Although Iowa House Republicans sought to restrict abortion rights after regaining the majority in the lower chamber in 2011, anti-choice bills were never a high priority for leadership. In fact, House leaders sometimes put the brakes on conservative efforts to bring anti-abortion legislation to the floor. During the 2013 legislative session, not a single bill restricting abortions even made it out of a committee in the Republican-controlled Iowa House.

House leaders must have gotten some flack from their caucus or outside advocacy groups, because even though restricting abortion isn’t a top agenda item for House Speaker Kraig Paulsen or Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, they made sure to move an anti-abortion bill quickly during this year’s session. Yesterday the Iowa House approved House File 2175, which would ban the use of telecommunications technology for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy. (A similar bill died in the funnel last year.)

Follow me after the jump for background and details on the roll call.

I didn’t see this coming: House Republican leaders brought a bill to the floor that raised the debt ceiling without attaching strings such as domestic discretionary spending cuts or entitlement reforms. Speaker John Boehner broke the news to fellow House Republicans yesterday morning; later he explained to reporters that whip counts showed leaders could not get 218 GOP votes behind plans to tie a debt ceiling hike to a bill on reversing a military pension cut by extending the “sequester” to certain Medicare payments.

Republicans wrangled big concessions out of the 2011 showdown over raising the debt ceiling. That deal led to the “sequester” spending cuts that went into effect in early 2013; some of them will stay in place for years. However, the foot-dragging over raising the debt ceiling during last October’s partial shutdown of the federal government didn’t advance the GOP policy agenda and hurt the party in Congressional polling, at least temporarily. President Barack Obama had vowed not to negotiate over future debt ceiling increases.

Yesterday afternoon, House leaders attached language raising the country’s debt ceiling to an unrelated bill, which passed by 221 votes to 201. Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 193 Democrats who joined just 28 Republicans to pass the bill. Steve King (IA-04) was among the 199 GOP House members who opposed it. His official comment is after the jump.

The roll call shows that Iowa Republican Tom Latham (IA-03) was not present for the debt ceiling vote. He also missed earlier votes yesterday. I have not seen any explanation for his absence but will update this post with details, as available. UPDATE: Latham’s Congressional office sent out a press release on February 11 about a Medicare bill he supports. I’ve posted it after the jump. The statement was datelined “Des Moines,” but it’s not clear whether Latham himself was in Iowa rather than Washington.

Conservative groups are already calling for Boehner to be replaced. It will be interesting to see whether he can remain speaker throughout this election year.  

One of the most shameful provisions in last year’s federal budget deal between Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan was a change in the cost of living adjustment for military pensions. The pension cut could never have passed in a stand-alone vote but got through as one small piece of what was perceived as a must-pass deal. At the time, an old friend and 20-year Navy veteran commented on Facebook, “This is a great bookend for why we are tired of being thanked for serving. Actions speak louder than mere words for the sacrifices made by people in uniform and their families.”

House and Senate members are eager to reverse this pension cut, but so far can’t agree on how or whether to offset the $6 billion that would have been saved during a ten-year period of screwing over veterans on full pensions.

Today House leaders attached military pension language to an unrelated bill and quickly passed it under a suspension of normal House rules. The roll call shows that Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Republican Steve King (IA-04) were all part of the 326 to 90 majority who voted yes. Tom Latham (IA-03) was not present for the vote. The 19 Republicans and 71 Democrats who voted no had different reasons, Pete Kasperowicz reported.

Some Democrats said they opposed not only the speed with which the bill was rushed to the floor, but the way Republicans are offsetting the $6 billion cost of the bill. The legislation pays for the restoration of benefits by extending sequester cuts to mandatory spending under Medicare for one year, through 2024 instead of 2023. […]

Republicans had their own reasons for opposing the measure – many GOP members have said they disapprove of the idea of paying for current spending by promising cuts 10 years out.

When Congress approved the Murray-Ryan budget deal in December, three of Iowa’s four House members voted yes, with King the odd man out. Senator Tom Harkin supported the deal, while Senator Chuck Grassley voted against it.

UPDATE: Added a statement from Braley below.

Iowa’s Constitution lays out a straightforward process for changing state law: first, a bill needs to pass the Iowa House and Senate by a simple majority in both chambers. Then, the governor signs the bill into law. Alternatively, state legislators can pass a new law without the governor’s support, by over-riding a veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Iowa House Republicans and Governor Terry Branstad don’t like current state law on setting state funding for K-12 education a year in advance. However, they lack support in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate for changing that law through the normal legislative process. So, they have decided they can pretend the law doesn’t exist.

It appears that nothing short of a court order will change their minds.

Catching up on news from last week, Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) continued his pattern of voting for certain Republican bills aimed at undercutting federal regulations, especially in the environmental area (see also here). The latest example came when the U.S. House approved a bill “aimed at reducing the federal government’s restrictions on hunting, fishing and sport shooting on federal land.”  

The U.S. Department of Justice announced today a new policy to “recognize lawful same-sex marriages as broadly as possible, and to recognize all marriages valid in the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated,” even if the couple currently resides in a state that does not allow same-sex marriages. You can read the full text of Attorney General Eric Holder’s memo here (pdf). Jaywon Choe reported for PBS,

Practically speaking, the decision means that same-sex couples will be given benefits that previously were only extended to heterosexual couples. For federal inmates, this includes spousal visits and the possibility of furloughs in the event of a crisis involving a spouse. Meanwhile in the courtroom, same-sex couples will now be given the right to refuse testimony that might incriminate their spouse, even in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized.

The policy stems from last June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Windsor case, which struck down key provisions in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The DOJ memo makes clear that the policy does not apply to domestic partnerships or civil unions–only to the thousands of LGBT couples married in Iowa or one of the other states where marriage equality is the law.

The Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Treasury confirmed last summer that legally married same-sex couples will be able to file the same kind of federal tax returns (jointly or separately) as married heterosexual couples.

This morning Governor Terry Branstad stood by Iowa Department of Human Services Director Chuck Palmer and his handling of problems at the Iowa Juvenile Home in Toledo (Tama County). He also spoke confidently about his appeal to Iowa Supreme Court against a Polk County District Court ruling ordering that the Iowa Juvenile Home be reopened.

More background and details are after the jump.  

On Thursday Republicans in the U.S. Senate again successfully filibustered efforts to extend unemployment benefits for an estimated 1.7 million people whose benefits ran out at the end of 2013. Senate rules still require 60 yes votes to approve most motions and bills, with the exception of budget legislation and most confirmation votes. As Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill, Democrats fell one vote short of the 60 needed to end debate on extending unemployment benefits. The roll call shows that four Republicans and all Democrats present voted yes, except for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who switched to “no” to preserve his right to bring the bill up again later. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley was among the 40 Republicans who filibustered the effort to end debate.

A little later, Senators rejected a separate procedural motion to end debate on the bill to extend unemployment benefits by a mostly party-line vote. Again, Senator Tom Harkin voted to end debate, while Grassley was part of the Republican filibuster.

A similar story played out last month when Senate leaders attempted to move a bill extending unemployment benefits. Grassley and most Senate Republicans failed to block a motion to proceed to debating the bill and failed to table the measure by sending it back to the Finance Committee, but successfully kept Senate Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to end debate on that bill. Harkin repeatedly voted to advance legislation on extending the benefits.

In a statement enclosed below, Harkin vowed that the latest vote “is not the end of the line” and said he will keep fighting to extend unemployment coverage workers “have earned and so rightly deserve.”

I have not seen any statement from Grassley directly explaining his refusal to extend unemployment benefits, but after the jump I’ve posted relevant excerpts from a floor speech he gave last month, objecting to limits on the Senate minority’s ability to offer amendments during floor debate.

Also on Thursday, senators confirmed longtime Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus of Montana to be the next U.S. ambassador to China. The vote was unanimous, except that Baucus himself voted “present.”

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I’m excited about the Winter Olympics starting, despite NBC’s horrible coverage. (In some countries, television networks allow viewers to watch entire Olympic events from start to finish without commercial interruptions, and you can see all the competitors rather than the handful contending for medals.) The opening ceremony was spectacular, especially the holographic projections such as Peter the Great’s ship. I only wish NBC hadn’t repeatedly cut to a shot of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s smug face.

February 7 marked 50 years since the Beatles arrived in the U.S., and February 9 marks 50 years since their first live performance on the Ed Sullivan Show, the highest-rated television program of all time. When I haven’t been watching the Olympics, I’ve enjoyed listening to the Des Moines oldies station KIOA, which is playing wall to wall Beatles songs all weekend long. After the jump I’ve posted a few links about the Beatles in America and the British invasion. This is an open thread.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled yesterday in favor of plaintiffs who are challenging the closure of the Iowa Juvenile Home by the Iowa Department of Human Services. Finding that the four state legislators and the president of a public employees union were “likely to succeed on the merits” when the court considers their lawsuit, Judge Rosenberg granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. He ordered Governor Terry Branstad’s administration to “reopen the Toledo home and abide by the duly passed laws of the state of Iowa which established the Toledo Home […].”

After the jump I’ve posted an excerpt from the ruling, which you can read in full on the Des Moines Register’s website. I’ve also posted reaction from several of the plaintiffs and from Branstad.

This isn’t the first time a state court has found that the governor overreached in disregarding legislative intent on the allocation of state funds. Maybe Branstad should get better legal advice before deciding to ignore language from budget bills he signed into law.  

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? Here’s an open thread.

Change for the better: According to Maj. Gen. Tim Orr, adjutant general of the Iowa National Guard, no members of the Guard are stationed in war zones for the first time since before the Iraq War. Orr delivered his annual “Condition of the Guard” speech to Iowa legislators today. Only about 100 of roughly 9,400 National Guard or Air National Guard members from Iowa are stationed overseas; the largest group is in Kosovo.

Change for the worse: U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman announced last week that he will retire after 40 years in Congress. He is one of the giants of his generation, having helped pass the Clean Air Act and a wide range of consumer protection laws, from tobacco regulations to food safety. Until I read this article by Timothy Westmoreland, I didn’t realize that Waxman was also an “unsung hero in the fight against AIDS” during the 1980s.

Changes don’t get much bigger than climate change. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced today that seven news “regional hubs for risk adaptation and mitigation to climate change” will open around the country. The Midwestern “climate hub” will be located in Ames. The full USDA press release is after the jump.

I thought Representative Steve King’s faction of the House Republican caucus had decisively won the war against comprehensive immigration reform in this Congress. But House leaders are trying to nudge Republicans toward moving on the issue before the midterm elections.

Just like last year, King is ready to stand and fight. In recent days, he’s been working conservative public opinion on several fronts.  

I knew that Governor Terry Branstad was trying to fill the State Judicial Nominating Commission with conservatives and big Republican donors.

I knew that Branstad liked naming former state legislators to prominent positions, sometimes without considering anyone else for the job, sometimes even when the former lawmaker hadn’t asked for the job.

But until yesterday, I never imagined that Branstad would consider a Judicial Nominating Commission an appropriate place for someone who tried to impeach Iowa Supreme Court justices over the Varnum v Brien ruling on marriage.  

A new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that Iowa and many other states fail to incorporate enough long-term fiscal planning in the budget process. Click here to read the executive summary of the thoroughly researched piece by Elizabeth McNichol, Vincent Palacios, and Nicholas Johnson. Click here to download the full report (pdf).

After the jump I’ve posted the two-page fact sheet on Iowa, which scored only 4.5 out of a possible 10 and ranked 37th among the states. I’ve also enclosed a sidebar explaining the ten criteria they used to evaluate state fiscal planning. Table 1 toward the bottom of this page shows that Iowa received full marks under three categories: consensus revenue estimates, legislative fiscal offices, and budget status reports. Iowa received half-credit in three more categories: multi-year fiscal notes, pension oversight, and well-designed rainy-day funds. Iowa received zero marks in four categories: multi-year forecasting, a projection of future costs to deliver the “quantity and quality of services to residents that it is delivering in the current budget period,” pension funding and debt level reviews, and oversight of tax expenditures.

For years, the Iowa Policy Project and the Iowa Fiscal Partnership have been sounding the alarm on how Iowa needs to start calculating the costs of various tax breaks and tax credits.

While you’re at it, read the Iowa Fiscal Partnership’s recent background piece on why “Iowa lawmakers must recognize the long-term impact of tax cuts on spending choices. Past choices will force future legislatures to lower investments on critical services on which economic growth depends.”

The U.S. Senate approved a compromise five-year farm bill this afternoon by 68 votes to 32 (roll call). As occurred in the House of Representatives last week, the farm bill drew substantial support from both caucuses. At the same time, a sizable number of conservative Republicans opposed the bill because of the costs, while some liberal Democrats voted no because of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Iowa’s Democratic Senator Tom Harkin voted for ending debate on the farm bill yesterday and for the conference report today. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted no on cloture and on final passage.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Harkin and Grassley explaining their stance on the farm bill. Click here for details on the contentious provisions of the farm bill. For once I am inclined to agree more with Grassley than with Harkin. In many respects the conference report was a missed opportunity and won’t serve the interests of Iowans or Americans generally.

I also sympathize with Grassley’s outrage at “a select few members dismantling a provision that was passed by wide, bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate.” Congressional rules should be changed so that the conference committee can alter only provisions that differed in the House and Senate bills, not consensus language from both versions.  

On the other hand, I suspect Grassley cast this protest vote because he knew his support wasn’t required to get the farm bill to President Barack Obama’s desk. As disappointing as this legislation is, Iowa’s economy truly needs stability and predictability in federal agricultural programs.

UPDATE: Added Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey’s comments below.  

The Farmer Veteran Coalition of Iowa has a full agenda for 2014. We’re hosting four educational workshops across Iowa, collaborating on two regional events in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and participating in a Midwest Farmer Veteran Conference at Drake University in July.

These events provide opportunities for military veterans to come together, network, and learn about farming.

Governor Terry Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley told the Des Moines Register yesterday that she has decided not to run for Congress in the open third district. She indicated that she plans to continue her work in the governor’s office and teach a course at the University of Iowa law school.

I would guess that the early conservative endorsements for Matt Schultz were in part intended to deter Findley from entering the GOP primary in IA-03. Not only was she seriously considering the race, the National Republican Congressional Committee had reserved the domain name BrennaFindleyforCongress.com. Findley has strong conservative credentials as a product of homeschooling and a longtime staffer for Representative Steve King before running for Iowa attorney general in 2010. She has repeatedly spoken out against illegal immigration and the mandate to purchase individual health insurance. She has arguably helped steer the Branstad administration’s policies to the right on abortion and gun-related issues.

Although Findley won’t run for Congress or statewide office this year, I expect Iowans will see her name on a ballot again sometime before the end of this decade. We may have an open race for attorney general in 2018 if Tom Miller decides to call it quits after nine terms.  

Can someone please explain Mark Lofgren to me? If you’re going to the trouble of getting in a Congressional race early and lining up a bunch of endorsements (presumably to deter would-be rivals in your own party), why wouldn’t you work hard on fundraising? Lofgren’s year-end financial report was even weaker than his third-quarter Federal Election Commission filing, which is saying something.

Lofgren isn’t giving four-term Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack a thing to worry about, and he’s leaving the door wide open for Mariannette Miller-Meeks to come in and take the Republican primary to represent IA-02. Follow me after the jump for details from the FEC reports.  

What a difference a retirement makes. If Staci Appel were still running against ten-term incumbent Representative Tom Latham, she would have ended the year at a big disadvantage in campaign cash. Now she is poised to come out of the Democratic primary with a money lead over the eventual Republican nominee in IA-03.

Details from the candidates’ year-end Federal Election Commission reports are after the jump.

In the past, I’ve pulled together highlights from Congressional candidates’ quarterly financial reports in a single post, but with so many candidates running for Congress in Iowa, I’ve decided to separate the races. Year-end reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission show that for the second quarter in a row, Democratic challenger Jim Mowrer raised more money than six-term incumbent Representative Steve King (IA-04).

Follow me after the jump for details.

UPDATE: The Hill’s Cameron Joseph and Alexandra Jaffe named King one of five Congressional incumbent “fourth quarter fundraising losers.”