legislation contain key priorities championed by Rep. Axne, including:

● $25 billion for the first-ever emergency federal rental assistance program to help families impacted by COVID-19 that are struggling to make rent or have past-due rent and utility payments, as well as an extension of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) eviction moratorium through January 31, 2021.
● An additional $300 per week for all workers receiving unemployment benefits through March 14, 2021.
● An additional round of Economic Impact Payments of $600 for individuals making up to $75,000 per year, $1,200 for couples making up to $150,000 per year, and $600 for each child dependent.
● $284 billion for first and second forgivable PPP loans, with dedicated set-asides for very small businesses and lending through community-based lenders like Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs).
● $10 billion in emergency funds for the child care sector through the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) program to help stabilize the child care market and allow states to expand child care assistance to essential workers and working families who are in great need of child care services.
● Emergency provisions championed by Rep. Axne to allow unused savings in dependent care assistance plans (DCAPs) and health flexible spending accounts (FSAs) from 2020 to roll over and be used through the end of 2021, which will save families from losing up to $5,000 at the end of the year.
● Statutory language to allow the Department of Agriculture to provide relief funding for biofuels producers and the ethanol industry.
● An extension of refundable payroll tax credits for paid sick and family leave, first approved by Congress earlier this year, through the end of March 2021.

The final agreement also includes other important items pushed by Rep. Axne, such as:

● Funding to improve broadband mapping – which has left many Iowa communities unable to get funding to build new broadband – and the ACCESS Broadband Act, legislation Rep. Axne cosponsored that will improve federal grant accessibility for smaller local providers.
● An extension of FY19 BUILD grant deadlines to provide recipients, including the Central Iowa Water Trails Project, more time to meet deadlines due to delays caused by COVID-19.
● A bipartisan measure to protect patients from surprise medical bills and establish a fair framework to resolve payment disputes between health care providers and health insurance companies.
● More than $4 billion to hard-hit families by allowing them to use their 2019 income to determine how much they receive in the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.
● The Energy Act of 2020, which invests in clean energy research and development, and includes four bills Rep. Axne cosponsored:
The Wind Energy Research and Development Act, to research and develop wind technologies and their grid integration.
The Solar Energy Research and Development Act, to fund research and development of solar energy technologies.
The ARPA-E Reauthorization Act, which reauthorizes ARPA-E and expands its authority to work on projects relating to nuclear waste clean-up and management issues and projects to improve energy infrastructure, as well as to pursue scale-up and demonstration of transformational clean energy technologies.
The Clean Industrial Technology Act, which creates a research, development, and demonstration program on technologies to reduce emissions from the manufacturing sector, including cement, steel, and chemicals manufacturing processes, high-temperature heat generation, alternative materials, and carbon capture for industrial processes.

Although this agreement is expected to be the last comprehensive package passed by the 116th Congress, Rep. Axne is already emphasizing the additional work left to be done in the new year.

“While this is an important agreement that helps keep our government open and fund long-term investments that will help recovery and growth of our nation, the emergency COVID-19 provisions of this bill are still only short-term relief,” said Rep. Axne. “This cannot and should not be Congress’ last act to help those suffering through dual health and economic crises – and when the 117th Congress begins in just a few short weeks, I look forward to working with my colleagues in both parties to continue the important work of supporting our constituents. Just as we know that this virus will not disappear on January 1st, we should not think that our efforts to support families, businesses, and communities will end when the book closes on this session.”

H.R. 133 also includes important provisions to support Iowa’s communities and critical programs that help Iowans:

● Essential funding for vaccine procurement and distribution – $19 billion for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for manufacturing and procurement of vaccines and therapeutics and $8.75 billion to the CDC to aid distribution and tracking of vaccines across state and local public health agencies.
● An additional $54.3 billion for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund and $22.7 billion for the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund.
● Streamlines the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and expands outreach and awareness to make it easier for Iowans to apply and qualify for federal student aid.
● Over $11 billion to the Department of Agriculture to continue to support producers, growers, and processors affected by COVID-19 market disruptions.
● An extension of the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, which expanded coverage to the self-employed, gig workers, and others in nontraditional employment, and the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) program, which provides additional weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits to individuals who exhaust their regular state benefits.
● An extension of Iowa’s ability to use remaining funds in its $1.25 billion allocation from the Coronavirus Relief Fund until December 31, 2021.
● Reauthorization of the second generation biofuel tax credit, which was due to expire at the end of 2020. Rep. Axne successfully fought to renew the tax credit in the past.
● $13 billion for nutrition assistance, including a 15% increase in monthly SNAP benefits.

In order to finalize the compromise agreement on necessary improvements to flood control measures, the agreement also includes the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act of 2020.

Statement released by Senator Joni Ernst, December 21:

Ernst: More COVID-19 Relief is Soon Headed Iowans’ Way
Ernst worked across the aisle to ensure more help for Iowa child care centers, small businesses, farmers, health care systems; first time aid for biofuel producers, local news outlets

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) today supported and helped deliver additional COVID-19 relief for Iowans in the bipartisan package that passed the Senate.

“I’ve long been calling for Congress to provide additional relief to Iowans and all Americans who continue to suffer through this pandemic; and now, more COVID-19 relief is soon headed Iowans’ way,” said Senator Joni Ernst.

“With this new bipartisan relief package, we are bolstering the Paycheck Protection Program for Iowa small businesses – including our local news outlets; supporting child care centers and working families; aiding Iowa farmers and biofuel producers; and helping make sure our health care systems – including those in Iowa’s rural areas—continue to have what they need to fight this virus and distribute the vaccine. This bipartisan bill will bring much-needed aid to Iowans on the front lines of this pandemic, those who are facing unemployment, and families fighting to stay afloat.”

Below are just some of the key measures that Senator Ernst helped deliver for Iowans through this COVID-19 relief package:
● Provides direct payments of up to $600 per person and $600 per child
● Permits USDA to make payments to producers for losses incurred from the depopulation of livestock and poultry due to insufficient processing access
● Provides assistance to agricultural producers, growers, processors, specialty crops, non-specialty crops, dairy, livestock, poultry, and contract livestock and poultry producers
● Allows for payments to producers of advanced biofuel, biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, conventional biofuel, or renewable fuel
● Temporarily increases monthly SNAP benefits by 15%
● Increases broadband funding, including support for rural broadband and telehealth
● Supports grants to stabilize the child care sector and allow providers to safely reopen
● Allows for a second round of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans for struggling businesses
● Makes local chambers of commerce and news outlets eligible for the PPP and improves loan access for farmers
● Provides for manufacturing and procurement of vaccines and therapeutics and for CDC to ensure broad-based distribution, access, and vaccine coverage to all Americans
● Provides resources to states and localities for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, containment, and mitigation
● Supports hospitals and health care providers with additional relief funds
● Creates a voluntary Medicare payment designation that allows struggling rural hospitals to convert to a Rural Emergency Hospital to preserve access to emergency medical care in rural areas
● Funds support for mental health and substance abuse services
● Allows all Medicare beneficiaries to receive mental health services through telehealth on a permanent basis

As a group, Iowa’s U.S. House members have less seniority than at any time in more than a century. But their lack of experience in Congress didn’t translate into undesirable committee assignments.

On the contrary: Iowa’s two-term Democrat and three Republican newcomers will all serve on influential panels.

Congressional leaders often give good committee assignments to members representing competitive districts or viewed as rising stars, and those dynamics worked in favor of Representative Ashley Hinson (IA-01). The last two Iowans to serve on House Appropriations (Republican Tom Latham and Democrat Neal Smith) weren’t assigned to that committee until their second terms. Hinson already has a seat there.

Congress-watchers have noted that Appropriations is a less powerful panel than it used to be when members could easily secure “earmarks” that benefited their districts. But House Democratic leaders have signaled that they may allow earmarks to return. The new House Appropriations Committee chair Rosa DeLauro is working on it, saying earmarks are “an opportunity for ‘non-profits, state and local government’ to make a case for spending priorities ‘that are community-based.'”

Hinson said in a statement earlier this month that she is “honored” to serve on Appropriations, adding,

There’s no question that the way we fund the government is broken, and I see this is as an opportunity to begin to fix the damage that has been done and start the hard work of getting our fiscal house back in order. In this post, I will fight for priorities that matter to Iowans and rural America, ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly, push back on Democrats’ liberal agenda, and bring some desperately needed transparency to government spending.

Typically, Appropriations is an “exclusive” committee, but Hinson received a waiver to serve on the Budget Committee as well. In a statement, she promised,

I will use this position to help rein in Washington’s out-of-control spending habits and check Democrats’ efforts to fund a liberal wish list on the taxpayers’ dime. The taxpayers are my bosses and this will allow me to better serve them.

Iowans are tired of the way Washington overspends their money with no accountability or transparency. I will be their unwavering voice as I work to reform our broken spending system and serve as the advocate taxpayers have been missing in DC.

So Hinson may not be rushing to secure earmarks for projects in counties she represents. But her committee assignments will help her raise money and give her a lot of good talking points for her 2022 campaign. Members of Congress are often most vulnerable in their first re-election bids, and the first district may look somewhat different on the next political map.

Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02) will serve on three committees: Homeland Security, Veterans’ Affairs, and Education and Labor (on which her predecessor Dave Loebsack served early in his career). She commented in a news release,

“These assignments directly highlight my strengths and experience as well as the priorities I expressed as I sought office: resolving this pandemic and preparing for future pandemics; ensuring the health of our citizens craving more normal human interactions and engagement at home, school, work, church and entertainment venues; safely returning people to work and students to the classroom; making sure that we have a workforce that is well trained and ready for the jobs of the future; and seeing that we have affordable, accessible healthcare,” said Miller-Meeks. “I’m ready to get to work on behalf of Iowans.”

Miller-Meeks, a physician and 24-year U.S. Army veteran, noted that the Homeland Security Committee also has legislative jurisdiction over the National Strategic Stockpile. She frequently highlighted the stockpile’s value in preparing the country for future pandemics and suggested a number of potential improvements to that vital asset and the way it is administered.

The seat on Education and Labor should help Miller-Meeks if Johnson County remains part of IA-02, because the University of Iowa and its medical facilities are the dominant employer in the area.

Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03) will continue to serve on both the Financial Services and Agriculture committees. She was named to Financial Services at the beginning of her first term, having requested the assignment due to the importance of financial and insurance companies in the Des Moines metro area. She then received a waiver to serve on Agriculture after GOP Representative Steve King lost his committee assignments in January 2019. The Des Moines Register noted at that time, “The last time Iowa wasn’t represented on the House Agriculture Committee was in the 55th Congress in 1897, according to the congressional directories. Iowa has had consistent membership, starting in the 56th Congress in 1899.”

A statement from Axne this week highlighted her “work for Iowa’s families, small businesses, and local industries” as a member of Financial Services.

“Whether it was tackling COVID-19 fraud, ensuring stimulus checks were distributed fairly, protecting Iowa jobs from outsourcing, keeping roofs over the heads of our families, or supporting rural entrepreneurs – my work through the Financial Services Committee has always sought to help my constituents through all manners of challenges,” said Rep. Axne. “Over the past two years, I’ve used my role on the House Financial Services Committee to raise the concerns of Iowa’s workers, businesses, renters and homeowners, and consumers – and I look forward to continuing that work alongside my colleagues and the Biden Administration.”

One of the first measures passed out of the House written by Rep. Axne came from her work on the Financial Services Committee. The bipartisan Expanding Access to Capital for Rural Job Creators Act would ensure rural entrepreneurs and small business owners have a seat at the table as federal policymakers consider new rules that govern investment and capital.

Rep. Axne also used her role on the Committee to advocate for COVID-19 relief and improved delivery of aid approved by Congress – including assistance for renters, improved delivery of direct payments, and protecting consumers from COVID-19 scams.

Republican Randy Feenstra (IA-04) will give Iowa a second voice on the Agriculture Committee. It was his top choice.

“I promised 4th District Iowans that I would deliver a seat on the House Agriculture Committee, and today, I am thrilled to announce I have been selected to serve on this important committee,” said Rep. Feenstra. “Corn and soybean growers — along with our livestock, egg, dairy, poultry, ethanol, and biodiesel producers — form the backbone of the 4th District’s economy. As the second largest ag producing district in the country, it is vital that our hardworking farmers have a seat at the table on the House Agriculture Committee. […]

According to the USDA, Iowa’s 4th District is the largest crop growing district in the country, number one in hog and pig production, second in overall ag production, and third largest in livestock, poultry and products.

On the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Feenstra will work to provide pricing transparency in our agriculture markets; protect the Renewable Fuel Standard and the biofuels industry; expand broadband access; bolster Iowa’s relationship with our top trading partners, Canada and Mexico; support family farms by keeping taxes low and fighting against burdensome regulations; and encourage innovation in agriculture to help spur economic growth.

Rep. Feenstra grew up working on farms, frequently walking beans and doing chores. His in-laws run a livestock and crop farm in Sioux County, where he helps out along with his wife and four kids – spending many weekends bailing hay, loading hogs, vaccinating cattle, and maintaining seven finishing sites.

Feenstra will also join Hinson on the House Budget Committee; he promised in a statement, “With Sen. Bernie Sanders leading the Senate’s budget committee, I will not hesitate to stand up against socialist government programs that spend money we don’t have and dramatically expand the size of government.”

Finally, Feenstra will serve on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which, he said, has “jurisdiction over energy sources, including renewable energy and alternative fuels.” The highly sought-after Energy and Commerce Committee handles the most important energy-related bills in the House.

Anne Schechinger: President Joe Biden and Congress must reform a wasteful and unfair farm subsidy system. This report first appeared on the Environmental Working Group’s website. -promoted by Laura Belin

Taxpayer-funded farm subsidies have long been skewed in favor of the richest farmers and landowners. But under the Trump administration, even more money went to the largest and wealthiest farms, further shortchanging smaller, struggling family farms.

The Environmental Working Group’s analysis of records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture finds that subsidy payments to farmers ballooned from just over $4 billion in 2017 to more than $20 billion in 2020 – driven largely by ad hoc programs meant to offset the effects of President Trump’s failed trade war.

Not only did the amount of subsidies skyrocket, but the richest farms also increased their share: In 2016, about 17 percent of total subsidies went to the top 1 percent of farms and about 60 percent to the top 10th. In 2019, the richest 1 percent received almost one-fourth of the total, and the top 10th received almost two-thirds. (Note: EWG has yet to receive USDA data needed to compute the distribution of subsidies for all of 2020. Through June, the breakdown was 23.7 percent to the top 1 percent and 64.3 percent to the top 10th.)

The staggering growth of subsidies and the worsening inequity in distribution underscore the urgency for the Biden administration and the new Congress to enact commonsense farm subsidy reforms that will benefit small, struggling farmers and the environment and make up for the mistakes of the Trump years.

Traditional Subsidies Are Dwarfed by Ad Hoc Programs

The 2014 Farm Bill established two traditional commodity farm subsidy programs that send payouts to farmers every year. These programs, the Agricultural Risk Coverage program, or ARC, and the Price Loss Coverage program, or PLC, are triggered if crop yields or prices are lower than expected. Farmers can choose to take part in either ARC or PLC for the entire length of each farm bill, typically five years. Not every farm receives payments from these programs every year, but many do, and the programs send out billions of dollars annually.

But even though these existing programs pay farmers for reductions in crop prices, the Trump administration established additional multi-billion-dollar ad hoc subsidy programs – subsidies for specific, limited and supposedly temporary purposes.

ARC and PLC payments, from their inception in 2014 through 2019, the most recent year of payments, were $32.04 billion. But ad hoc subsidies far exceeded the total payments from those traditional programs in the final two years of the Obama administration and under Trump: a total of $49.08 billion in five years of annual disaster payments, two years of MFP payments and CFAP payments through October of last year.

Altogether, since 2014, ad hoc and traditional subsidy programs cost U.S. taxpayers more than $81.1 billion.

The chart below shows the growth in farm subsidies since 2018, when the MFP began. Since ARC and PLC payments are made in the calendar year after the year the crop was grown, we won’t know the 2020 payments until this fall. So the chart below includes an estimate for 2020 ARC and PLC payments, provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

Farm Subsidy Payments Between Program Years 2014 and 2020

Source: EWG, from data obtained through public records requests to the USDA, and the Congressional Budget Office’s January 2020 Baseline for Farm Programs.

The majority of payments went to just eight states – Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas. Farmers in those states received more than $41 billion, or 51 percent of the total.

An interactive map that can be viewed here shows annual county-by-county subsidy payments since 2014. The 10 counties that received the highest ad hoc payments together received over $1.6 billion.

The massive outlays of taxpayer dollars aren’t the only cost of wasteful farm subsidies.

Nationwide, nitrate contamination of drinking water – from nitrogen in fertilizer and manure running off farm fields – is a serious and growing health hazard. Analysis of USDA records shows how federal payments are subsidizing farms in counties with severe nitrate contamination.

For example, levels of nitrate in drinking water are especially high in the San Joaquin Valley of California, where communities with majority-Latino populations are the most likely to have high nitrate. Six of the 10 U.S. counties with the highest ad hoc subsidy payments are in the San Joaquin Valley – Fresno, Kern, Kings, Merced, Stanislaus and Tulare, which since 2014 received a total of $1.09 billion from disaster payments, MFP and CFAP.

Yet all of the traditional and ad hoc subsidies outlined above are only a part of the total payments American farmers receive every year. Federal crop insurance – a Depression-era ad hoc program written into law in 1980 – adds billions each year, and tends to pay farmers for the same reductions in crop prices as ARC and PLC. Conservation programs also make payments to farmers every year, but conservation payments are considerably smaller than farm subsidies or crop insurance.

The Largest Farms Get the Most Money

The USDA classifies 98 percent of all U.S. farms as “family farms,” but the top 0.3 percent are considered “very large family farms.” These biggest farms have a gross farm income of at least $5 million and in 2019 provided their operators a median household income of just under $1 million.

As USDA data shows, the great majority of both traditional commodity and ad hoc program payments go to the largest and wealthiest farms, which generally have considerable assets to fall back on in lean years. Small farms that struggle when crop prices are low or during the pandemic-triggered economic crisis get only a small portion of payments. It’s no accident: The programs are designed so that farms with the largest acres or crop production get the highest payments.

For example, through the MFP in 2018 and 2019:

The ARC, PLC and CFAP programs had very similar payment concentrations. But compared to other Americans, do farmers need all this money?

In December, the USDA’s Economic Research Service forecast that when all data for 2020 is in, the median income for all farm households is expected to be $86,992. That’s almost 25 percent more than the 2019 median household income for all U.S. households of $69,703.

Just looking at income from farming, the huge ad hoc payments of recent years have made subsidies a large chunk of total farm income.

Between 2019 and 2020, total direct government payments to farms increased by over 107 percent, bringing the share of farm income from government payments to almost 40 percent. As the graphic below shows, that pushed 2020 farm income levels significantly above the 20-year average.

Net Farm Income, 2000-2020

Source: EWG, from USDA Economic Research Service, 2020 Farm Sector Income Forecast

It’s clear that even most “small” farmers are better off than the average American – in 2019, only 3 percent of all farm households had levels of wealth that were lower than the average U.S. household.

Yet during the pandemic and economic crises of last year, when millions of Americans lost their jobs, had to close their small businesses and struggled to put food on the table, taxpayers sent over $20 billion to farmers through CFAP, plus annual disaster payments. (Like other subsidies, CFAP payments went disproportionately to the largest and richest farms, rather for direct aid to hungry Americans.) And that’s before we know the figure for payments through ARC and PLC.

How To Fix the Broken Farm Subsidy System

The Biden administration and the new Congress have many opportunities to fix the traditional commodity farm subsidy programs of ARC and PLC, and to shift funding for the ad hoc programs into conservation programs that benefit farmers, all Americans and the environment. EWG recommends:

Anne Schechinger is senior analyst of economics for the Environmental Working Group.

Top photo of an Iowa cornfield by Natalia Kuzmina, available via Shutterstock.

Governor Kim Reynolds and 21 of her Republican counterparts complained on February 27 that the latest Democratic COVID-19 relief package “punishes” their states.

It’s a strange take on a bill that would provide $350 billion to state and local governments across the country, including more than $2.5 billion to Iowa. In contrast, a smaller coronavirus response proposal from Republican members of Congress would allocate zero new dollars to state and local governments.

Voting mostly along party lines, the U.S. House approved the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act in the early hours of February 27. Democrats in the U.S. Senate are expected to approve most of the package, minus a minimum wage increase that can’t be included in a budget reconciliation bill, according to the Senate parliamentarian.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee explained earlier this month that 60 percent of the $350 billion would go to states and 40 percent to localities. That $195.3 billion for states breaks down as follows: $500 million for every state and the District of Columbia ($25.5 billion total), plus “$169 billion based on the state share of total unemployed workers.”

Another $65.1 billion would go to counties based on population, and $65.1 billion would go to cities “using a modified Community Development Block Grant formula.”

A downloadable spreadsheet on the committee’s website indicated that Iowa’s state government would receive $1.39 billion for the new Coronavirus Relief Fund. Iowa counties would receive another $612 million, metro cities would receive $335 million, and smaller municipalities would receive $216 million.

A $600 million plan that ten Republican senators offered for President Joe Biden’s consideration earlier this month would have given nothing to state and local governments.

Reynolds would have almost unchecked authority to allocate the state’s $1.39 billion share from the American Rescue Plan, since the Republican-controlled Iowa House and Senate declined last year to approve any oversight process for federal COVID-19 relief funding.

Instead of hailing the latest Congressional action, the statement from Reynolds and other GOP governors objected,

“Unlike all previous federal funding packages, the new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a state’s unemployed population rather than its actual population, which punishes states that took a measured approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy state budgets and strong economies.

“A state’s ability to keep businesses open and people employed should not be a penalizing factor when distributing funds. If Congress is going to provide aid to states, it should be on an equitable population basis.”

The governors don’t acknowledge that every state, no matter how small, is on track to receive $500 million in the latest package–a formula that benefits lower-population states.

Furthermore, while the governors claim their “measured approach to the pandemic” helped “keep businesses open and people employed,” the reality is more complicated.

Republicans like to attribute Iowa’s budget condition and relatively low unemployment rates to the lax COVID-19 mitigation policies Reynolds prefers. However, the Council of State Governments found last year that Iowa fared better than most states in terms of budget shortfalls in large part because of the structure of our economy. States heavily dependent on natural resources or tourism saw “catastrophic” revenue declines. In contrast, Iowa and Delaware benefited from “industry-specific mitigation factors, […] with relatively high concentration of state GDP in the finance and insurance sector and a low concentration in the leisure and hospitality sector.”

The GOP governors’ news release did not clarify whether the governors would prefer the American Rescue Plan as currently drafted or the Republican senators’ plan, which excludes another round of local and state government aid. Asked whether Reynolds is encouraging Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst to vote against the COVID-19 relief bill, the governor’s spokesperson did not respond to Bleeding Heartland’s inquiry.

UPDATE: Republicans on the House Budget Committee released this chart indicating that if the $350 billion were distributed solely on a population basis, Iowa’s state and local governments would receive an additional $734 billion.

That’s a significant number, but remember: if Congressional Republicans had their way, states would be getting no new money to support government operations.

Several commenters pointed out that when it comes to Iowa school funding, Reynolds and GOP state lawmakers rejected an equal population approach, preferring to reward some school districts and punish others based on how they approached the pandemic.

Full text of February 27 joint news release from 22 governors including Iowa’s Kim Reynolds:

22 Governors Oppose Biased Fund Allocation in Stimulus Package

DES MOINES – Twenty-two governors have released a joint statement opposing the new standard in President Joe Biden’s stimulus bill for how federal funds would be allocated to states:

“Unlike all previous federal funding packages, the new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a state’s unemployed population rather than its actual population, which punishes states that took a measured approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy state budgets and strong economies.

“A state’s ability to keep businesses open and people employed should not be a penalizing factor when distributing funds. If Congress is going to provide aid to states, it should be on an equitable population basis.”

Governors who joined the statement include Kay Ivey (R-AL), Mike Dunleavy (R-AK), Doug Ducey (R-AZ), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Brian Kemp (R-GA), Brad Little (R-ID), Eric Holcomb (R-IN), Kim Reynolds (R-IA), Laura Kelly (D-KS), Tate Reeves (R-MS), Mike Parson (R-MO), Greg Gianforte (R-MT), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Chris Sununu (R-NH), Doug Burgum (R-ND), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Kevin Stitt (R-OK), Henry McMaster (R-SC), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Bill Lee (R-TN), Spencer Cox (R-UT) and Mark Gordon (R-WY).

The 33 states expected to lose funding under this proposal, which was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives this morning, include the following:

* Alabama
* Alaska
* Arkansas
* Delaware
* Florida
* Georgia
* Idaho
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Kentucky
* Maine
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nebraska
* New Hampshire
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Ohio
* Oklahoma
* Oregon
* South Carolina
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Utah
* Vermont
* Virginia
* Washington
* West Virginia
* Wisconsin
* Wyoming

One-page fact sheet explaining the allocation of COVID-19 relief funds to state and local governments.

Top image: Screenshot from Governor Kim Reynolds’ February 25 news conference.

The U.S. House voted 244 to 172 on March 17 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with some new provisions. All Democrats present, including Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03), were joined by 29 Republicans, including Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), to send the bill to the U.S. Senate. Republican Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01) and Randy Feenstra (IA-04) opposed the legislation.

Congress enacted VAWA as part of the 1994 crime bill and has expanded its scope on several occasions. The version approved in 2013 lapsed in 2019, and while some funding for its programs has continued, the current bill would go further. Li Zhou reported for Vox,

In the latest reauthorization, lawmakers aim to strengthen protections for women facing sexual violence by ensuring that non-tribal offenders on tribal lands can be held accountable, and by closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which would bar anyone convicted of stalking from obtaining a firearm. Additionally, the bill includes funds for housing vouchers, so survivors in federally-assisted housing are able to relocate quickly if they need to. It guarantees, too, that people will be able to obtain unemployment insurance if they have to leave a job because of concerns for their safety.

The bill also includes more funding for rape prevention and education as well as funding to “specifically tailor programs to the needs of communities of color, including improving language access.”

The House approved a similar reauthorization bill in 2019 with support from all Democrats and 33 Republicans. But it stalled in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Iowa’s Senator Joni Ernst was charged with leading the VAWA effort in the last Congress, but she failed to hammer out a deal.

Colby Itkowitz and Marianna Sotomayor reported for the Washington Post on March 17,

Republican opposition to the bill revolves in part around closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” which adds dating partners and stalkers to the provision banning spouses of convicted domestic violence or abuse from owning firearms.

The National Rifle Association is opposed to the extending the ban, and Republicans have opposed the broader VAWA legislation over it, arguing that it is a ploy by Democrats to erode Second Amendment rights.

Speaking to reporters on March 16, Ernst indicated that the GOP caucus is still unwilling to cross the NRA on this bill: “Certainly we ran into hiccups with some of the gun issues, and that’s a big one for a number of us, stripping away people’s constitutional rights is not something that we should be doing.”

In a written statement enclosed in full below, Axne noted that Iowa’s “volunteers, shelters, and support networks have been working with domestic violence and sexual assault survivors without the full funding and support they deserve from Congress for over two years – and this past year of public health and economic challenges have removed even more safety nets while increasing the need for support.”

Miller-Meeks did not release a statement about the VAWA or mention this vote on her social media feeds. Similarly, Feenstra didn’t publicly comment on his opposition to the reauthorization.

Hinson’s news release (also enclosed below) touted her support for a Republican alternative bill, which she described as a “clean” reauthorization without “partisan additions.” While Hinson criticized Democrats for advancing what she called “a partisan version” of VAWA, she didn’t address the elephant in the room: in this polarized environment, 29 GOP votes for a Democratic proposal is by definition a successful bipartisan effort.

Earlier on March 17, Iowa’s U.S. House members split along party lines as every Democrat present and four Republicans voted to remove the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees equal protection for women. Iowa was among the first group of states to ratify that amendment in 1972, with broad support in both parties. Congress originally required the amendment to be ratified in three-fourths of states 1979, then pushed the date to 1982. In recent years, three more states have ratified the ERA, leading to the current push to extend the deadline again.

Feenstra and Miller-Meeks did not explain their votes against the ERA. Republicans who spoke during the floor debate asserted the bill was itself unconstitutional and objected that it could be construed to guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion. Hinson’s statement echoed those points, claiming the bill would “expand taxpayer-funded abortion access nationwide.”

Iowa’s delegation has agreed on several recent House actions. On the evening of March 17, all four Iowans were part of the 384 to 38 majority that approved funding for various assistance programs for survivors of violent crimes. Statements from Feenstra, Axne, and Hinson explained that legislation in more detail.

Earlier the same day, the House approved “a resolution to award three Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police, the D.C. police and the Smithsonian Institution,” recognizing their actions during the January 6 coup attempt. I was relieved to find no Iowa names among the twelve Republicans who opposed that resolution.

On March 16, Iowa’s House members were part of the 415 to 3 majority that approved an extension of the Paycheck Protection Program. Over the past year, PPP loans have helped many small businesses and nonprofits keep employees on the payroll despite disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

March 17 statement from Representative Cindy Axne on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act:

Axne, Bipartisan House Vote to Revive Violence Against Women Act

House passed legislation today to increase protections, support for survivors of abuse

WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) joined a bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives to revive the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), legislation to increase support and protections for programs for victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, as well as stalking and human trafficking. 

“Our volunteers, shelters, and support networks have been working with domestic violence and sexual assault survivors without the full funding and support they deserve from Congress for over two years – and this past year of public health and economic challenges have removed even more safety nets while increasing the need for support,” said Rep. Axne. “Iowa’s communities have stepped up to fill that need even as they are struggling financially, but they shouldn’t be left without the help Congress has provided for over 20 years. When I worked at the State of Iowa, I worked with the Crime Victims Assistance Unit at the Attorney General’s office and saw firsthand what happens when Iowa’s local and state agencies don’t have the resources they need. I’ve supported this legislation since my first day in office, and I’m committed to seeing it reauthorized as soon as possible.”

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 also includes reauthorization and increased funding for critical Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) grants, a $60 million investment that Rep. Axne successfully advocated to increase in 2019.

The STOP Formula Grant Program is awarded to states to enhance the capacity of local communities to strengthen strategies to combat violent crimes against women and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women.

“I know that our domestic violence support networks need increased support. These grants not only help local law enforcement agencies stop these despicable crimes, but they also ensure we’re protecting and supporting survivors,” said Rep. Axne. “The increases for the STOP grant program that I pushed for are included in this bill to provide the proper tools and resources needed to better address, combat and prosecute violence against women.”

Background:

The landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 codified Congress’s commitment to advancing effective strategies for preventing and responding to domestic and sexual violence, holding offenders accountable, and ensuring safety, autonomy, and justice for victims. 

VAWA guaranteed legal protections for women who have experienced domestic and sexual violence. It was initially passed in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000, 2005 and 2013. The bill expired at the end of 2018 and was briefly renewed by a resolution reopening the government, but expired again in February 2019.

In April 2019, Rep. Axne and a bipartisan House voted to reauthorize VAWA programs – but the measure was not passed in the Senate.

Support:

VAWA reauthorization has the support of more than 200 advocacy organizations, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, Legal Momentum, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Organization for Women, MomsRising, Feminist Majority,  YWCA USA, AAUW, Business and Professional Women’s Foundation, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women’s Law Center, National Association of Hispanic Organizations, AFL-CIO, UAW, NAACP, Human Rights Campaign, National Council of Churches, and National Congress of American Indians. 

Statement from Axne on the Equal Rights Amendment:

Rep. Axne Reaffirms Support for Women’s Equality with Vote to Enable Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment

House voted today to remove time limit on states’ ratification of constitutional amendment preventing sex-based discrimination

WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) backed legislation aimed at ensuring constitutional equal rights for women by removing the time limit for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

“I am proud to join my colleagues to affirm that women have been intentionally left out of the Constitution for far too long,” said Rep. Axne. “Suffragette Alice Paul first introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in 1923, and women are still waiting nearly 100 years later for equal protection under the law. Today, women are still paid less for our work, often overlooked for promotions, are less likely receive business loans and to own our own businesses. If the discrimination we’re still fighting hasn’t expired, then neither should our efforts to see the ERA added to the Constitution.”

Under Article V of the Constitution, an amendment to the Constitution needs to be proposed by two-thirds of the Congress and ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states.

In 1972, Congress advanced the ERA and set a seven-year time limit for the needed two-thirds (38) states to ratify the amendment. The time limit was extended by Congress to 1982, but elapsed with only 35 states having ratified the amendment.

In 2020, Virginia became the 38^th and final state needed to ratify the ERA – following Nevada in 2017 and Illinois in 2018 – which would create additional legal avenues for people who face discrimination under the law on the basis of sex, and allow the Supreme Court to apply the highest of standards when reviewing sex discrimination cases. It would also give Congress the power to enforce that equality of rights under the law are not abridged by the United States or any state on the account of sex.

Congress has the authority to strike the time limit, just as it had the authority to extend the limit in 1979. Article V of the U.S. Constitution does not include time limits for the ratification process.

The State of Iowa ratified the ERA on March 24, 1972.

Statement from Axne on the Victims of Crime Act fix:

House Passes Axne-Backed Bill to Bolster Resources for Crime Victims

Axne previously urged congressional leaders to ensure strong funding for grant programs under the Victims of Crime Act

WASHINGTON – Today, the House advanced bipartisan legislation, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021, originally cosponsored by Rep. Cindy Axne (IA-03) to make critical improvements to victim services programs that receive grant funding through Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). These programs offer direct compensation and services to those who have been impacted by crimes like domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and more.

VOCA grants come from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), which uses no taxpayer dollars and is instead funded by federal criminal monetary penalties. However, CVF deposits have dropped recently as a result of changes in policies at the Department of Justice, threatening cuts to grants that fund victim service and compensation programs, including help paying lost wages, medical bills, and funeral and burial expenses.

“Victim assistance and compensation programs offer critical resources – including financial resources – for Iowans who have been the victim of serious crimes. The need for these services has outpaced recent funding, and cutting these critical supports during a global pandemic would only hurt our communities,” said Rep. Axne. “I am proud to have supported this straightforward fix that will prevent disastrous cuts to VOCA, shore up the CVF, and offer much-needed flexibility for states and victim service providers looking to help those in need.”

Specifically, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021 would:

Require DOJ to deposit all monetary penalties, including those from deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements, into the CVF.  

Strengthen state victim compensation funds by increasing the grant calculation for victim compensation programs from 60% to 75% of state-funded payouts.

Require state VOCA administrators to waive the 20% match requirement for victim service subgrantees until one year after the end of the pandemic. State VOCA administrators would also be permitted to create a procedure to waive these requirements at their discretion after the initial waiver period expires.

Allow states to request a no-cost extension from the Attorney General to ensure they can effectively use victim service grants without fear of penalty.

Provide flexibility for state compensation programs to waive the requirement to promote victim cooperation with law enforcement for good cause.

Last December, Rep. Axne urged congressional leadership to ensure VOCA programs did not face funding cuts by expanding deposits to the CVF and ensuring those deposits would be made available to victim service providers. 

March 17 statement from Representative Ashley Hinson on the Violence Against Women Act:

Hinson Supports Clean VAWA Reauthorization, Rejects Partisan Additions

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Hinson released the following statement supporting the clean extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which Democrats rejected today. 

“I voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Extension Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This bill would extend the current, bipartisan version of the Violence Against Women Act that provides critical services to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence.  Unfortunately, Democrats rejected this effort and instead advanced a partisan version of the legislation. Supporting victims of violent crimes shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and I hope to work in a bipartisan manner going forward to provide resources to women and children who have endured domestic or sexual abuse.” 

Hinson statement on the Equal Rights Amendment:

Hinson Statement on Moving the ERA Deadline

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Hinson released the following statement on legislation that would remove the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

“I am disappointed that I didn’t have the opportunity to consider a modern, updated version of the Equal Rights Amendment. The premise behind today’s resolution was Constitutionally unsound and would actually undermine women’s rights and the progress we have made since the 1970s. This legislation would also expand taxpayer-funded abortion access nationwide. I will continue to fight for all women and girls – including those not yet born.”

Hinson statement on Crime Victims Fund Act:

Hinson Co-Sponsored Bill to Provide Resources to Victims of Violent Crimes in Iowa Passes House

Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA) released the following statement applauding House passage of the the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021.  

“I am proud to support legislation that will keep the crime victims fund afloat. The Crime Victims Fund provides essential services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and other horrific crimes. Unfortunately, the Crime Victims Fund in Iowa is projected to hit a decade low by the end of this year. This bill will ensure that those who have suffered from unthinkable crimes have the resources they need to recover physically and emotionally.”

Statement from Representative Randy Feenstra on the crime victims funding bill:

Bill to Shore Up the Crime Victims Fund Passes House

Feenstra is an original cosponsor of the bipartisan, bicameral VOCA Fix Act of 2021

WASHINGTON — Today, H.R. 1652, the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021, passed the House with broad bipartisan support. Rep. Randy Feenstra (IA-04) was an original cosponsor of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, which aims to improve the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) by making updates to the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) that provides crime victims with much-needed assistance and compensation.

“I am pleased this commonsense legislation received bipartisan support from my colleagues,” said Rep. Feenstra. “It is unacceptable that deposits into the Crime Victims Fund have been declining, and addressing this has become even more pressing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. By preventing future cuts to the CVF, survivors of domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes will have a reliable, sustainable resource for getting the assistance they need and deserve.”

The CVF is funded through federal criminal penalties, but deposits have dropped over the past several years. This is in part due to penalties being deposited into the general fund of the Treasury, and then they are not properly routed and deposited into the CVF. This decrease in funds has resulted in cuts to victim service providers. Among other things, this bill would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to deposit all deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreement monetary penalties into the CVF.

In 2020, all 56 State and Territorial Attorneys General sent a letter to Congress in support of implementing these updates. The VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021 is supported by more than 1,670 national, regional, state, territorial, and local organizations, including: the National Children’s Alliance, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Victim Assistance Administrators.

Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst rarely land on opposite sides of any issue, but it happened on an important U.S. Senate floor vote on August 7. Iowa’s senior senator was among eighteen Republicans who joined Democrats on a procedural vote to advance a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Ernst was among the 27 Republicans who voted against the motion, which needed 60 votes to pass.

Grassley has not been among the 20 senators negotiating the bipartisan bill. He has spoken favorably of federal spending on projects like roads, bridges, airports, and broadband, but said this week “the big hold-up for me” on the infrastructure proposal is whether the “pay-for” provisions to cover the costs are real or just “gimmicks.”

A vote for the final version of this bill would be another data point suggesting Grassley intends to seek re-election in 2022.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said the Senate will not adjourn for its traditional August recess until after the bipartisan bill has passed. The legislation would spend about $1 trillion, with a focus on “physical infrastructure.” Democrats plan to pass a larger spending bill including “human infrastructure” provisions such as child care, education, and higher wages for home health care workers.

The full text of the bipartisan bill is here. Emily Cochrane, Christopher Flavelle and Alan Rappeport reported for the New York Times on some of President Joe Biden’s priorities that were dropped from the compromise. Laura Michelle Davis and Clifford Colby reported for cnet.com on some of the big ticket items remaining in the bipartisan bill:

• $39 billion for mass transit
• $66 billion for passenger and freight rail
• $25 billion for airports
• $17 billion for ports and waterways
• $110 billion for roads and bridges
• $12.5 billion for electric vehicles
• $55 billion for water infrastructure
• $73 billion for power grid improvements
• $65 billion for broadband

I haven’t seen any public statement from Grassley or Ernst on Saturday’s votes but will update this post as needed.

UPDATE: Jamie Dupree reported in his must-read newsletter on Congressional happenings,

LEGISLATIVE NERD NOTE. When Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) vowed on Saturday to object to any deal leading to a quick Senate vote on infrastructure, he also unwittingly undercut fellow GOP Senators who wanted to bring up a series of amendments. Yes, this is procedurally geeky, but stick with me.

SUBSTITUTE. Right after the Senate voted to shut off debate on Saturday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) offered an amendment setting out the effective date of the bill. Because of the procedural situation involving the amendment tree – Carper’s amendment will elbow out about 20 GOP amendments to the bill.

NO DEAL. In other words, if there is no agreement to speed up the final vote on infrastructure, don’t look for votes on any possible Republican changes to the bill. They can thank Hagerty for submarining his own colleagues.

Grassley expects to vote on Republican amendments to the package.

LATER UPDATE: Grassley and Ernst both voted against a cloture motion on the bipartisan infrastructure bill August 8. The Senate approved that motion by 68 votes to 29 (roll call). Burgess Everett and Marianne Levine reported for Politico,

Hagerty on Sunday afternoon attempted to bring up 17 amendments by unanimous consent, but Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) objected, citing his refusal to come to a time agreement and potential objections from other senators. […]

“We have wasted all day Thursday, Saturday and now through Sunday,” said an exasperated Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “That’s enough time to vote on a multitude of amendments, and we just sat around those three days, accomplishing nothing.”

Grassley voted against ending debate Sunday, citing his complaints about the amendment process. However, he told reporters after that he’d still support final passage. The infrastructure bill could theoretically be amended after Sunday’s vote. But that would require cooperation from all 100 senators, making the prospects unlikely.

The post Grassley votes to advance bipartisan infrastructure bill (updated) appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Can you guess which Iowa senator is up for re-election in 2022, and which one won’t face Iowa voters for another five years?

In a rare gesture of bipartisanship on August 10, the U.S. Senate approved by 69 votes to 30 a bill that would spend $1.2 trillion on infrastructure projects. Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley was among nineteen Republicans who supported final passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, despite being unhappy with the amendment process. Senator Joni Ernst stuck with the majority of the GOP caucus in opposition; the no votes included potential 2024 presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

In a written statement enclosed in full below, Grassley said, “Iowa’s aging infrastructure risks slowing economic growth and eroding daily comfort and convenience. This bipartisan bill fixes potholes, rebuilds bridges, upgrades water systems and brings broadband to rural corners of our state. Investing in Iowa’s infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come.” His news release highlighted reports showing Iowa has more structurally deficient bridges than any other state and many large roads in poor or fair condition.

The bill involves about $550 billion in spending not previously approved by Congress. Its large pieces include:

• $39 billion for mass transit
• $66 billion for passenger and freight rail
• $25 billion for airports
• $17 billion for ports and waterways
• $110 billion for roads and bridges
• $12.5 billion for electric vehicles (including a nationwide network of charging stations)
• $55 billion for water infrastructure
• $73 billion for power grid improvements
• $65 billion for broadband

Ernst did not publish a statement on her website explaining her opposition to those projects, nor did she mention the infrastructure vote on her social media feeds. Instead, she bashed the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation that Senate Democrats brought to the floor immediately after passing the infrastructure bill.

Ernst’s staff provided comments to some media (not Bleeding Heartland). Stephen Gruber-Miller reported for the Des Moines Register,

Ernst, in a statement, pointed to the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill would add $255 billion to the national deficit over a decade.

“Congress and the American people were promised an infrastructure bill that was fully paid for, but that’s clearly not the case,” Ernst said in her statement.

Ernst said she offered amendments to the infrastructure bill to help pay for the proposal, but they were voted down.

“While I certainly support improving America’s hard infrastructure — like our roads and bridges — I simply can’t support saddling more debt onto the shoulders of future generations of Iowans and opening the door for Bernie Sanders to ram through his multi-trillion dollar liberal tax-and-spending spree,” she said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the lower chamber won’t take up the bipartisan bill until Senate Democrats have approved the larger spending bill, which will fund many “human infrastructure” programs relating to education, health care, and child care.

I anticipate that as federal funding finds its way to Iowa improvements in broadband or physical infrastructure, Ernst will want a bit of the reflected glory. If you hear the senator take credit for projects funded by the bill she voted against, please contact Laura Belin with details on her comments.

Final note: Transportation for America, a nonprofit advocating for infrastructure policies that prioritize maintenance and safety over new road construction, described the Senate-approved bill as a “historic investment in yesterday’s transportation priorities.”

There are certainly welcome new additions, including a major recalibration of the nation’s approach to investing in and running passenger rail and a small program to tear down divisive old highways. But with this deal, the Senate is largely doubling down on a dinosaur of a federal transportation program that’s produced a massive repair backlog we are no closer to addressing, roads that are killing a historic number of vulnerable travelers each year, little opportunity to reach work or essential services if a family doesn’t have multiple cars, and the continued inability for local governments to have a say over what projects are built in their communities.

The group said House members can improve on the bill by adopting language “requiring states to make progress on repairing their infrastructure before building expensive new things (in fact, this provision was applied to transit only), requiring measurable improvements in the number of people killed on our roads, measuring greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation system, and providing more money for removing or bridging over highways that were rammed through Black and Brown neighborhoods.”

Full text of August 10 news release from Senator Chuck Grassley’s office:

Grassley Votes To Invest In Iowa’s Future

Bipartisan infrastructure bill paves way for better roads, bridges, internet access and economic opportunity for Hawkeye State

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today voted for the Senate’s bipartisan infrastructure package that will make significant investment in Iowa’s roads, bridges, waterways, energy and internet infrastructure. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act combines a routine highway bill with various other bipartisan infrastructure proposals and new programs to empower innovation in rural America and move people and products safely and smoothly throughout the country. 

“Iowans have raised infrastructure concerns at nearly all of the 85 county meetings I’ve held so far this year, whether it be about roads and bridges, access to broadband or the locks and dams on the Mississippi River. Iowans rely on sound infrastructure to move our ag products and manufactured goods, as well as to connect with family, business partners and critical service providers. But like much of the country, Iowa’s aging infrastructure risks slowing economic growth and eroding daily comfort and convenience. This bipartisan bill fixes potholes, rebuilds bridges, upgrades water systems and brings broadband to rural corners of our state. Investing in Iowa’s infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come.  

“Like any compromise, this bill isn’t perfect and nobody got everything they wanted or likes everything in the bill, but this bipartisan package is a vast improvement over the House-passed infrastructure bill and a far cry from President Biden’s and Congressional Democrats’ partisan schemes to hike taxes and spend trillions on liberal pipedreams masqueraded as ‘human infrastructure.’ Our bipartisan package bundles several bills that have already won bipartisan action in the Senate, all without raising taxes on Iowa families. It’s proof that the Senate is fully capable of delivering on bipartisan policy when given the chance. It’s a shame my Democrat colleagues are still intent on following this bipartisan exercise with a partisan multi-trillion dollar reckless tax and spending spree, which I will oppose,” Grassley said. 

DELIVERING FOR IOWA

Investment in traditional infrastructure not only improves our quality of life, but it also boosts economic growth over the long term. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act repairs and upgrades Iowa’s critical infrastructure, paving the way for greater economic activity for years to come. Here are a few example of the bill’s impacts on Iowa.

Roads

Roughly 29 percent of Iowa’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, resulting in an estimated cost of $336 per year for each motorist, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. This bill invests $4.2 billion in repairing Iowa’s roads, with the opportunity to compete for additional resources. The bill also includes a new grant program for rural transportation projects. 

Bridges

Iowa leads the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges. Fixing these bridges means safer roadways for Iowans. This bill guarantees Iowa $431 million for bridge repair, with more competitive grant funding available. 

Waterways

Iowa farmers, manufacturers, shippers and businesses rely heavily on our waterways to do business and move their goods. This legislation contains key Grassley provisions and priorities such as addressing the backlog for Operations and Maintenance and Investigation Accounts through the Army Corps of Engineers, allowing states to use federal highway funding for lock and dam modernization, helping complete studies from flooding, funding soil moisture and snowpack monitoring activities in the Upper Missouri River Basin to inform the lower basin of drought and flood conditions and funding Mississippi River and tributaries projects. 

Airports

Iowa’s commercial and general aviation airports increase the productivity for private sector businesses and the agriculture industry. They also provide Iowans much needed connections across the nation and world. Under this bill, Iowa’s airports will benefit from increased funding for the Airport Improvement Program for runways, gates, and taxiways. The bill also creates a new Airport Terminal Improvement Program and improves the air traffic control infrastructure.

Broadband

Thousands of Iowa households don’t have access to high-speed internet, which has proved indispensable for continuing education, conducting business and delivering health services during the pandemic. This bill provides $65 billion to increase access to broadband services, with a particular focus on unserved and underserved communities, including rural Iowa.

Clean water

The bill authorizes $227 million over the next five years for Iowa through the existing Clean Water State Revolving Fund program and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which have been around for decades. These funds will help Iowa’s years-long efforts to further improve water quality. 

Natural Disaster Mitigation

Iowans know firsthand how devastating natural disasters, such as flooding and tornadoes, are to our communities. This bill provides funds to state and local communities to carry out mitigation projects that reduce the risk of natural disasters. 

A BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act represents a highlight reel of the Senate’s bipartisan work. It includes several bills that have already won bipartisan action in the Senate, including a must-pass highway bill to extend programs set to expire this fall.

Here are some examples:

• Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act – Passed Senate 89-2
• Cyber Response and Recovery Fund – Passed Senate as part of bipartisan Endless Frontiers Act
• Energy Infrastructure Act – Passed Energy & Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support
• Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act – Passed Environment & Public Works Committee with bipartisan support
• Commerce Surface Transportation Investment Act – Passed Commerce Committee with bipartisan support
• RECYCLE Act – Bipartisan cosponsors
• Broadband Financing Flexibility Act – Bipartisan cosponsors
• Carbon Capture Improvement Act – Bipartisan cosponsors

• BUILD Act – Bipartisan cosponsors

The post Grassley touts infrastructure vote; Ernst quiet on opposition appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Sister Jeanie and Sister Elaine Hagedorn, who co-authored this post, are Catholic sisters with the Congregation of the Humility of Mary. They live in Des Moines and are longtime advocates for Catholic social justice with groups like NETWORK.

No matter where we come from or what we look like, Iowans believe that working families deserve a fair shot. All work has value, and all working people have rights, from farmworkers in vibrant rural towns to factory workers in our bustling cities. But for too long, a greedy few corporations and CEOs have rigged the game in Iowa and across the world, taking from working people to make sure that a powerful few can get rich off the profit that working Iowans, particularly Black and Brown working Iowans, produce.

For years, wages in Iowa have stagnated for everyone, and the racial wealth gap has exacerbated inequalities embedded in our economic system. In particular, Black, Brown, and Indigenous workers have been pushed to the economic margins by systemic inequality in our tax code. Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues to put all Iowa families at risk as storms like the 2020 derecho devastate working neighborhoods.

As Catholic nuns with decades of ministry experience in Iowa, we have worked closely with those most impacted by Iowa’s inequities. Union workers, immigrant communities, hungry children, and houseless families have turned to social services, religious communities, and mutual aid efforts because of our state and federal government’s misplaced priorities.

For too long, our governments have spent money on tax breaks for corporations and bloated military and police budgets. These reckless spending priorities promote two great social sins: inequality and violence.

Pope Francis has long spoken out about the need for governments to address the evils of inequality and violence as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. In place of these injustices, he has called for solidarity with workers and nonviolence to be at the center of all public policy. He has called on all people to build solutions “based on decent and dignified working conditions” so we can build an economy that puts people before corporate profits and the global weapons trade. Imagine what an Iowa that puts workers first could look like: thriving communities and strong neighborhoods where we work together for a better future.

A re-alignment of our nation’s policies with our moral priorities is long overdue, and this week, Iowa’s U.S. House representatives have an unprecedented opportunity to act. The Build Back Better Act being considered by Congress is a once-in-a-generation recovery package that can be passed through the budget reconciliation process, and Iowans need U.S. Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03) to support the full package, with all of its investments in climate, care, and community.

The Build Back Better Act would make health insurance, child care, housing, and college more affordable, and would ensure that all of Iowa’s workers have paid family and medical leave. It would expand affordable home- and community-based care for Iowa’s seniors, and it would offer tax credits for Iowa parents and workers to put food on the table. Preschool would be available to all 3- and 4-year-olds, and we would see unprecedented investments in renewable energy, offering a livable future to Iowa’s children.

This much-needed plan would be paid for by raising taxes on corporations and those earning more than $400,000 a year, and it would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. This plan would be fully paid for by creating a tax code that lets us care for one another. In Iowa, we believe in rewarding work, not wealth, and we need our Congressional Representatives to reflect Iowa values.

Congress has never shied away from reckless spending to prop up forever wars and tax giveaways for the top 1 percent, but this package is paid for by ensuring that corporations and billionaires can’t continue to cheat on their taxes. The mega-wealthy who earn their income from stocks currently pay a lower tax rate than Iowa’s teachers and nurses. That can change, and it must.

So, in this busy Congressional week, we offer a prayerful challenge to our fellow Catholic Cindy Axne and all members of Congress: put people and the planet ahead of big corporate profits. Invest in solutions that serve people of color, families, and the working poor in Iowa. Pass the Build Back Better Act without delay.

Axne has already publicly endorsed the Build Back Better Act’s drug cost reforms. Now Iowans need her to hold the line, voting against the bipartisan infrastructure bill until the House passes the bold investments we deserve. If you agree, you can call Axne at 888-738-3058 and urge her to vote for a bold Build Back Better plan.

The post Catholic nuns to Cindy Axne: Tax the rich appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

Kay Pence highlights Senator Grassley’s double standards on the federal deficit, depending on which party controls the presidency.

I was 4 years old when Senator Grassley first entered elected office. I grew up, got married, raised a family, went to college, had a career and now I’m retired. Who knows, I may have even voted for Senator Grassley at one time. A lot has changed in the last 62 years though: namely, Chuck Grassley. 

Normally I would support a healthy senior continuing to work as long as they want. However, I’ve always believed we send Representatives to Congress to represent our interests. The Alliance for Retired Americans has been tracking Representatives’ voting records since it was formed in 2001 and Senator Grassley has only voted correctly on senior issues 11 percent of the time.

When running for re-election or when we have a Democratic president, Senator Grassley claims to bring Midwestern common sense to the people’s business. Last month he said, “Working families and retirees can’t spend willy-nilly without keeping close eye on their bank accounts. Small businesses and farming operations would go bankrupt if they didn’t make sure their expenses squared up with income. In other words, Iowans live within their means.” 

However, it’s hard to cite examples of Congress living within their means in the 62 years Grassley has been in elected office. When Republicans control the government, he has no concerns about pulling out the taxpayers’ credit card.  

Since Grassley was first elected, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times: 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents. When Donald Trump was president, the national debt grew at the fastest rate of any modern president to $27.75 trillion, up 39 percent from $19.95 trillion four years earlier. Grassley enthusiastically supported the largest driver of Trump’s deficit, his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and didn’t pay for a penny of them with spending cuts.  

The deficit games Grassley and his Republican colleagues are now playing cause many Americans to lose faith that Congress works for us. Grassley doesn’t like the Build Back Better bill because people and corporations that make more than $400,000 a year will have to start to pay their fair share.

The Build Back Better plan closes the carried-interest tax loophole, which allows private equity moguls to classify their income as capital gains and pay only a lower tax rate on those earnings, rather than the normal top income rate of 37 percent. This is the tax loophole billionaire Warren Buffet highlighted when he admitted it allows him to pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. Working people are tired of paying higher effective tax rates than billionaires. Why isn’t Grassley on the same page?

Americans are also tired of paying the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. Consumers in other high income countries pay a fraction of what Americans pay because they negotiate prices. Grassley was the chief architect of banning Medicare from negotiating fair drug prices which leaves seniors at the mercy of drug companies’ unquenchable greed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that seniors, taxpayers, and employers would save over $450 billion if we allowed the largest purchaser of drugs in the world to negotiate prices just like other high income countries do. 

Those savings could be used to strengthen Medicare to include dental, hearing and vision coverage. Grassley continues to block negotiations in the name of competition but it seems that the only competition is between who can fleece consumers the most. 

Supply chain disruptions caused by increasing weather events; fires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. are also increasing our costs. The longer we wait to address climate change, the more it is going to cost. It looks like Big Pharma, billionaires and fossil fuel industry lobbyists may sway enough corporate Democrats to kill Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. But if we had a senator willing to come to the table and represent Iowans we could have a fairer tax code, lower drug prices, and we could finally start addressing climate change. 

Seniors can’t afford another six years of obstruction by Chuck Grassley.

Kay Pence is a retired Communions Workers of America union representative and Vice President of the Iowa Alliance for Retired Americans. Pence started her career as a technician for Northwestern Bell Telephone company in 1972 and while working full time earned a BA from Marycrest University and a MBA from Saint Ambrose University in Davenport. Pence is the mother of three sons and grandmother to six and resides in rural Eldridge, Iowa with her husband of 46 years.

The post Seniors can’t afford another six years of Chuck Grassley appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The state of Iowa will receive approximately $5 billion from the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill headed to President Joe Biden’s desk, according to calculations published by U.S. Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03). Axne, the lone Democrat in Iowa’s Congressional delegation, was among the 215 Democrats and thirteen Republicans who approved the bill late in the evening on November 5. (Procedural matters earlier in the day led to the two longest votes in U.S. House history.)

Iowa’s three Republicans in the chamber—Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), and Randy Feenstra (IA-04)—opposed the infrastructure legislation.

When the Senate approved the same bill in August, Iowa’s Republicans landed on opposite sides, with Senator Chuck Grassley supporting the infrastructure package and Senator Joni Ernst voting against it.

HOW FUNDS WILL BE SPENT IN IOWA

The bill involves about $550 billion in spending not previously approved by Congress. Axne’s news release estimated Iowa’s share of several large pieces. Our state stands to receive:

• $3.4 billion in highway funds and $432 million for bridge replacement and repairs (out of a total $110 billion for roads and bridges)
• $638 million for water infrastructure (out of $55 billion nationally)
• $305 million for public transportation (the bill’s $39 billion for mass transit is the largest ever federal investment in this area)
• $120 million for airports (out of $25 billion)
• at least $100 million for broadband internet (out of $65 billion)

The bill also includes $12.5 billion for electric vehicles (including a nationwide network of charging stations), $17 billion for ports and waterways, $73 billion for power grid improvements and clean energy, and $66 billion for passenger and freight rail.

AXNE’S COMMITTED TO HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL

In a written statement hailing passage of the bill, Axne made clear she’s not satisfied with this spending alone.

“With this bill, we’re securing the investments we need to expand internet access, reduce supply chain disruptions, and keep our communities safe – all without raising taxes on middle class Iowans,” said Rep. Axne. “This bipartisan infrastructure package, which I look forward to seeing signed into law very soon, will support thousands of Iowa jobs and fund vital investments that I’ve fought to see included in our agenda this year — like the largest investment in rural broadband connectivity in history. This bill will also provide an important extension of programs and new investments that will bring more than $5 billion to Iowa for modernization of our roads, bridges, airports, and public transportation systems. And, as we have promised from the first days of this new Administration, these investments are made without raising taxes on middle class families or passing large amounts of debt on to our children’s generation.”

“To be clear: while this bill moves to the President’s desk to become law, I believe that our work is not over,” Rep. Axne added. “I came to Congress to find solutions on a range of issues that are facing our middle class families – and investments in priorities like child care, biofuels, affordable prescription drugs, housing, education, and sustainable agriculture are still on my to-do list. That’s why I will continue to push my colleagues to continue moving forward on the Build Back Better Act and get this complementary bill signed into law.”

Axne noted that the bipartisan bill “is projected by Moody’s Analytics to create more than 770,000 jobs by 2025,” and if combined with the second bill “will create more than 2.4 million jobs in the same amount of time.”

I supported the House Progressive Caucus withholding support on the bipartisan infrastructure bill over the past two months, waiting for an ironclad agreement on the Build Back Better Act. I’m concerned that by passing the first bill now, progressives have set the stage for conservative Democrats in the House and Senate to tank the larger spending bill, which will be passed through the budget reconciliation process. It’s already been slashed from $3.5 trillion in investments, which would have been fully paid for through tax increases, to $1.75 trillion with many important programs missing.

That said, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who leads the House Progressive Caucus, has managed these negotiations well and sounds confident the reconciliation bill will go through. She has more information than what is publicly available and reportedly received individual commitments from each of the House Democrats who had threatened to block the Build Back Better Act. I hope Jayapal doesn’t get double-crossed.

REPUBLICANS QUIET ABOUT VOTING AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

I didn’t see any public statements from Hinson, Miller-Meeks, or Feenstra explaining why they voted against spending billions to improve Iowa infrastructure. Please let me know if you catch any of them taking credit for projects in their districts that would not have been possible without the federal funding they opposed. Our state has long been among the worst in the country for structurally deficient bridges.

Hinson spoke on the House floor on November 5 and later released a statement emphasizing her opposition to the larger reconciliation bill. Excerpts:

Iowans deserve to know how much of their hard-earned paychecks are going to be wasted on frivolous, misguided priorities like funding for butterflies or desert fish, when my constituents are busy trying to put food on their tables, provide for their kids, and keep their family farms operating.

“But no, we can’t even get the most basic information – we don’t have an official cost estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. […]

We are spending approximately trillions of taxpayer dollars on nonsense priorities when Iowans are dealing with real challenges, and we can’t even give them the respect of waiting for a proper cost estimate?

I don’t call child care support, universal pre-school, child tax credits, affordable housing, or clean energy “frivolous, misguided priorities.” The child tax credit alone has lifted an estimated 3 million American children out of poverty and helped millions more parents “put food on their tables.” Democrats should be pushing to make that policy permanent rather than extending it for only one year.

State Senator Liz Mathis, the likely Democratic nominee in Iowa’s new second Congressional district, and State Representative Christina Bohannan, the likely nominee in the first district, both tweeted in support of the infrastructure bill, noting that Hinson and Miller-Meeks had voted against it.

UPDATE: During a July 2021 appearance on KWWL-TV’s “The Steele Report,” Ron Steele asked Hinson where she stands on the “massive” infrastructure bill, which (in his words), “has to be done.” My transcript of Hinson’s response, beginning around 12:55 on this video.

Well I think, Ron, with any bill that focuses on infrastructure, we need to focus on real, hard infrastructure, which is our roads and bridges, our locks and dams, our broadband. So that’s what I’ve been focused on. That’s what I heard when I did my three town halls in person in the district, took those questions from constituents and heard that they want focused, targeted investments in real infrastructure.

So that’s what I’m trying to advocate for in those conversations. I’m excited to hear that there is a potential bipartisan deal, but again, very wary of the price tag.

I just want to make sure that these bills are not full of fluff and free stuff, and they’re full of, again, targeted investments that deliver for Iowans. So, that’s what we’re focused on in the infrastructure conversation.

LATER UPDATE: Miller-Meeks’ staff didn’t post any news release about this bill on her official website, but Thomas Geyer of the Quad-City Times quoted from a release that some media received on November 5.

“I have been calling for a fully funded bipartisan bill that would improve our bridges, roads, broadband, locks, dams, broadband and electric grid,” Miller-Meeks said Friday in a news release.

“I will not support a bill that is directly tied to a multi-trillion dollar reckless tax-and-spend package that increases inflation and had no Republican input, even though Congress is evenly divided,” she said.

“We could have passed a clean infrastructure package already on a bipartisan basis like the Senate did and found reasonable ways to pay for it,” Miller-Meeks said.

Miller-Meeks was either unaware or hoping her constituents wouldn’t notice that the bill she just voted against is the bipartisan bill already approved by the Senate.

Miller-Meeks’ deputy chief of staff Austin Harris responded to me on Twitter that the bipartisan infrastructure bill “was linked with” the Build Back Better Act. That was true until a few days ago, when the bills were delinked. There is no guarantee the reconciliation bill will pass in any form now.

Top photo of construction on the Interstate 74 bridge over the Mississippi River first published on October 29 on the I-74 River Bridge Facebook page, maintained by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

The post What the bipartisan infrastructure bill will spend in Iowa appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

The federal government will stay open until at least February 18, after the U.S. House and Senate passed a continuing funding resolution on December 2. Only one House Republican crossed party lines to support the resolution, which mostly maintains spending levels agreed during the Trump administration. Iowa’s Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02), and Randy Feenstra (IA-04) opposed the bill.

In the upper chamber, nineteen GOP senators joined Democrats to send the legislation to President Joe Biden. Notably, Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst voted against the bill, even though they had supported resolutions setting federal spending at these levels while Donald Trump was president.

The most significant change in the continuing resolution was an extra $7 billion in appropriations related to Afghanistan. Emily Cochrane reported for the New York Times,

The additional funding includes about $4.3 billion for the Defense Department to care for [Afghan] evacuees on military bases, $1.3 billion for the State Department and $1.3 billion for a division of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide resettlement and other services, including emergency housing and English language classes.

All of Iowa’s Republican members of Congress have expressed support for helping those who assisted the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. Yet they all voted against this spending. Why?

Grassley told Iowa reporters on December 1 that he didn’t support shutting down the government in order to block one of Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. But his office didn’t release any statement about the continuing resolution, nor did he mention the funding bill on his Twitter feed. (He did tweet about opposing vaccine mandates.)

Ernst also didn’t mention her vote against keeping the government running in any news release or on her social media feeds. The same was true for Feenstra and Miller-Meeks.

Hinson was the only Iowa Republican to release a statement on the matter.

“Iowans are sick of Speaker Pelosi’s out of touch policy pipedreams taking priority over the real issues that impact real people. Congress has known about this deadline for months, but Speaker Pelosi shut down government funding negotiations to focus on passing the reckless $1.7 trillion reconciliation bill. We need to do our job and fund the government in a way that respects working families who pay taxes. Iowans sent me to Washington to stop the chaos and dysfunction in Congress, not enable it further.” 

Those comments don’t make a lot of sense, because:

1. Keeping the lights on is the ultimate “real issue that impacts real people.” A shutdown would disrupt the lives of millions of Americans who rely on federal government benefits or services.
2. The House wasn’t voting on the reconciliation bill on December 2.
3. The bill that passed extended spending levels set during the Trump administration; how does that not respect “working families who pay taxes”?
4. Republicans’ continual threats to shut down the government are a central element of “the chaos and dysfunction in Congress.” By voting against the continuing resolution, Hinson did enable that dysfunction.

But I will say this for Hinson: she made some effort to explain her position on an important Congressional vote. Miller-Meeks, Feenstra, Ernst, and Grassley couldn’t be bothered.

The post Iowa Republicans say little about voting to shut down government appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

President Joe Biden has signed into law a $1.5 trillion omnibus spending bill, which funds the federal government through September 30. The president’s action on March 15 ends a cycle of short-term continuing spending resolutions that kept the government operating on spending levels approved during Donald Trump’s administration.

The enormous package combines twelve appropriations bills covering portions of the federal government, as well as an additional $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine and several unrelated pieces of legislation. One of those reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act through 2027, a task that had remained unfinished for years. Congress last reauthorized the 1994 legislation addressing violence against women in 2013, and that authorization expired in 2019.

Iowa’s Senator Joni Ernst was a key negotiator of the final deal on the Violence Against Women Act and celebrated its passage this week.

HOW THE IOWANS VOTED ON THE SPENDING BILL

Lindsey McPherson reported for Roll Call on how the omnibus bill was divided in the U.S. House to allow members to vote separately March 9 on two parts:

One piece, which lawmakers backed on a 260-171 vote, included the vast majority of the nondefense spending bills, the nondefense-related funding for the Ukraine crisis and most of the unrelated bills leadership attached to the omnibus given it’s must-pass status. That includes reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act, the National Flood Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a livestock reporting program and more.

Other measures riding on the spending package include legislation to increase reporting of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, a provision allowing regulation of synthetic nicotine manufacturers, language intended to boost the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to crack down on attempts to defraud seniors and various health provisions, like an extension of higher Medicaid reimbursements for U.S. territories.

The other vote included the three appropriations bills progressive Democrats often oppose: Defense, Commerce-Justice-Science and Homeland Security. The second piece also included the defense portions of the Ukraine supplemental, the annual intelligence authorization and a section intended to promote the U.S.-Israel relationship and back regional peace initiatives such as the Abraham Accords brokered by the Trump administration.

U.S. Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03), the lone Democrat in Iowa’s Congressional delegation voted for both halves of the spending package. Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01, the new IA-02) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02, the new IA-01) were among the 39 Republicans to vote for the portion that included much of the domestic spending and provisions on the Violence Against Women Act, flood insurance, food assistance, livestock reporting, and cybersecurity. Republican Randy Feenstra (IA-04) voted against that part of the package.

All four Iowans in the House voted for the part of the omnibus bill that included Pentagon and Homeland Security spending, intelligence authorization, and the new military aid to Ukraine.

The U.S. Senate approved the omnibus spending bill in a single 68 to 31 vote, with Ernst and Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley both among the eighteen Republicans to vote yes.

LONG ROAD FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT FINALLY ENDS

Since the Violence Against Women Act lapsed, the Democratic-controlled House has voted to reauthorize it in 2019 and in 2021. Axne voted for both of those bills, which each had some Republican support. Miller-Meeks was the only Iowa Republican to support the 2021 bill. To my knowledge, she has never mentioned that vote in a news release or on her social media feeds.

That’s probably because last year’s bill, like the one the House approved in 2019, contained language the National Rifle Association opposes. The provision would close what is commonly known as the “boyfriend loophole”; if it passed, anyone convicted of stalking or abusing a former partner (even if they never married) would be unable to purchase firearms.

Three years ago, Senate GOP leaders charged Ernst with working on a deal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But Iowa’s junior senator was unwilling to back the House bill in 2019. She said at the time, “The House bill is a non-starter and is chalk full of partisan political talking points that take us further away from, rather than closer to, a bill we can get over the finish line.” The main piece Republicans objected to was closing the boyfriend loophole. No progress ensued during the 2020 election year.

History appeared to be repeating itself in the current Congress, with the House-approved bill from last March going nowhere in the upper chamber. The bill needed at least ten Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

A breakthrough finally came last month, when senators including Ernst rolled out a bipartisan bill. Jennifer Bendery reported for the Huffington Post that ten Republicans co-sponsored the bill. In addition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act through 2027,

It also includes new provisions like expanded access to forensic exams for victims of sexual assault in rural communities; a new grant program to provide community-specific services for LGBTQ survivors of domestic violence; and new jurisdiction to tribal courts to go after non-Native perpetrators of sexual assault, child abuse, stalking, sex trafficking and assaults on tribal law enforcement officers on tribal lands.

The one big missing piece was language closing the “boyfriend loophole.” Bendery reported in February,

The gun provision was the biggest sticking point in the Senate, where most Republicans simply refused to support a VAWA bill that included any kind of restrictions on gun access. The National Rifle Association, among other gun rights groups, made it clear they opposed the provision.

Even Murkowski and Ernst tried to keep the gun language in the bill, along with Durbin and Feinstein, according to a Senate Democratic aide. But in the end, they didn’t have the GOP votes to pass the bill with the provision in it.

“It was a really difficult decision,” said this aide, who requested anonymity to speak freely about private conversations. “But it came down to we don’t want this to be a messaging bill. We want this to be a bill that can get to Biden’s desk.”

Staff for Murkowski and Ernst did not respond to Bleeding Heartland’s inquiries about whether the senators tried to keep the “boyfriend loophole” language in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.

This document prepared by Senate staff explains each section of the bill, which became law when Biden signed the omnibus spending bill March 15.

Ernst and the other senators who led negotiations on this issue hailed the success in floor speeches on March 16. Ernst posted the video of her own remarks on her official Facebook page.

Ernst said she’d been “a proud champion of this bill” for three years and expressed her gratitude for the bipartisan work “to get it over the finish line.”

The senator added that the bill is “personal” for her, because she is among the “one out of three women that have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.” One in four men have suffered similar abuse.

Ernst said it had taken a long time for her to speak about being a survivor, and said she hoped some other women would never have to, thanks to the bill. “And those that do will have the necessary support and resources in a moment of crisis to cope with and ultimately overcome their trauma.” Among the many “critical resources” the bill contains, Ernst highlighted that it doubles support for rural domestic violence and rape prevention programs, both of which are of “great importance” to Iowa.

Negotiations over this bill were “at times very tough,” Ernst acknowledged, fueling doubts about whether the bill would come together. “While the end result isn’t perfect, it modernizes the resources necessary to meet the evolving needs of our survivors. This bill is proof that bipartisanship is not dead, and Congress can tackle these tough issues.”

Ernst became emotional near the end of the speech.

Finally, for my fellow Americans who can say they are survivors, for those who have not come to terms with their abuse, and for those who feel trapped in their situation, and for those who have lost their battle, please know that you are not, and will never be forgotten. The Violence Against Women Act is for you.

Top image: Screenshot from video of Senator Joni Ernst speaking about the Violence Against Women Act on March 16.

The post Violence Against Women Act reauthorized in big spending bill appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.

This column by Rick Morain first appeared in the Jefferson Herald.

U.S. Senate Democrats passed their omnibus Inflation Reduction Act on August 7 by 51 votes to 50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. They did so under so-called “reconciliation” rules, which require only a simple majority to pass bills related to appropriations, rather than the usual filibuster-blocking 60-vote margin.

The bill then went to the House, where Democrats approved it on a party-line 220 to 207 vote on August 12. President Joe Biden is expected to sign the bill this week.

The measure contains a number of provisions dear to the hearts of Democrats and many moderates: empowering Medicare to negotiate prices for several key drugs, capping Medicare recipients’ out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 a year, climate control incentives, extension of federal health care subsidies, a 15 percent minimum tax for most corporations whose profits exceed $1 billion a year, and other long-sought goodies.

By raising more money than the act will spend over a 10-year period, it will also enable the government to pay down some of the national debt by several hundred billion dollars. That hasn’t happened for the past 25 years.

A section of the act that particularly irritates Congressional Republicans – and many of their well-heeled donors – increases the funding of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by $80 billion over the next 10 years. A little more than half of that increase will go to hire thousands of new agents to audit tax returns.

GOP Senator Rick Scott of Florida appeared on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation” August 7. He asked interviewer Margaret Brennan, “Do you know how much – how happy people are to have more IRS agents out there? I mean, this is not – this not going to be popular around the country.”

Senator Scott is probably correct about the people who inhabit the circles in which he moves: they don’t much welcome more auditing agents on the IRS staff.

But I doubt that Americans who earn less than $100,000 a year seriously disapprove. In fact, they may be saying, “it’s about time.”

The IRS has been underfunded for years. In 2010 the number of full-time employees of the agency stood about 94,000. By 2018, after congressional Republicans had worked their will, that number had dropped to about 74,000. Enforcement employees declined by 30 percent.

It’s time-consuming and complicated to audit tax returns of high-income individuals and businesses. So the agency’s audit staff in recent years picked the low-hanging fruit, mostly evaluating returns of taxpayers with incomes less than $75,000, according to IRS data. In 2020 more than 40 percent of its audits targeted low-income recipients of the earned income tax credit, one of the country’s main anti-poverty measures.

A beefed-up enforcement staff will be able to put more resources into audits of higher-income taxpayers. New projections indicate a return on investment of $4.50 in revenue for every dollar spent on enforcement. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS provisions will let the government knock $203 billion off the federal deficit over the next 10 years.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig informed senators early this month that the IRS will boost enforcement “in areas of challenge for the agency – large corporate and global high-net-worth taxpayers. [...] These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans.”

For most working Americans who earn a regular paycheck, filing a tax return is easy, with little opportunity for cheating. Their wages, and their W-2 forms, tell the feds exactly how much they’ve earned in the tax year. 

The opportunities for fudging on a return are much greater for high-income corporations and individuals, whose sources of income are more diverse and complicated than a paycheck, and who have access to accountants and attorneys who can push back against IRS enforcement. 

GOP Senator John Thune of South Dakota spoke on the Senate floor last week against the Inflation Reduction Act’s increase for IRS enforcement funding, saying that with its passage “ . . . the IRS can spend more time harassing taxpayers around this country.”

One person’s harassment is another’s fairness. 

A number of Republicans hammer away at the demand of a few progressives to “defund the police,” although few Congressional Democrats propose that these days.

But defunding is what Congressional Republicans did from 2010 to 2020 to the IRS, and what they advised in opposing the Inflation Reduction Act. IRS auditors constitute the government’s financial police force; starving the IRS amounts to defunding the enforcers.

Why shouldn’t the tax returns of high-income Americans get as much scrutiny as those of low- and middle-income taxpayers?

It’s time.

Rick Morain is a reporter and columnist with the Jefferson Herald. He is the former publisher and owner of that newspaper with deep roots in his family. Rick Morain has been active in political and economic development circles in Iowa for more than a half century.

Top image: Official IRS logo.

The post It’s about time to fund the IRS appeared first on Bleeding Heartland.