Earlier this month, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources issued a draft air quality permit for the proposed coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown. There are big problems with the draft permit. For one thing, it does not regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, even though coal-fired power plants are a major source of greenhouse gases.

In addition, the draft permit does not regulate fine particulate matter (also known as particulate matter 2.5), which causes and exacerbates many respiratory illnesses. Fine particulate matter isn’t just a nuisance–it causes many premature deaths. You would think that an air quality permit would address an air pollution issue with major implications for human health.

The good news is that on Friday the DNR extended the public comment period for this air quality permit, thanks to numerous comments encouraged by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. Mike Carberry of Green State Solutions forwarded the DNR’s press release to me:

Due to extensive interest, the public comment period for the draft air quality construction permits for the coal-fired power plant proposed by Interstate Power and Light for its Marshalltown facility-Sutherland Generating Station-has been extended to May 18. Public hearings will also be held in five additional cities.

Currently scheduled are four public hearings (two each at two locations):

March 16, 2:30 p.m. – 5 p.m., Iowa Veterans’ Home, Whitehill Chapel, 1501 Summit Street Marshalltown

March 16, 6:30 p.m. – 9 p.m., Iowa Veterans’ Home, Marshalltown

March 17, 3 p.m. – 5 p.m., Meskwaki Tribal Center, 346 Meskwaki Road, Tama

March 17, 7 p.m. – 9 p.m., Meskwaki Tribal Center, Tama

Due to the many comments received from particular areas of the state, additional public hearings have been scheduled in Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Iowa City and the Waterloo/Cedar Falls area. Specific times and sites have not been determined at this point, but the hearings will likely be held in early May. As soon as that information is available it will be released to the public.

The public hearings are for the purpose of accepting comments only. Comments at the public hearings will be limited to five minutes. Presentations shall include a hard copy for inclusion into public record.

Comments may also be submitted in writing before 4:30 p.m., May 18, to Chris Roling, Air Quality Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 7900 Hickman Road Ste 1, Urbandale, IA 50322 or emailed to chris.roling@dnr.iowa.gov.

All documents for this project are available on the DNR Air Quality Bureau’s Web site at http://aq48.dnraq.state.ia.us:…

# # #

Please submit your comments on this draft air quality permit. Making this permit stronger in any way would reduce the adverse impact of this coal plant and might prompt the utility to abandon the project.

You can download a pdf file with talking points for your comments on the Iowa page of the Sierra Club’s website.

Progressive Punch has added a new and incredibly useful layer of analysis to its rankings of members of Congress by voting record.

The “Select by Score” pages now indicate how progressive representatives and senators are compared to the districts and states they represent.

Select by Score Senate rankings

Select by Score House rankings

As before, you see members of the House and Senate ranked from most progressive to least progressive, based on all votes as well as on certain “crucial votes.” Calculating a separate score for “crucial votes” reveals which Democrats are not reliable when the chips are down. This helps prevent gaming of the system, as when Joe Lieberman voted against filibustering Samuel Alito’s nomination for the Supreme Court, then turned around and voted against confirming him.

For the new feature, Progressive Punch has placed every state and Congressional district into one of five categories: strong D, lean D, swing, lean R, and strong R. Each Congress-critter’s “crucial vote” score is then compared to the political lean of the district or state. In the right-hand column on the “Select by Score” pages, every member of Congress now has a rating from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most progressive. Progressive Punch explains:

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress’ voting record has been in relation to his/her district. We’re grading on a curve. Five stars in the “Rating” column indicate members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states or districts. Those with one star are performing the worst in relation to their districts.

For more details on the methodology behind this analysis, click here for House ratings and here for Senate ratings.

Why is this useful? It’s now much easier to see which Democrats in Congress are voting about as well as could be expected, and which ones should be doing a lot better.  

Here are a few examples. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid have identical lifetime progressive scores on crucial votes. However, since Feinstein represents a strong Democratic state (CA) and Reid represents a swing state (NV), Feinstein gets a 1 while Reid gets a 3.

Ron Wyden (OR), Barbara Mikulski (MD) and Amy Klobuchar (MN) have very similar lifetime scores, but Wyden and Klobuchar get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat states. Mikulski gets a 3 when graded on a curve that takes into account Maryland’s solid Democratic profile.

Similarly, Daniel Inouye (HI) gets a 1, while Jon Tester (MT) gets a 3 for almost the same “crucial vote” score, because Montana leans Republican.

Jeff Bingaman (NM), Jim Webb (VA) and Byron Dorgan (ND) have very similar progressive lifetime scores, but Bingaman gets a 2 for representing a lean-Democrat state, Webb gets a 3 for representing a swing state, and Dorgan gets a 4 for representing a lean-Republican state.

Scanning down the Select by Score House page, a few Democrats stand out. There’s Timothy Bishop (NY-01) with a 5 rating for how he represents his swing district, while most of the House members with similar lifetime scores get 3s, because they represent strong Democratic districts.

Dave Obey (WI-07) and Peter DeFazio (OR-04) get 4s because they represent lean-Democrat districts. Most of the House members with similar lifetime progressive scores get 3s.

Amid a large group of House Democrats who get a 2 when their crucial vote score is compared to how strongly Democratic their districts are, James Oberstar (MN-08) gets a 4 for a similar progressive score because he represents a swing district, while Michael Michaud (ME-02) and Paul Hodes (NH-02) get a 3 because their districts lean Democratic.

How can progressives use this information? One way would be to determine which incumbents in safe Democratic seats should face more pressure from the left. In extreme cases, this pressure could include a primary challenge.

Also, these rankings reveal which Democratic primaries should become top priorities for progressives when incumbents retire. For example, John Murtha (PA-12) and Henry Cuellar (TX-28) represent strongly Democratic districts but vote like Democrats representing swing or Republican districts.

For Bleeding Heartland readers who want to know how Iowa’s representatives are doing, Senator Tom Harkin was among the 22 Senate Democrats whose lifetime score earned a 5 (good work!). He’s only slightly more progressive than the average Senate Democrat; his lifetime score on crucial votes ranks 19th in the caucus.

Chuck Grassley’s lifetime progressive score is very low, around 5 percent. Amazingly, 28 Senate Republicans are even less progressive than he is.

Iowa’s House Democrats didn’t fare so well when graded on Progressive Punch’s curve. Dave Loebsack (IA-02) gets a 2 for having the 118th most progressive score on crucial votes (just over 80 percent) while representing a strongly Democratic district.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) gets a 1 for having the 147th most progressive score on crucial votes (just over 75 percent) while representing a strongly Democratic district.

Both Braley and Loebsack have progressive scores around 95 percent if you look at all votes, but given how safe their seats are, they could certainly improve on their voting records “when the chips are down.”

Leonard Boswell (IA-03) also gets a 1 for having the 189th most progressive score on crucial votes (only 64 percent) while representing a lean-Democratic district. (On the plus side, his overall score for the current session is a lot better than his lifetime score.) Many House Democrats with voting records like Boswell’s represent swing or Republican-leaning districts. When this becomes an open seat, the Democratic primary should be a top target for progressives.

You will not be surprised to learn that Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) are in a large group of House Republicans who hardly ever vote for the progressive side of any issue.  

Senator Grassley spent this week touring several counties in Iowa, holding Town Hall meetings and doing tours of various facilities. This evening he was in Mechanicsville, IA. This is a pretty small town – it's in Cedar County – eastern side of the state.

In 2004 Cedar County was Bush 50% and Kerry 49%. In 2008 Obama got 54% to McCain's 44%. I was told by a volunteer tonight that the Obama campaign's goal in this county was 5,200 votes. Obama got 5,221 votes. 

Senator Grassley set up all his events this week in small towns – ensuring that media outlets would have to travel to see him. Well, clonecone and I went to see him – and we brought a video camera. We haven't been able to upload the video yet, but I expect to do another diary with video and more details tomorrow or Saturday…in the meantime, some highlights!

adapted with minor changes from a diary I wrote last February

One day in February 2007, Steve Gilliard wrote his last post for the News Blog and went to the doctor to get a prescription for a cold he couldn’t shake. He was admitted to the hospital right away for treatment of an infection of unknown origin, and he never was able to get back on his computer. He died that June.

I know I’m not the only former News Blog addict who thinks of Steve every time Republican Party chairman Michael Steele says something ridiculous. Steve would have had a field day with the RNC leadership contest. Just imagine the post he might have written about this list of prominent conservatives who endorsed Ken Blackwell.

Further reflections on what Steve’s blogging meant to me are after the jump.

Chris Bowers wrote a good post on where Representative Bruce Braley’s new Populist Caucus fits in among House Democrats. The whole piece is worth reading, but here’s an excerpt:

Clearly, there is a strong tendency toward the Progressive caucus among the Populists, even though they were organized by a New Democrat. Further, Progressive punch puts the median lifetime score on “crucial votes” for this group at 55.5 of 256 (between [Joe] Courtney at 54 and [Dave] Loebsack at 57) in the Democratic caucus, placing it decidedly in the left-wing of the party.

[…]

Notably, the Populists are also heavy on the class of 2006, as 14 of the 20 members listed by the Huffington Post were first elected to Congress that year (and Massa came within an inch of being a 15th that year). Only Boswell, DeFazio, Filner Sanchez and Schakowsky were first elected to Congress before 2006. As such, while it displayed the same fractured tendencies of all ideological caucuses across the three bailout votes, the Populist Caucus appears to be primarily a caucus of progressive sophomore Representatives. This is particularly interesting since the class of 2006 was supposed to be a conservative dominated class ushered in by then -DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel. Now, the progressive members of that class appear to have organized a new caucus for themselves.

I didn’t realize until I read this page on Braley’s website that Tom Harkin chaired a House Populist Caucus during the 1980s:

In February of 1983, a group of 14 Midwest Democratic members of Congress founded the first known “Populist Caucus” with the goal to “fight for such economic goals as fairer taxes, lower interest rates and cheaper energy.”

The original Populist Caucus was chaired by then-Rep. Tom Harkin (D-IA).  The other members in the caucus were Berkley Bedell (D-IA); Lane Evans (D-IL); Tom Daschle (D-SD); Al Gore (D-TN); Timothy Penny (D-MN); Jim Weaver (D-OR); Byron Dorgan (D-ND); Harold Volkmer (D-MO); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bob Wise (D-WV); Frank McCloskey (D-IN); Bill Richardson (D-NM); Gerry Sikorski (D-MN); and Mike Synar (D-OK).

The first Populist Caucus dissolved by the mid-1990’s.

Several members of that original Populist Caucus had been elected to the U.S. Senate or had left the House for other reasons by the early 1990s.

Side note: Bill Richardson once identified himself as a populist? Wow.

The new Populist Caucus platform is on Braley’s website:

  1. Fighting for working families and the middle class by creating and retaining good-paying jobs in America, providing fair wages, proper benefits, a level playing field at the negotiating table, and ensuring American workers have secure, solvent retirement plans.

  2. Cutting taxes for the middle class and establishing an equitable tax structure.

  3. Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans.

  4. Ensuring quality primary education for all American children, and affordable college education for all who want it.

  5. Defending American competiveness by fighting for fair trade principles.

  6. Protecting consumers, so that Americans can have faith in the safety and effectiveness of the products they purchase

I will be interested to see how the Populist Caucus weighs in on the coming debates over health care, workers’ rights and tax policy.

A full list of the 23 founding Populist Caucus members is after the jump.  

The Iowa Senate approved the Natural Resources Trust Fund constitutional amendment today by 49 to 1, with Senator Pam Jochum (D) casting the only no vote.

The Iowa House approved the same bill yesterday by 82 to 14, with 4 not voting. Although the measure passed with strong bipartisan support, 11 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted no.

This is a huge victory for the Sustainable Funding Coalition, which includes the following organizations:

Conservation Districts of Iowa

Ducks Unlimited

Environment Iowa

Environmental Law & Policy Center

Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards

Iowa Conservation Alliance

Iowa Environmental Council

Iowa Farmers Union

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

Iowa Rivers Revival

Izaak Walton League

The Nature Conservancy

Pheasants Forever

Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter

Here is some background on the bill from the Iowa Environmental Council’s website:

This bill will …

Establish a constitutionally protected state fund for protecting and enhancing water quality, conserving Iowa’s precious agricultural soils, and much more.  Minnesota and other states have established similar trust funds.

This bill will NOT raise taxes

In Iowa, taxes cannot be raised by a constitutional amendment. However, constitutional amendments can dedicate a portion of tax revenue to certain activities. If this bill (currently numbered as SJR1 in the Senate and HJR1 in the House) becomes law, and WHEN sales taxes are increased in Iowa in the future, the first 3/8 cent of the new tax must be earmarked or dedicated to this new Trust.

Why sustainable funding?

Increased and protected state funding is essential to provide key benefits across Iowa:

* Cleaner water

* Positive economic impacts

* Sustainable agriculture and soils

* Outdoor recreation opportunities close to home where Iowans can enjoy and appreciate healthy activities, nature, and Iowa’s beauty.

Why a constitutional amendment?

Sales tax revenues are much more stable than the state budget. With a constitutional amendment that guarantees 3/8 cent of sales tax revenue to conservation, there will be predictable and steady funding for important long-term programs for a healthier environment.

What’s the process to establish the sustainable funding?

A vote of the people, as well as a vote of two different legislative bodies, is needed.

1. The 2008 Iowa Legislature passes the joint resolution to place the issue on public ballot.

2. The 2009 Iowa Legislature passes the same joint resolution.

3. Iowans would vote on the resolution in a statewide election. A simple majority is needed for its passage.

4. The Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund begins accumulating when Iowa sales tax is increased.

The Iowa Environmental Council has also prepared this fact sheet (pdf file) on the sustainable funding initiative.

Although I would have voted for this bill, I have mixed feelings about it. I recognize the importance of securing a reliable funding stream for these programs, and this approach seems to work well for other states.

At the same time, I know California got into trouble by adopting too many constitutional amendments on funding this or that program. I also question why adequate funding for the environment should depend on raising the sales tax, which is regressive.

People involved with the Sustainable Funding Coalition have told me that they are working with the Iowa Policy Project to come up with a way to mitigate the impact that a sales tax hike would have on lower-income Iowans. (One option would be to increase the earned-income tax credit at the same time that the sales tax is increased.)

The Des Moines Register quoted four representatives explaining their votes, and I felt all raised valid points:

Rep. Paul Bell, D-Newton: “It is only right that we protect and maintain our natural resources for our children and godchildren.”

Rep. Mike May, R-Spirit Lake: “This is not a political issue. This is an environmental issue. A vibrant environment is incredibly important to our future. I’m concerned that we may supplant the funds that are now dedicated to DNR with this money. It behooves the Legislature to be vigilant and committed that we are going to protect this money.”

OPPONENTS: Rep. Cindy Winckler, D-Davenport: “We are elected to make decisions every day. Calling for a constitutional amendment allows us to put off our decision about our valuable natural resources. I do not think we need permission from our voters to make this important decision.”

Rep. Greg Forristall, R-Macedonia: “I support many causes that are mentioned in this resolution. Here’s my problem. What’s to prevent a future legislature from stripping all the money we currently spend (on natural resources) and switch to the money in this special fund?”

I put the full roll call from the Iowa House after the jump.

Remember how urgent it was for Congress to approve the Wall Street bailout last fall to free up credit? Not surprisingly, things didn’t work out that way:

A new report out of the Treasury Department Tuesday confirmed what many lawmakers, housing advocates, small businesses and individual consumers have known all along: That despite hundreds of billions of dollars flowing from Washington to the finance industry, bank lending among recipients of the Troubled Asset Relief Program fell in the last three months of 2008.

Among the 20 largest TARP recipients, median mortgage and business lending both fell by 1 percent over that span, Treasury found, while median credit card lending rose 2 percent, “reflecting greater reliance on existing credit lines by consumers.”

The findings were based on a survey of the 20 banks receiving the most federal help under the TARP, and marks the first in what will be a series of monthly reports analyzing the lending trends among bailed-out banks.

It would be nice to know what the banks are doing with the bailout money, but they don’t want to tell anyone.

How disappointing that Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants to continue the misguided effort begun by George Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson.

Here are some more links on why Geithner’s plan “fails on almost every level.” Excerpt:

Robert Kuttner offers a strong analysis of Geithner’s strategy to salvage the banking industry in The American Prospect, noting that Geithner is explicitly avoiding the simplest and cheapest solution in favor of propping up the current Wall Street regime. The current plan is designed to support a financial architecture that has proven completely ineffective in maintaining the nation’s basic economic functions.

Someone who works for a non-profit organization told me last week that he has filled out a detailed six-page application for a $1,000 federal grant, while Geithner wants to get $350 billion on the basis of a vague two-page proposal.

Josh Marshall notes that “a lot of key political appointments at the Treasury haven’t been made yet, let alone been confirmed.” He takes a stab at explaining why:

one of the big issues is that it’s actually hard to find people with the requisite knowledge of banks and the capital markets who aren’t also compromised — either in policy or business terms — by the housing bubble and the rest of the financial collapse. And that raises again as a question: why have none of the people who were financial orthodoxy dissidents and saw what was coming been brought in to the administration. I know I’m hardly the first one to bring this up. And we know that the big appointees — Summers and Geithner — were part of the mix. But there aren’t even any of them further down into the appointment structure. They’re all still on the outside.

Disturbing.

Although GOP leaders are boasting that zero House Republicans voted for the stimulus bill, I have a sneaking suspicion that once this so-called “wasteful spending” starts working its way through the economy, Republican members of Congress will find a way to take credit for it.

We saw last fall that Steve “10 worst” King used his first television commercial to take credit for progress toward widening Iowa Highway 20. The TIME-21 plan approved by the state legislature last spring–not King’s work in Congress–made that project possible. Nevertheless, King continued to mislead voters about his role in moving the Highway 20 project forward.

At least two House Republicans are already playing this game with respect to the stimulus. David Waldman/Kagro X predicts,

Standard operating procedure, of course. Oppose the bill viciously, vote against it, then show up at every ribbon cutting in the district paid for by federal funds, and cry “Politicization!” if they’re not invited.

Paul Rosenberg’s take on this story is also worth a read.

Democrats need to be on the lookout for this kind of weaselry over the next couple of years. Help from Iowans living in the fourth and fifth Congressional districts would be most appreciated.

If you see Steve King or Tom Latham taking credit for stimulus spending they voted against, either in an official press release or in a local newspaper, radio or television news story, please post a diary about it at Bleeding Heartland, or e-mail me with the details (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

UPDATE: More Republicans are touting wonderful provisions in the stimulus bill they voted against.

As President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill in Denver,

The White House today released state-specific details on the local impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a nationwide effort to create jobs, jumpstart growth and transform our economy to compete in the 21st century. The compromise package of $789 billion will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. Jobs created will be in a range of industries from clean energy to health care, with over 90% in the private sector.

Below are links to tables and fact sheets outlining the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The estimates are derived from an analysis of the overall employment impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act conducted by Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President, and detailed estimates of the working age population, employment, and industrial composition of each state.

Note: all of the links below are to pdf files.

Overview on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Working Families

Employment Numbers by State

Employment Numbers by Congressional district

Education Fact Sheet

Energy Fact Sheet

Health Care Fact Sheet

Infrastructure Fact Sheet

I have not had time to read these documents yet. Please use this comment thread to write about what you like and don’t like about the stimulus.

Note: while House Republican leaders proudly proclaim that no one in their caucus voted for the stimulus, I heard on the news this morning that 22 of the 24 Republican governors support the bill.

That’s the difference between someone whose main task is to build an electoral comeback on Democratic failure and someone who has to govern in this difficult economy.

I support Senator Patrick Leahy’s call for a “truth commission” to investigate abuses of power by officials in George W. Bush’s administration. People who participated in or encouraged official law-breaking need to be held accountable, or at least exposed to public scrutiny.

Judging from this report by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, we have a lot more to learn about how Justice Department attorneys twisted the law to serve King George:

An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department’s ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos “was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys.” According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials-Jay Bybee and John Yoo-as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. […]

[T]he OPR probe began after Jack Goldsmith, a Bush appointee who took over OLC in 2003, protested the legal arguments made in the memos. Goldsmith resigned the following year after withdrawing the memos, and later wrote that he was “astonished” by the “deeply flawed” and “sloppily reasoned” legal analysis in the memos by Yoo and Bybee, including their assertion (challenged by many scholars) that the president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture.

OPR investigators focused on whether the memo’s authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted.

Too bad this report didn’t come out in time for University of Iowa Law School faculty to ask Yoo about it when he was in Iowa City last week.

Do any Bleeding Heartland readers happen to teach at the U of I Law School? I’d love to hear how his talk went. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you heard Yoo speak or took part in protesting his appearance.

UPDATE: Daily Kos user Vyan has much more background in this diary and speculates that Yoo and Bybee could be disbarred for their role in writing the torture memos. I would be very surprised if it comes to that. I don’t think state bar associations like political controversies.

SECOND UPDATE: A little bird tells me that Yoo’s appearance in Iowa City was uneventful, and no one present asked him about the torture memos. I have to question why any university would invite a “newsmaker” to speak if no one’s going to ask about the controversy that made the person famous. Mr. desmoinesdem wonders if Yoo insists on a promise not to ask about the torture memos before agreeing to speak to any audience. Anyone out there know the answer?

Rush Limbaugh is not a big fan of Barack Obama. That part is not surprising.

However, this quote from Rush is…

I want everything he’s doing to fail … I want the stimulus package to fail … I do not want this to succeed.

I was not a big fan of George W. Bush, but it wasn't always that way. I began not to like Bush after numerous failures during his prescidency. There was the Iraq War, Mission Accomplished, Katrina, tax cuts for the wealthy, torture, domestic spying, just to name a few. I didn't root for him to fail even though that is all he seemed to do as president.

What Rush and the Right is doing is completely different. They are rooting for Obama's failure because it would lead to their personal gain. Rush would get better ratings and more money. Republicans would have a better chance at getting elected. It would also lead to the demise of our great country.

I am sorry, but putting one's own well being before country is what I call unpatriotic.

I didn’t know about this rally day when I posted my calendar of events for this week, but I learned today that Iowa Rivers Revival is urging supporters to come to the capitol tomorrow. All the details are after the jump.

Following up on this morning’s action alert, I am pleased to report that the Iowa Senate approved a bill ending wage discrimination today. From a Senate Democrats press release:

Today the Iowa Senate voted to outlaw wage discrimination based on age, race, religion, gender and the other protected classes cited in the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

“Your pay should be based on your job performance, not your religion, age or gender,” said State Senator Staci Appel of Ackworth, Chair of the State Government Committee and the bill’s floor manager.  “This is particularly important for the many Iowa families where women work outside the home.  When an Iowa mom is paid what she is worth, the entire family benefits.”

“Iowa voters are urging us to focus on protecting and growing the middle class,” said Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal.  “Today’s vote to outlaw wage discrimination is just this session’s first step in that direction.”

The legislation, Iowa ‘s version of the federal Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, will have particularly positive impact for Iowa women and their families.  Iowa currently ranks 37th among states when it comes to gender wage equity.  Under Senate File 127, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission would have the ability to award double the wage differential for the period of time the discrimination occurred and up to three times that wage differential in cases of willful violation.

The legislation applies only to employers who have four or more employees.  It does not apply to wage differences that result from a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or is based on any other factor other than the age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability of the employee.

The legislation now goes to the Iowa House for its consideration.

It was a straight party-line vote: 32 Democratic senators in favor, 18 Republicans opposed. Like they say, elections have consequences.

Note: when the U.S. Senate approved the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 last month, four Republicans joined all the Democrats and independents in support of the bill. That included three women Republicans in the U.S. Senate. I wonder why the three women in the Iowa Senate Republican caucus are less concerned about wage discrimination.

The Des Moines Register provides some background on the problem in Iowa:

It’s taboo in the private business world for workers to compare salaries, so Iowa women with careers in finance and insurance may not know that Iowa men earn about $78,000 a year on average, while women bring in $40,000. […]

Iowa’s female workers – both hourly and salaried – earn 78 cents for every dollar male workers make, according to data from Iowa Workforce Development.

For example, in retail home furnishing stores in Iowa, men make $36,000 a year on average while women earn $22,000, according to a study of 1.45 million Iowa workers’ 2007 wages.

In food service, men bring in $13,000, while women take home $10,000.

In Iowa hospitals, men earn $61,000, women make $37,000.

Even in elementary and secondary schools, men make $35,000 a year on average, while women earn $27,000.

These industry averages could reflect factors such as differences in experience and job skills, but also reveal a disproportionately lower wage for women overall, state officials said.

Tom Harkin will schedule a hearing in the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to examine how this scandal occurred:

For 34 years, Henry’s Turkey Service acted as landlord, caretaker and employer for dozens of mentally retarded men sent from Texas to Atalissa [Iowa] to work in West Liberty’s meat-processing plant. The men were housed in a former schoolhouse, known as “the bunkhouse.” Nine days ago, state officials shut down the bunkhouse, describing conditions there as unsafe and “deplorable.”

In return for working 30 to 40 hours per week, the workers received room, board and care in the bunkhouse, plus a salary that, in some cases, averaged 44 cents an hour.

The Des Moines Register quoted Harkin describing the conditions as “pretty close to slavery.”

The company that contracted with Henry’s Turkey Service says it is not to blame:

A West Liberty Foods executive says the company never asked about the wages paid to the mentally retarded men who worked in the corporation’s meat-processing plant.

For years, Henry’s Turkey Service of Texas provided West Liberty Foods with workers in return for a fee. That fee was based on the number of hours worked by the mentally retarded men Henry’s had working in the plant.

West Liberty Foods Vice President Dan Waters said the weekly payments his company made to Henry’s, if divided by the hours worked by the men, were “well in excess of the minimum wage.” He declined to be more specific. […]

Waters said West Liberty Foods never asked how much of the money paid to Henry’s was passed on to the individual workers in the form of salary.

[…]

Waters said West Liberty Foods does not have any agreements with other companies to place handicapped workers in its plants. State labor officials say they have subpoenaed West Liberty Foods’ payroll records.

Unfortunately, this may not be an isolated incident:

Curtis Decker of the National Disability Rights Network […] said his organization plans to contact the U.S. Department of Labor and to work on ways to improve oversight of companies that employ the disabled. […]

Decker said many companies provide work for the mentally disabled at less than the prevailing wage. With government approval, they can pay less than the minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour in Iowa. That can lead to abuse by unscrupulous employers, Decker said. “There’s very little oversight of all this by the Social Security Administration,” he said.

In the same article, Peter Berns of the advocacy group Arc called for a federal investigation to determine how Henry’s Turkey Service was able to treat its workers in that fashion for decades without being caught by federal, state or local agencies.

The Houston Chronicle reported on February 11,

It is not the first time the bunkhouse or the Henry’s Turkey Service operation has been examined by Iowa officials. State healthcare facility regulators visited the bunkhouse in 2005 and 2001, but on both occasions found the men to be functioning well enough not to be classified as “dependent adults.”

But in the past four years, the men’s conditions and mental states worsened enough to force Iowa officials to remove them.

On Saturday, state fire marshals closed the bunkhouse.

“The state fire marshal’s office did not know this building existed until we got the call,” said Courtney Greene, spokeswoman for the Iowa Department of Public Safety, which includes the state fire marshal division.

“All 21 men have mental retardation,” said Roger Munns, spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services, which petitioned a court this week that all 21 be classified as “dependent” adults. Arrangements were being made Tuesday to transfer the men from the motel they have been living in since Friday to a facility for the mentally disabled in Waterloo, Iowa.

Attempts were being made to keep all the men together because they consider each other family.

I hope these men will find decent care in the same facility, and I hope there will be a full federal investigation of this exploitation following the Senate hearing.

Passing along an action alert from the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women:

The Iowa Senate is scheduled to debate SF137 — Iowa ‘s version of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act– starting this afternoon!

Read the full text of this bill at the following link:

http://coolice.legis.state.ia….

This bill is a crucial step in ending wage discrimination in Iowa based on gender and other protected class status, like disability and race.

Please contact your State Senator http://www3.legis.state.ia.us/…  BEFORE 1:00 TODAY and let her/him know your thoughts on the bill.  Email works great, but if you’d prefer to phone, call the Capitol Switchboard at 515-281-3221.

Some facts about wage discrimination and the bill:

– Iowa is ranked 37th among states for gender wage equity, and Iowa women are in the workforce at greater rates than the vast majority of other states.

– The bill goes farther to protect Iowans from wage discrimination than the Federal law does.

– It would apply for employers that have 4 or more employees (Federal law only protects those with 15 or more employees).

– It provides a deterrent to those few employers who might be temped to discriminate from doing so in the first place, by allowing damages of up to triple the back wages owed to a person where discrimination has been found, for the entirety of the time discrimination is proved to have occurred (Federal law only provides two years of back wage differential, or in some cases, three years).    

While you’re at it, please share your thoughts on gender balance on local boards and commissions.  SF133 http://coolice.legis.state.ia…. , a bill requiring local boards and commissions to be gender balanced like those at the state level, is also eligible for debate in the Senate. A recent phone survey of all 99 counties found that, across four county economic boards and commissions, less than one in six of those appointed to serve and make local economic decisions is a woman. Our communities deserve better representation and more balanced decision making.

Email works great, but if you’d prefer to phone, call the Capitol Switchboard at 515-281-3221.

Iowa Commission on the Status of Women

Lucas State Office Building

Des Moines, IA   50319=

PH: 515-281-4461 or 800-558-4427

FAX: 515-242-6119

www.women.iowa.gov

I disagree that e-mail “works great” in these situations. A lot of legislators have huge e-mail backlogs that they never read, or don’t read in time for it to affect their opinion of a pending bill.

I would call the switchboard to weigh in on this issue.

I’m beginning to feel like a stalker. Let’s see what our friend Secretary Vilsack is up to this week.

First, Tom Vilsack, The New Face of Agriculture gave an interview to the Washington Post.

Food during my early years was a very difficult issue for me. I grew up in an addictive family. My mother had serious problems with alcohol and prescription drugs. I was an overweight kid. I can remember back in those days there weren’t the strategies that there are today to deal with those issues. So my parents put this very nasty cartoon of a very overweight young kid with a beanie cap and pasted it on the front of the refrigerator. So every time I opened the refrigerator I had to look at that picture.

Food is a fairly significant aspect of my life. I have struggled mightily with food. With my weight. And I’m conscious of it. So I have a sensitivity to people who struggle with their weight. That’s one aspect people don’t fully appreciate. I don’t want youngsters to go through what I went through.

There are ways we can go do a better job of educating young moms and dads about the vital role they have as the child’s first teacher. I think there are ways in which we can partner with local school districts and states to do a better job to provide nutrition options at school. It’s our responsibility to get this health-care crisis under control. I think if people understand that history and how serious I am about this and look at the record in Iowa — the real record in Iowa — they would be less concerned than they were.

Wow. As somebody who loved and lost a brother who had a childhood all too similar to Vilsack’s, I just want to give him a big hug.

More below…

Update: Read the comments under my Daily Kos cross-post for lots of good insights. There are also some fascinating comments in Beltway Dem’s thread; for instance, Charles Lemos makes a case for Arthur as one of the great presidents.

Thanks to Beltway Dem’s diary at MyDD, I saw that C-SPAN asked these 65 professional historians or observers of the presidency to rank the 42 presidents on the following criteria:  

   * Public Persuasion

   * Crisis Leadership

   * Economic Management

   * Moral Authority

   * International Relations

   * Administrative Skills

   * Relations with Congress

   * Vision/Setting An Agenda

   * Pursued Equal Justice For All

   * Performance Within Context of Times

Here are the overall scores and rankings. George W. Bush ranked 36th, ahead of Millard Fillmore, Warren G. Harding, William Henry Harrison, Franklin D. Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan. Doesn’t that strike you as unfair to William Henry Harrison? Granted, he didn’t accomplish much in the six weeks he was president before dying of pneumonia. But it’s not as if he turned a record surplus into record deficits or got this country mired in the longest war in U.S. history or anything.

Other notable findings:

Abraham Lincoln ranked first again, as any normal person would expect (even though none of the men who sought to lead the Republican Party named him as the greatest GOP president). Lincoln is even more remarkable when you view his leadership in the context of his times. The three presidents who immediately preceded Lincoln and his successor all ranked in the bottom six overall.

George Washington moved ahead of Franklin Delano Roosevelt this time to finish second. That is a tough call, and I could see it either way. The New Deal changed this country forever, but Washington’s commitment to regular presidential elections and serving only two terms set enormously important precedents.

Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S Truman ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, as they did in the 2000 survey. I’m no professional historian, but that seems high for Truman.

John F. Kennedy moved from eighth place in 2000 to sixth in this survey, putting him just ahead of Thomas Jefferson. They cannot be serious. Kennedy did more for this country as president than Jefferson did?

Dwight D. Eisenhower also moved up from ninth place in the last survey to eighth. Woodrow Wilson dropped from sixth in 2000 to ninth, which probably says something about current academic trends in the International Relations field, but I don’t know what exactly.

Republicans will be pleased that Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson switched places; Reagan moved from eleventh into the top ten, while LBJ dropped down one notch to eleventh.

I have problems with putting JFK ahead of LBJ. I don’t think Kennedy could have gotten such far-reaching civil rights legislation through Congress during that era. The great tragedy of LBJ’s presidency was continuing the Vietnam policy begun by JFK. Johnson had serious doubts about this policy, but he stuck with it, and in doing so he was following the advice of almost all the Kennedy advisers who stayed on for his administration. I do not believe Kennedy would have kept us from deeper involvement in Vietnam, and I don’t think he would have achieved nearly as much on the domestic front.

Speaking of which, ranking Reagan ahead of Johnson seems outlandish. I know Reagan is now a conservative cult hero (they whitewash his tax hikes during in his second term), but can his admirers explain to me which of his policies changed this country forever? Did he make the government smaller in some way? Did he manage the country’s money responsibly?

Look at this list of LBJ’s accomplishments, which Paul Rosenberg compiled at Open Left. (I hope he will forgive me for posting the list after the jump as well.) Can anyone imagine this country without Medicare or Medicaid? Head Start or Food Stamps? The Department of Transportation? Republicans may hate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, but they have been unable to get rid of them. The long list includes consumer protection and environmental progress as well.

The war in Vietnam was a terrible mistake, but even so, Johnson made lasting changes for the good in so many policy areas, it’s mind-boggling. The Republican presidents who followed him were unable to undo this legacy.

Getting back to the historians’ survey, Bill Clinton looks a lot better now than he did before George W. Bush screwed up the country. As a group, the historians ranked him 21st in 2000, but he has moved up to 15th place.

George H.W. Bush moved up slightly from 20th to 18th place.

Did someone’s book launch a revisionist view of Ulysses S. Grant during the last eight years? He ranked 33rd in 2000 but moved up to 23rd place. No other president showed as large a jump in the historians’ rankings. UPDATE: In the Daily Kos thread Judge Moonbox says:

Such a revision is almost certainly due to Eric Foner’s Reconstruction; which wiped away nearly a century of the racist received history–a legacy which proves that history is not always written by the victors. Here it had been written by the Mugwumps.

Also, ORDem linked to this diary by NNadir on how Grant wasn’t a bad president.

Jimmy Carter dropped from 22nd to 25th, and Richard Nixon dropped from 25th to 27th.

This is an open thread for any opinions about how the U.S. presidents should be ranked.

President Barack Obama will have a very large bill to sign on Monday. Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill by 246 to 183. As expected, no Republicans voted for the bill. Iowa’s three Democrats in the House voted for it. Looking at the roll call, I was surprised to see that only seven House Democrats voted against this bill (one voted “present” and one did not vote). I did not expect that much support from the 50-odd Blue Dog Democrats. Good for them!

In the Senate, supporters of the stimulus managed exactly 60 votes after Senator Sherrod Brown flew back from Ohio, where he was attending his mother’s wake. All Democrats, two independents, and three Republicans (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter) voted for it. According to Specter, at least a few other Senate Republicans supported the bill but were afraid to vote for it (fearing a challenge from the right in the next GOP primary). I’m no fan of Specter, but I give him credit for casting a tough vote today. As brownsox explains, conservative Republicans in Pennsylvania are eager to take Specter out in the 2010 primary, having apparently forgotten how badly right-wing Senator Rick Santorum got beaten in 2006.

Daily Kos diarist thereisnospoon, a self-described “hack” who conducts focus groups for a living, is giddy about the potential to make Republicans pay in 2010 for voting against “the biggest middle-class tax cut in history.”

On the whole, this bill is more good than bad, but I agree 100 percent with Tom Harkin’s comments to the New York Times:

Even before the last touches were put to the bill, some angry Democrats said that Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders had been too quick to give up on Democratic priorities. “I am not happy with it,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “You are not looking at a happy camper. I mean they took a lot of stuff out of education. They took it out of health, school construction and they put it more into tax issues.”

Mr. Harkin said he was particularly frustrated by the money being spent on fixing the alternative minimum tax. “It’s about 9 percent of the whole bill,” he said, “Why is it in there? It has nothing to do with stimulus. It has nothing to do with recovery.”

The $70 billion spent on fixing the alternative minimum tax will produce little “stimulus bang for the buck” compared to most forms of spending. The upper middle class and upper class earners who will benefit are likely to save rather than spend the money they get back.

As exciting as it is to see increased funding for high-speed rail, I fear that the bulk of the much larger sum appropriated for roads will go toward new highway construction rather than maintaining our existing infrastructure.

But I’ve buried the lede: what will the stimulus bill do for Iowa?

Iowa Politics linked to two White House documents about the impact in terms of spending and jobs created. This pdf file estimates the number of jobs created in each state and in each Congressional district within that state. It estimates 37,000 jobs created in Iowa: 6,600 in the first district, 7,000 in each of the second and third districts, 6,700 in the fourth district and 6,200 in the fifth district.

Prediction: Tom Latham and Steve King will take credit for infrastructure projects in their districts during the next election campaign, even though both voted against the stimulus bill.

This pdf file shows how much money Iowa will receive under different line items in the stimulus bill. Even more helpful, it also shows the figures for the original House and Senate bills, so you can get a sense of which cuts were made. The bill that first passed the House would have directed $2.27 billion to Iowa. The first Senate version reduced that number to $1.8 billion. The final bill that came out of conference directs about $1.9 billion to Iowa.

If you delve into the details of this document you’ll understand why Harkin isn’t thrilled with the bill he voted for. They took out school construction funds and extra money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), for crying out loud.

“Bizarro Stimulus” indeed.

Iowa Independent reports that Harkin and Chuck Grassley “agree that the newly conceived formula used to distribute the $87 billion Medicaid portion of the bill shortchanges Iowa.”

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Representatives Dave Loebsack and Bruce Braley on the stimulus bill. Both talk about the jobs that will be created in Iowa. Loebsack emphasizes the tax cuts that 95 percent of American families will receive as a result of this bill. However, he also expresses his concern about what he views as inadequate funding for modernizing schools in the final bill.

Braley’s statement highlights an amendment he wrote providing low-interest loans for biofuels producers.

I would have been happy to post a statement from Leonard Boswell too, but his office has repeatedly refused my requests to be added to its distribution list for press releases. Hillary Clinton may have a prestigious job in Barack Obama’s cabinet and Joe Lieberman may be welcome in the Democratic Senate caucus, but Boswell’s press secretary seems ready to hold a grudge forever against the blogger who supported Ed Fallon.  

In remarkable parallel to the climate crisis, there is no single solution to reviving our economy – it will take a combination of innovative thinking and bold actions to face both challenges. The American Recovery and Investment Act (of which Jesse provides a great summary of energy-related features) illustrates that.

I want to take a moment to talk about one feature in the stimulus bill that occupied one sentence in his summary: high-speed passenger rail.

The American Recovery and Investment Act included a total of $9.3 billion for passenger rail: $8 billion for construction of high speed passenger rail and intercity passenger rail service and $1.3 billion for Amtrak (the National Railroad Passenger Corporation) rail investments. As I was talking about this today, the number of atrocious puns that came up was amazing:

• “High speed passenger rail can get the economy back on track”
• “Everyone’s getting on board with passenger rail”
• “Trains can be a model for environomics*”
• “The little stimulus package that could”

*environomics refers to developing a sustainable global economy

I could continue with the jokes, but you get the picture. However, I think it is worth noting that not only is there substantial support for high speed passenger rail in Congress (the original amount was $3 billion in the House and $2.25 billion in the Senate – apparently somebody in the conference committee likes us), but there is broad support among the public. Out here in the Midwest, we have been working to gain support and funding for a high speed passenger rail network, with its hub in Chicago. This system would provide high speed service to St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, the Twin Cities and Omaha. For a little context, the trip from Omaha to Detroit is approximately a quarter of the width of the continental 48 states.

What is even more impressive to me is how rail can really be a model for how to actually engage diverse players in building a sustainable economy. Here in Iowa, we are building a coalition of labor, business and youth organizations (in addition to the traditional environmental groups) to work together on getting high speed passenger rail approved this year. And we’re not just talking liberal groups either. For example Jan Michaelson, a local conservative talk show host, had nothing but good things to say about rail when Andrew Snow from Iowa Global Warming joined his show this week. Talk about finally moving past partisanship – rail is one of the clearest vehicles to make this a reality (no apologies for the pun).

There are plenty of issues that can build a diverse base of support, but the thing is, high speed rail visibly makes lots of people’s lives easier. Upgrading building efficiency largely goes unnoticed except for electricity bills; people don’t see the wind energy powering their homes. But talk about saving yourself the hassle of driving several hours, not having to drive through traffic, and oh, did I mention that rail is about 3 times as efficient as driving and 6 times as efficient as flying. Oh, and hundreds to thousands of jobs will be created through construction and operation.

Rail has broad support, has a significant improvement in the ease of travel and will save countless vehicle miles traveled (well, you probably could count them, but it would keep you very busy). We can use rail as a way to build successful and diverse coalitions which we can then continue to work with to advance the less visible, less sexy aspects of sustainability. These relationships will be crucial to mobilizing society-wide action.

All aboard!

Originally posted on It’s Getting Hot In Here

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of an event I should add to this post.

Friday, February 13:

As part of the “POWERLINES to the Future” conference of the Midwest Regional Physicians for Social Responsibility, there will be a free film and discussion of “Scarred Lands and Wounded Lives” at 7:30 pm in the International Center, Old Capitol Town Center Mall, downtown Iowa City.

Get full information at:

www.iowa-psr.org/pl/pl_home.html

One Iowa urges supporters to “write a note on Facebook or Myspace with the 25 Reasons you support marriage equality. Then tag 25 of your closest friends on the note and add your 25 reasons as a comment to the One Iowa Facebook or Myspace page.” Also, One Iowa is hosting a Happy Hour from 5-7 PM at Azalea Restaurant, 400 Walnut St., Des Moines.

Friends of Iowa Midwives is having a “Red Envelope Party” (where people can write letters to policy-makers advocating for expanding birth options in Iowa) in Davenport from 3 pm to 5 pm at the Harrison Hilltop Theatre. Click here for more information:

http://www.friendsofiowamidwiv…

Saturday, February 14:

Physicians for Social Responsibility is holding a “POWERLINES to the Future” conference at the International Center, Old Capitol Town Center Mall, Iowa City. PSR hopes to encourage Iowans, especially those involved in the health professions, to become more informed and actively engaged in confronting the gravest health challenges of our time:

Conference 9:00 AM — 4:00 PM

Check-in and breakfast at 8:00 AM

The Saturday program addresses health, environmental, and economic consequences of:

Nuclear weapons

Nuclear power

Coal fired power generation

View full program at:  www.iowa-psr.org/pl/pl_home.html/#program

Intended audience: physicians, allied health professionals, public health officials, general public, and students.

Registration includes breakfast and lunch on Saturday.

Pre-registration by Wednesday February 11, 2009 is required to be ensured food!

Sliding-scale conference registration fee.

Register online or download a printable registration form at:

www.iowa-psr.org/pl/pl_home.html/#registration

Friends of Iowa Midwives is having a “Red Envelope Party” at the Urbandale Public Library from 10 am to 12 pm, and at the Iowa City Public Library from 1 pm to 3 pm. For more information:

http://www.friendsofiowamidwiv…

Monday, February 16:

Big event on climate change co-sponsored by lots of good organizations:

The University of Iowa Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research and a variety of co-sponsoring organizations invite you to a climate change briefing and discussion to highlight the recent report of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council.

The briefing and discussion will take place on Monday, February 16, 6:00-7:30 pm at the Iowa State Historical Building Auditorium, 600 East Locust in Des Moines.

The meeting will be an opportunity to learn more about climate change science its potential impacts on Iowa, as well as learn about the recent options detailed in the work of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council report and participate in an informal discussion about climate change and next steps.

Iowa Climate Change Briefing and Discussion

Monday, February 16, 6:00-7:30 pm

Iowa State Historical Building, Auditorium

AGENDA

Welcome – Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie

Richard Leopold, Director, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Climate Science and Assessment of Climate Change for Iowa- Eugene S. Takle, Director, Climate Change Initiative, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Professor of Agricultural Meteorology, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University

Brief overview of the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council’s Report –  Jerry Schnoor – Co-director, University of Iowa Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research and Chairman, Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council

What are our next steps? Interactive discussion with key legislators, ICCAC members and the audience

Adjourn for light refreshments

Climate Change Briefing and Discussion Co-Sponsors

Iowa State University Climate Science Initiative

UNI Center for Energy and Environmental Education

Iowa State University Extension

Iowa Department of Economic Development

Iowa Office of Energy Independence

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Iowa Department of Public Health

Iowa Office of Consumer Advocate

Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities

Iowa State Association of Counties

Iowa League of Cities

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture

Iowa Environmental Council

Iowa Interfaith Power & Light

Iowa Policy Project

Trees Forever

For more information or questions contact Joe Bolkcom, Outreach and Community Education Director, UI Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research at joe-bolkcom@uiowa.edu or 319-353-2681.

One Iowa is organizing this event:

February 16, 5:30 PM

“Transgender Medicine 101”

featuring Dr. Christine McGinn

FREE and open to the public

Dinner at 5:30, lecture at 6:00

Des Moines University Student Education Center Auditorium

3200 Grand Avenue, Des Moines

Go to www.oneiow.org for more information

Tuesday, February 17:

It’s the registration deadline for the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa’s Crossroads lunch on February 20 (see below for more information). Call 515-279-8715 to make a reservation.

The Women Food and Agriculture Network is holding “Women Caring for the Land” meetings on February 17, 18 and 19, for women landowners in Johnson, Jones and Linn Counties. These are free educational programs on conservation programming for women who are farm partners, owner-operators, or inheritors who own farmland. Laura Krouse will hold meetings in each county, followed by spring field days and a follow-up meeting. Please call her at 319-895-6924 to find out where and when the meeting will be held in each county.

Wednesday, February 18:

One Iowa and Lambda Legal are holding a “Let My Parents Marry” forum at 6:30 pm in the Coralville Public Library, Meeting Room A, 1401 5th St., Coralville.

Friends of Iowa Midwives is holding its third Annual Conscious Birth Summit from 3 pm to 8 pm in the Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A, Featuring screenings of The Business of Being Born and Orgasmic Birth.

Thursday, February 19:

From the Iowa Environmental Council newsletter:

Growing Sustainable Communities Conference

Join us Thursday, February 19, 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m., at the Grand River Center, 500 Bell Street in Dubuque. Cost is $20 per person, which includes a lunch. Limited number of student scholarships available. Our conference theme is “Promoting Historic Preservation as Part of the Climate Solution.” Insights will be offered on creating local and regional policies to promote sustainability through historic preservation. Keynote speakers for the event are Richard Moe, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Roya Stanley, director of the Iowa Office for Energy Independence. Deadline for registration is Feb 11 [from desmoinesdem: I know it’s late, but if you’re interested try calling anyway]. A limited number of student scholarships are available. Online registration and payment, as well as additional information, are available at www.sustainabledubuque.org or by calling 563.589.4110 during business hours. The mission of the conference is to educate the public on the issues that impact the long-term health and sustainability of our region and to create an opportunity for policy decision-makers from the tri-state area to come together to discuss ways in which they can enact the most effective change at the local level.

Also from the IEC bulletin:

Iowa Whitewater Coalition Annual Dinner Meeting

February 19, Des Moines

The IWC ‘Reconnecting the Rivers’ Annual Dinner Meeting will take place on Thursday, February 19th, with a social hour beginning at 6 pm and dinner at 7 pm. Following the meal special guest Adam Brooks, who has paddled the entire Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, will be sharing stories from his adventure on the Pacific Crest Trail and his plans for paddling 2300 miles of the Yukon River in Alaska starting in June. The meeting will be held at the House of Thai, located at 3017 100th Street in Des Moines. There will be a wonderful selection of dishes served banquet style, beverages and a cash bar for those interested. Tickets may be purchased for $25 per individual or $45 per couple. Proceeds from the event directly benefit the non-profit activities of the IWC and its Reconnecting the Rivers Campaign. For more information and to purchase tickets, go to: http://www.iowawhitewater.org/…

One Iowa and Lambda Legal are holding a “Let My Parents Marry” forum at 6:30 pm in the Des Moines Public Library, Meeting Room 1, 1000 Grand Ave. in Des Moines.

Friday, February 20:

The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa is holding a Crossroads luncheon:

Guest Speaker:    Nate Monson

Project Coordinator, Iowa Safe Schools

Subject:                Safe Schools for All

Sexual orientation and gender identity are two controversial topics in our communities and in our schools. Are our schools safe for LGBT youth? Learn about, discuss, and experience the effects of bias and harassment on students who identify and students who are perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender and learn about laws dealing with the GLBT community.

Date:                    Friday, February 20

o       Time:        11:45 – 1 p.m.

o       Location: Plymouth Congregational Church, Des Moines (42nd Street & Ingersoll Avenue )

o       Cost:         $9.00

Reservations are required for Crossroads.  Please call or email TIA Iowa by Tuesday, February 17.

Office: 515-279-8715

Friends of Iowa Midwives is having a Red Envelope Party from noon to 1 pm at the Marion Public Library.

Saturday, February 21:

From the IEC bulletin:

Hunter Angler Summit

Please join other outdoor enthusiasts on Feb 21, at Johnson County Conservation Education Center at F.W. Kent Park, just west of Tiffin, for a one-day summit to learn about threats to Iowa wetlands, rivers and streams, and help the National and Iowa Wildlife Federation to launch a state campaign to fight back after the rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and administrative fiats that have left over half of Iowa streams and over 70 percent of Iowa’s prairie pothole wetlands vulnerable to losing Clean Water Act protections. Whether you are an angler who enjoys casting in your favorite stream or a hunter who counts on mallards and northern pintails, these decisions threaten the places you love. Policy experts and scientists will share the current efforts to eliminate protections in Iowa and the serious impacts they have for Iowa fish and wildlife. We will work together to design a statewide plan for hunters and anglers to stop the rollback of clean water protections for Iowa waters.  Hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts who care about clean water and wildlife should attend. Please RSVP: Email Pam Goddard, goddardp@nwf.org or call at 301-741-6606.