Via Bret Hayworth’s blog at the Sioux City Journal, I see that Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) took offense at a report that House Speaker John Boehner used an unprintable word to refer to him. The incident allegedly happened at the height of last summer’s furor over King’s views on the children of undocumented immigrants. Hayworth writes that King responded to the report with a statement:

“There can be honest disagreements about policy without using hateful language. Everyone needs to remember that,” King said. “I want to be clear. There’s no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials. What he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party, and we all need to do our work in a constructive, open and respectful way.”

You read that right: Steve King sees “no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials.”

This from the guy who made “cantaloupe calves” a national symbol of the GOP’s hostility to undocumented immigrants.

This from the guy who created a visual aid re-naming the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.”

For the record, I don’t care what Boehner called King in an angry moment. I do care that King’s faction of the House GOP caucus seems to have successfully blocked comprehensive immigration reform during this Congress. President Barack Obama thinks an immigration bill will pass this year, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

UPDATE: King’s statement may have been crafted for humorous effect, as his phrasing mirrored Boehner’s comments about King last summer. But get real: calling someone an expletive is not as “hateful” and “offensive” as saying DREAMers are 100 times more likely to be drug mules than valedictorians.

Yesterday the U.S. Senate easily approved the omnibus budget bill funding most of the federal government through September 30. Like all of the Democrats present, Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted for ending debate on the budget bill and for the bill itself. Both passed by 72 votes to 26 (roll call). Although quite a few Republicans supported the omnibus bill, Senator Chuck Grassley was among the 26 GOP senators who voted no on cloture and on final passage. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s floor statement explaining his reasons for backing the bill, along with Grassley’s comment on his no vote.

On Wednesday three of Iowa’s four representatives in the House voted for the omnibus budget bill.

The Hill’s Erik Wasson posted a good analysis of winners and losers from the deal, which eliminates any risk of a federal government shutdown before October 1. He noted,

The omnibus makes it easier for [House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank] Lucas to pass a farm bill. Western members wanted the omnibus to reinstate funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program that sends money to local governments in areas where the federal government owns most of the land, thereby limiting property tax revenue. House leaders promised this would be taken care of in the farm bill and Lucas was all too happy to comply, knowing this adds momentum to passing the farm bill in late January.

Harkin and Representative Steve King (IA-04) both serve on the conference committee working on a long-term Farm Bill.  

For the second time in a week, Iowa’s Democratic representatives in the U.S. House Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for a bill calling attention to problems with the federal government’s implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Depending on whom you believe, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act is either an effort to improve oversight and transparency through weekly updates or what Representative Henry Waxman called an attempt to impede the new law by “drowning the Department of Health and Human Services in red tape.” Nevertheless, 33 Democrats including Braley and Loebsack joined all of the Republicans present to approve the bill yesterday (roll call). I haven’t seen any comment on this bill from them or from Representatives Steve King (IA-04) and Tom Latham (IA-03), who both supported it.

No matter how many anti-Obamacare bills Braley and Loebsack vote for, their opponents and outside conservative groups will run campaign ads attacking them for having helped pass the 2010 health care reform law. In fact, Americans for Prosperity (a right-wing group funded by the Koch brothers) is running television commercials in Iowa right now targeting Braley, the Democratic candidate to replace Tom Harkin in the U.S. Senate. The commercials focus on the so-called “lie of the year,” President Barack Obama’s claim that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan.” Scroll to the end of this post to read the Braley’s campaign’s response, which includes the ad script. In November, Braley and Loebsack voted for a bill that would let some consumers stay on insurance plans that don’t comply with all Affordable Care Act requirements.

Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw resigned from the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee today in order to run for Congress in the open third district. Shaw told Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker,

In the weeks that have passed since Congressman Latham’s announcement my wife, Tina, and I have been humbled by the people who have contacted us and suggested that I run for Congress.

We have both been committed to advancing the conservative agenda for America and being advocates for Iowa.

That commitment has driven my entire adult life, from managing campaigns for Jim Ross Lightfoot and Chuck Grassley, to serving as a national spokesperson for Steve Forbes and renewable fuels, working to protect the elderly on the Senate Select Committee on Aging and most recently eight years heading one of Iowa’s most important agricultural associations as well as volunteering for the Republican Party at the state and local levels. […]

Tina and I have engaged in much prayer, consideration and somber reflection and have reached the conclusion that the best way to continue that twenty year commitment is for me to seek the Republican nomination to fill Tom Latham’s big shoes in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Shaw will formally announce his campaign in the next few weeks, joining David Young, Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Joe Grandanette, and probably also Robert Cramer and State Senator Brad Zaun in the GOP primary.  

In recent years, Congress has funded the federal government mostly through a series of continuing spending resolutions. But yesterday, the U.S. House approved an omnibus budget bill that would fund most federal agencies through September 30 (the end of the 2014 fiscal year). The massive bill passed by an overwhelming margin of 359 votes to 67. All but three Democrats present voted yes, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-03). Republican Tom Latham also supported the bill, but Representative Steve King (IA-04) was among the 64 conservatives who voted no.

I’ve enclosed statements from Loebsack and King below. (I have not seen any public comment from Braley or Latham) Loebsack called attention to provisions he fought to include in the omnibus budget bill. King’s statement on yesterday’s vote is just one sentence long–the shortest comment I can ever remember receiving from his office.

Because the bill is so massive, it’s hard to get a handle on the good news and bad news. Here’s a summary of spending levels for various agencies. It looks like many domestic areas will be funded above “sequester” levels, including nutrition for Women, Infants and Children and some transportation programs. Some anti-environmental riders sought by Congressional Republicans were removed before the bill came up for a vote. Others made the cut, such as language supporting incandescent light bulbs and investments in overseas coal projects.  

“States’ rights” has typically been a rallying cry among American conservatives, but six Democratic Iowa legislators are concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership now being negotiated may infringe on local control and states’ ability to legislate in the public interest. In an open letter, 43 state lawmakers have asked 23 state attorneys general, including Iowa’s Tom Miller, to analyze the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s possible impact on state and local governments.

I’ve enclosed the text of the letter below, along with a news release on the initiative from the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. The Iowans who signed are State Representatives Chuck Isenhart, Marti Anderson, Dan Kelley and Curt Hanson, and State Senators Bill Dotzler and Joe Bolkcom. The letter spells out ten areas of state regulation that signers fear could be undermined by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Isenhart stressed that the lawmakers’ concerns go beyond environmental issues, citing Iowa’s support for the biofuels industry as well as state policies to protect consumers and discourage smoking.

President Barack Obama is seeking to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Activists who oppose the trade agreement have criticized the secrecy surrounding the negotiations as well as the agreement’s tilt toward corporations and potential to undermine environmental and public health protections.

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland user cocinero notes in the comments that the American Cancer Society is concerned about this trade agreement. At the end of this post I’ve enclosed a joint statement from Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy told the Des Moines Register that he will not run for Congress in the open third district. McCoy has been thinking about a Congressional bid for more than a decade, but “After careful consideration with my family, and my 14-year-old son, Jack, I have decided that this is not the right time in my life to run for Congress.” Instead, he will seek re-election this year to the Iowa Senate, where he chairs the Commerce Committee and is an assistant majority leader.

McCoy will easily be re-elected in Iowa Senate district 21, covering parts of Des Moines and West Des Moines. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district by about 4,500, and President Barack Obama won nearly 59 percent of the vote here in 2012.

McCoy’s decision leaves Staci Appel in the driver’s seat for the Democratic nomination in IA-03. She has raised approximately $500,000 for her campaign so far (haven’t found her latest filing yet on the Federal Election Commission website) and won the endorsements of many labor unions and progressive interest groups. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has promised her early support as well. Gabriel De La Cerda is also seeking the Democratic nomination in IA-03. He’s a first-time candidate and former Iowa political coordinator for the United Steel Workers Union.

Here’s your mid-week open thread, Bleeding Heartland readers: all topics welcome. Earlier this evening, Governor Terry Branstad made his re-election campaign official. I’ll post a roundup of news clips and highlights tomorrow morning.

One thing’s been bothering me all week. We hear so much about how renewable energy is too expensive for consumers compared to coal and other fossil fuels used to generate electricity. But we don’t often calculate the hidden costs of this allegedly “cheap” coal. Even under normal circumstances, coal takes an enormous toll on human health every step of the way, from mining to combustion to waste disposal. Chronic illnesses shorten lives, reduce productivity and can be expensive to treat.

Costs escalate when a catastrophe happens like last week’s chemical spill in West Virginia. Not only were 300,000 people in the area left without usable water for days, residents of Cincinnati may be affected too as the pollution flows downstream. Taxpayers will foot the bill for the emergency water deliveries and probably most of the cleanup. The government board that will investigate the chemical spill lacks the resources to do its job properly.

Here’s some good news, though, courtesy of the Iowa Environmental Council’s blog:

Iowa is also making progress retiring coal-fired generation.  In fact, a recent announcement by Alliant energy that it will convert its M.L. Kapp station in Clinton to burn natural gas means that Iowa utilities have announced over one gigawatt of coal retirement in the last year.  These announcements include three Iowa plants involved in a settlement over Clean Air Act violations the Sierra Club reached with MidAmerican Energy last year.

Click through for a table showing coal-fired plants in Iowa that will either close or shift to natural gas. (Disclosure: I’m involved with the Iowa Environmental Council but not with their blog.)

Immediately following Governor Terry Branstad’s Condition of the State address to Iowa legislators yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal told Iowa Public Television that he “didn’t hear anything I disagreed with.” Not every Iowan who closely follows state government shared his reaction. State Senator Jack Hatch, the leading Democratic challenger to Branstad, slammed the governor’s “very shallow agenda” of “low expectations.”

After the jump I’ve posted more detailed comments from Hatch and a few other Iowa Democrats, as well as statements released by several non-profit organizations, which called attention to important problems Branstad ignored or glossed over.  

Former State Representative and Polk County Auditor Ned Chiodo formally announced on Monday that he will seek the Democratic nomination in Iowa Senate district 17, which Senator Jack Hatch is vacating to run for governor. Chiodo has been planning his campaign since last summer.

The district covering parts of downtown Des Moines and most of the south side will not be competitive in the general election, as it contains more than twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans. But the Democratic primary will be an epic battle featuring two giants of south-side politics (Chiodo and former State Senator Tony Bisignano) and Nathan Blake, a relative newcomer to Iowa politics. Bisignano has the backing of a large organized labor group. Blake goes into the primary as an underdog, but presumably his chances improve if Bisignano and Chiodo split the south-side vote.

A map of Senate district 17 is after the jump, along with Chiodo’s press release containing a short bio. His legislative priorities include expanding the “use of tax credits for neighborhood revitalization” and “reimbursing the City of Des Moines for the cost of services it currently provides to the State for free.”  

The GOP field in Iowa’s third Congressional district may soon grow to six candidates. In addition to the three Republicans who have already declared (Joe Grandanette, David Young, and Matt Schultz), State Senator Brad Zaun told conservative blogger Shane Vander Hart yesterday that he will announce his campaign after the Iowa caucuses on January 21. Two other likely Congressional candidates attended the same Iowa GOP event on January 13: Robert Cramer and Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw, who serves on the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee. Cramer indicated last week that he is “90 percent there” in planning his campaign. A close associate of Shaw told The Iowa Republican blog that he will enter the race soon. Kevin Hall commented,

Thanks to his role with the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Shaw has strong contacts with farmers and agri-business people throughout the Third District, as well as power brokers in Des Moines. Outside of Polk and Dallas counties, the Third District is mostly rural. […]

Additionally, Monte Shaw is an experienced campaign operative. He ran Jim Lightfoot’s congressional campaign in 1994, Chuck Grassley’s U.S. Senate campaign in 1998 and Elizabeth Dole’s Iowa caucus campaign in 2000. Shaw also assisted the Bob Dole and Steve Forbes presidential campaigns and chaired the SCC’s organizational committee for three years.

One well-connected Republican who won’t be running in IA-03 is David Oman, a former chief of staff to Governor Terry Branstad. I’ve posted his comment today after the jump. If Oman was too moderate to win the 1998 GOP nomination for governor, he’s way too moderate to have a prayer in any Republican primary today. Oman’s leadership of the now-defunct Iowa Rain Forest Environmental Project would also be disqualifying in a GOP primary.  

At this point I don’t expect any Republican woman to run in IA-03. I doubt State Representative Mary Ann Hanusa will give up a safe Iowa House seat in Council Bluffs to enter a crowded primary, especially with former Council Bluffs City Council member Schultz in the race. Hanusa did not respond to my recent request for comment. Branstad’s legal counsel Brenna Findley knows Congress well, having worked in Representative Steve King’s office for years. But despite rumors circulating in central Iowa, I see Findley as more likely to run for attorney general again than for Congress.  

Governor Terry Branstad delivered his annual “Condition of the State” address to Iowa lawmakers this morning. By Branstad’s standards, it was not a partisan speech. He drew several standing ovations from legislators in both parties, and it’s easy to imagine the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate embracing most of the policies he advocated. In fact, immediately after the speech, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal told Iowa Public Television’s Dean Borg that he “didn’t hear anything” he disagreed with. Gronstal did get in a quick jab at the governor, though, pointing out that Branstad hailed “predictability” for the state budget, which is what statehouse Democrats are seeking for school districts. During the last two years, House Republicans and Branstad have refused to comply with Iowa law requiring the legislature to set allowable growth levels for K-12 school districts a year in advance.

Highlights from the governor’s speech are after the jump. Click here to read the full text, as prepared. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Stylistic note: for a guy who’s been in politics as long as Branstad has, he keeps his eyes glued to his script a lot. Experienced public speakers typically make more eye contact with the audience.  

Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum and House Minority Leader Mark Smith both called for raising Iowa’s minimum wage in their opening remarks to fellow legislators yesterday. Increasing the minimum wage from the current level of $7.25 would raise earnings for roughly 332,000 Iowa workers, according to a 2012 estimate. It would acknowledge the reality that “the minimum wage does not keep a full-time worker out of poverty.”  

Governor Terry Branstad said last week that a minimum wage hike is “not part of my agenda,” suggesting that job training and efforts to attract high-skilled jobs would be sufficient. Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen indicated that he sees a minimum wage increase as “[m]aking it harder to be an employer in the state of Iowa.”

However, appearing on Iowa Public Radio’s “River to River” program yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal pointed out that Branstad signed a minimum wage increase during the 1980s and that Paulsen had voted for the January 2007 bill that raised the wage. On the same program, Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer acknowledged that there may be support for a minimum wage increase in her caucus, since at least half of current House Republicans who were in the legislature in 2007 had voted for that minimum wage hike. Like Paulsen, Upmeyer was a yes vote. At the time, he was House minority whip and she was one of four assistant minority leaders.

Iowa’s last minimum wage hike was the first bill Governor Chet Culver signed into law. House File 1 sailed through, passing by 79 votes to 19 in the Iowa House and 40 votes to 8 in the Iowa Senate. All of the Democrats supported the bill. After the jump I’ve listed how all of the current Republican lawmakers voted on the minimum wage increase. Twelve supported the bill, thirteen opposed it, and one was absent for the 2007 vote.

The Iowa House and Senate convened today to begin the 2014 legislative session. All of the opening remarks reflected on key achievements of the 2013 session, such as compromise bills on commercial property tax cuts, education reform, and providing health care to low-income Iowans. All of the speeches called for more bipartisan work this year, and all stressed “pocketbook” issues such as improving education and building the middle class rather than social issues. But Republican and Democratic leaders take different priorities into the 2014 session.

I’ve summarized below the key points Iowa House and Senate majority and minority leaders raised today. I also enclosed lengthy excerpts and in some cases the full texts of their opening day speeches.

Click here for a tentative schedule of key dates during the 2014 legislative session. Lawmakers tend to finish their work earlier in election years than in odd-numbered years, but I highly doubt they will be ready to adjourn by March 30, as House Speaker Paulsen hopes. They will be lucky to finish work on the state budget by April 22, when lawmakers stop receiving per diem payments.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is “fairly confident” going into this year’s state legislative elections, he told Mike Glover in a recent interview. He cited a “pretty good message” to take to voters as well as a “a slight advantage on the map” that will allow Democrats to play “a little less defense and a little more offense,” compared to 2012.

I agree with Gronstal that Democrats are better positioned now to hold their 26 to 24 majority in the upper chamber than they were at the same point two years ago. Follow me after the jump for a quick look at the eight districts the Senate majority leader expects to be targeted this fall.

As Republicans prepare to make “Obamacare” a central argument against any incumbents who voted for the 2010 health care reform law, many House Democrats are looking for political cover. So it was on Friday, when a third of the Democratic caucus voted for the latest Republican bill in the U.S. House targeting the law. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Hill,

The one-sentence bill says that no later than two business days after any security breach on an ObamaCare site is discovered, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to each individual.” […] The White House said it opposed the bill, arguing the government already has plans to tell people if their information has been compromised. […]

Democrats said the GOP was trying to stir up fears about HealthCare.gov and the other enrollment sites by raising the idea that people’s personal information could be stolen.

“There have been no successful security attacks on HealthCare.gov, and no one has maliciously accessed personal information,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.). “This is just another one of those scare tactics, and I just hope that my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, are not fooled by this.”

The roll call on the “Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act” shows that Iowa Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 67 House Democrats who joined all the Republicans present to approve this bill by a large margin. Neither called attention to the vote with a press release. After the jump I’ve posted the statement from Representative Steve King (IA-04), who has long been one of the most vocal critics of the Affordable Care Act. I didn’t see any statement from Tom Latham (IA-03), who also voted for this bill.

Like the last anti-Obamacare measure Braley and Loebsack supported, this bill will neither become law nor insulate the Democrats from attacks during this year’s campaigns for U.S. Senate or Iowa’s second Congressional district.  

Talk about lousy timing: just before a chemical spill made tap water unusable for 300,000 West Virginians, the U.S. House approved a bill that would “weaken the nation’s hazardous waste laws and place American communities at increased risk of toxic exposure.” The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013 (H.R. 2279) includes three bills House Republicans drafted last year. In a letter signed by 129 public interest groups, Earth Justice listed the key points of each bill and explained why the package would “threaten human health and the environment while protecting polluters from liability for the costs of toxic cleanups.” I’ve posted an excerpt from that open letter after the jump. In a post for the Earth Justice blog last week, Lisa Evans called this bill “Kryptonite for Superfund” and “a con job of the highest order, allowing polluters to walk away without losing a penny, while taxpayers are left footing the bill.”

Under its current leadership, the House has been called “the most anti-environmental House in our nation’s history” because of the many bills passed that would curtail federal regulations and take power away from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Occasionally Iowa’s two House Democrats have gone along with those efforts, but I was pleased to see that on January 9, Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the latest effort to hamstring the EPA and for the Democratic motion to recommit this bill with instructions (often a last-ditch effort to kill legislation in the House). Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) lived up to their abysmal voting records on the environment by voting for the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act and against the motion to recommit.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

The Iowa legislature’s 2014 session begins on Monday morning. I always try to cover major developments in the Iowa House and Senate. However, there are always more things going on at the statehouse than any one person can write about, even if this year’s session is far less productive than last year’s (as seems likely). Bleeding Heartland is a community blog, and I want to encourage members to post guest diaries on bills or other legislative issues you’re following closely. Guest posts can focus on a bill you’re advocating or a bad idea legislators are considering or an area that needs more attention from lawmakers. If you refer to a specific bill, please provide the bill number (usually beginning with HF or SF, sometimes HJR or SJR) and the names of key lawmakers if it’s still in committee. A link to the bill text is also helpful and can be found by searching for the bill number at the Iowa legislature’s official website. If the bill has already passed both chambers, you can post a diary calling attention to its likely impact.

Both houses of Congress resumed work last week. I try to write about how the Iowans voted on important bills, as well as comments from Congressional candidates. I’ll be catching up soon on the Farm Bill conference committee negotiations, involving Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Steve King. But feel free to post a guest diary about any federal policy that’s on your radar.

Finally, I want to welcome Lynda Waddington back to the Iowa blogosphere. She recently reactivated her Essential Estrogen site and started posting again regularly after a break from writing about politics.

Iowa House Minority Leader Mark Smith and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal both issued statements yesterday challenging a document that listed all 150 members of the Iowa legislature as members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The group lobbies for conservative and pro-corporate policies in state legislatures around the country, often submitting model legislation that lawmakers propose on their behalf.

In an open letter to ALEC’s executive director, Smith said none of the 47 Iowa House Democrats have applied to ALEC for membership or paid dues. He questioned “why ALEC would accept payment of dues on behalf of legislators who clearly want no part of your organization,” adding that it “likely” violates Iowa ethics law for “a corporation or other entity” to pay dues to ALEC on behalf of lawmakers. I’ve posted the full text of Smith’s letter below.

Gronstal’s statement, which is at the bottom of this post, describes ALEC’s claims as “deceptive and deceitful,” since none of the 26 Iowa Senate Democrats is a member of the organization.

Only two days after rolling out plans to eliminate cash purchases, the Iowa State Fair board of directors announced yesterday that they will not require tickets for all vendor purchases at this year’s state fair.

Officials said they plan “to investigate future implementation of a more progressive system that will eliminate Fairgoers’ concerns of the inconvenience of paper tickets and long lines, improve the concessionaires’ reporting system and accommodate the Fair’s infrastructure.”

Feedback was overwhelmingly negative on all the comment threads I read this week, because the no-cash rule would inconvenience fairgoers. The state fair board will have to look for other ways to combat the problem of some vendors failing to report their full sales.

Meanwhile, Governor Terry Branstad’s office quickly released a statement noting that he and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds “applaud” the State Fair Board’s decision. I’ve posted the statement after the jump. It does not explain whether Reynolds, who serves on the state fair board, argued against the planned no-cash policy before fair officials announced it in a letter to vendors this week. I have to say, it’s smart politics for Branstad to insert himself into this controversy. It costs him nothing to come out against a deeply unpopular change to the state fair.