Yesterday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rolled out a proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The full text of the rule and several short fact sheets are available on the EPA’s website. Click here to read EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s speech about the new policy. This fact sheet makes the short and sweet case for targeting power plants, “the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S.” The new policy goal is to “cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels” by the year 2030. Other associated benefits: cutting levels of soot and smog in the air by over 25 percent in 2030, and saving money and lives through reducing air pollution. In fact, the EPA estimates $7 in health benefits for every dollar spent to implement the new policy.

While some in the environmental community were hoping for more aggressive carbon reduction targets, the new rule would be a big step in the right direction. For too long, elected officials in Iowa and nationally have ignored evidence that we need to address climate change. Furthermore, coal’s “assault on human health” is immense and under-appreciated.

Iowa political reaction to yesterday’s news was mostly disappointing but not surprising. I’ve enclosed noteworthy comments at the end of this post. But first, let’s examine three reasons Iowans should embrace the EPA’s new rule.  

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

Did anyone get to the Clinton County Democrats Hall of Fame dinner last night to hear U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont? I wasn’t there, but judging from Lynda Waddington’s live tweets, he gave a great keynote speech, touching on economic inequality, climate change, education, and single-payer health care (which drew a standing ovation). Sanders thanked Iowans for sending Tom Harkin to Washington, where he earned his place in history.

Before the speech, Sanders told Waddington that he is considering running for president in 2016. The reception he gets in Iowa will influence his decision. I hope he runs, and not only because I would much rather caucus for him than for Hillary Clinton or “uncommitted.” Ben Jacobs predicts Sanders would “flop” against Clinton in Iowa, but I think he’s viewing the prospect through the wrong lens. People run for president for different reasons. Some are trying to win, while others are trying to drive the debate toward a certain set of issues. Of course Sanders doesn’t have a “path to victory” against Clinton in the Iowa caucuses–no Democrat would be able to beat her here. That’s not why he would be running. He explained his thought process in an interview late last year, which I’ve excerpted below. Sanders has always been elected to Congress as an independent, but I hope he would run for president as a Democrat.

The purpose of a progressive alternative in the race would be to force Hillary to focus more on issues of importance to liberals instead of spending all her time catering to Wall Street executives. On Friday she gave a “populist” policy speech about income inequality (excerpts are after the jump). Maybe she’s only pretending to care, but the more she goes on record promising to do something about these problems, the better. I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren when she says she is not running for president. In her absence, Bernie Sanders would be an outstanding voice for progressive values during the Democratic primaries.

Iowa politics junkies, help me out here: Has U.S. Senator Tom Harkin ever endorsed a candidate for an Iowa legislative district in a competitive Democratic primary with no incumbent? I can’t think of any prior examples, but it happened yesterday. The full text of Ned Chiodo’s press release is after the jump. Money quote: “I am proud to support Ned Chiodo for State Senate,” said Harkin. “I have known him for many years, and without question he has the integrity and experience to lead Iowa forward.”

Chiodo certainly has a lot of political experience: five terms in the Iowa House, one term as Polk County Auditor, and many years lobbying the Iowa legislature. Harkin’s endorsement is a slap at the other highly experienced candidate in the SD-17 primary: Tony Bisignano. I guess the long friendship allowed Harkin to overlook Chiodo’s effort to knock Bisignano off the ballot, which could have disenfranchised tens of thousands of Iowans had the Iowa Supreme Court reached a different conclusion.

Harkin is an original co-sponsor of a U.S. Senate bill “that would reduce recidivism rates by restoring voting rights to individuals after they have served their time and have been released from incarceration.” Yet he is endorsing an Iowa Senate candidate who argued that ineligible voters in Iowa include anyone convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor which can carry a prison sentence–regardless of whether the person was ever incarcerated.

I am urging my friends in Iowa Senate district 17 to support Nathan Blake, the third candidate in the Democratic primary. The Iowa Senate Democratic caucus already has plenty of members with at least decade’s experience as state legislators. How about a capable new person, who supports progressive values and doesn’t have Chiodo’s or Bisignano’s baggage?  

What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

So much election-related litigation in the news this past week: the Iowa Supreme Court rejecting Jonathan Narcisse’s quest for a spot on the Democratic primary ballot for governor, a Polk County District Court rejecting Ned Chiodo’s efforts to knock Tony Bisignano off the ballot in Iowa Senate district 17, and Secretary of State Matt Schultz asking the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling on voter roll maintenance procedures.

I didn’t manage to write up the country’s most important election law story: on Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on individual donations to federal candidates and political parties. Click here (pdf) to read Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission on behalf of four justices, Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion, and Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Breyer warned that the majority’s ruling used “faulty” legal analysis based on “its own, not a record-based, view of the facts.” Creating “a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign,” the McCutcheon decision along with the 2010 Citizens United ruling (also a 5-4 split) “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws” in Breyer’s view.

Here are some good opinion and analysis pieces on the Roberts decision, from Lyle Denniston at the SCOTUS blog, Garrett Epps at The Atlantic, and Robert Weissman, president of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.

Not surprisingly, Iowa’s Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley expressed support for the McCutcheon decision, equating money in politics to free speech. Democratic Senator Tom Harkin was discouraged, predicting that the ruling will diminish “public interest in politics” and continue the country’s drift toward “more and more influence by the wealthy and those who have money in politics.”  

Yet another good idea has fallen victim to the U.S. Senate’s rules requiring a super-majority to advance legislation. Although 44 Democratic senators and eleven Republicans supported a bill that would have taken sexual assault cases outside the military chain of command, backers fell five votes short of the 60 needed to pass a cloture motion yesterday. Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley both voted for cloture (roll call) on the bill sponsored by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Pentagon leaders and Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Claire McCaskill lobbied against the measure. A weaker sexual assault prevention bill proposed by McCaskill advanced after senators rejected cloture on Gillibrand’s bill.

After the jump I’ve posted the key arguments for both sides in the debate, as well as comments from Grassley and Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01). In the floor statement I’ve enclosed below, Grassley urged colleagues, “We need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn’t reported because of a perception that justice won’t be done.” Braley has long supported reforms along the lines of Gillibrand’s bill, and yesterday he promised to keep pushing on the issue, saying opponents are “on the wrong side of history.” Braley is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat Harkin will vacate at the end of this year.

P.S. – Of the Republican senators considered most likely to run for president in 2016, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for cloture on Gillibrand’s bill. Marco Rubio voted against it.  

Since Democrats changed U.S. Senate rules in November to remove the 60-vote threshold for cloture motions on most presidential nominees, senators have confirmed dozens of President Barack Obama’s appointees as federal judges, ambassadors, and to various executive branch positions. In fact, fifteen presidential nominees sailed through the process during the past month alone.

Yesterday, for the first time under new Senate rules, Democrats could not muster even a simple majority of votes in favor of cloture on a presidential nominee. Alexander Bolton and Ramsey Cox reported on the controversy that torpedoed Debo Adegbile’s nomintaion to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Critics said Adegbile was unfit for the job because as director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he had supported efforts commute the death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, “who was convicted of killing Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.”

Seven Democrats joined all the Republicans present to defeat the cloture motion on Adegbile’s nomination by 52 votes to 47 (roll call). The Iowans split along party lines, with Senator Tom Harkin supporting cloture on Adegbile’s nomination and Senator Chuck Grassley voting against the motion. Harkin sharply criticized his colleagues, saying Adegbile would have been confirmed if he were white.

Bolton and Cox saw yesterday’s vote as “a stinging defeat for Obama.” I see it as a more stinging defeat to basic concepts underlying the American justice system: everyone has a right to a defense, and defense attorneys should not be held accountable for their clients’ conduct. Going back to the colonial period, this country has a tradition of attorneys providing a vigorous defense at trial to even odious criminals. President John Adams remained proud of his work defending the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre of 1770 and opposing the death penalty for them, even though they had shot and killed patriots.

UPDATE: Added comments from Harkin after the jump.

Iowa elected officials from both parties have embraced policies to support veterans. But last week Republicans in the U.S. Senate used a procedural move to block a bill that would have supported veterans’ access to health care and higher education. Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill,

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) bill, S. 1982, would have expanded veterans’ healthcare programs, given veterans in-state tuition rates at all schools across the country and provided advanced appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It also sought to permanently fix a cut to the growth rate of veterans’ pensions. Earlier this year, Congress passed a bill to avoid a cut in the growth rate for current service members and veterans, but anyone enlisting after 2013 would still see a cut. Sanders’s bill would have eliminated that cut as well.

Cox explains that this bill got caught up in a longstanding dispute over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s efforts to limit floor votes on minority amendments, especially those that are “non-germane” or unrelated to the subject of the bill. Republicans wanted to vote on a substitute amendment that would have included sanctions against Iran. They also didn’t agree with the “pay-for” section of Sanders’ bill, which offset expected costs of about $20 billion “by limiting overseas contingency funds from 2018-2021.”

As a result, after Senate Democrats defeated a Republican effort to refer the bill back to the Veterans Affairs Committee, Republicans rejected a “motion to waive all applicable budgetary discipline” with respect to the bill. Democrats could muster only 56 votes in favor of that motion; under Senate rules at least 60 votes were needed to advance the bill. Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted against the motion, while Senator Tom Harkin voted for it, along with all the Democrats present and two Republicans.

I did not see any statement from Grassley explaining his vote on this bill. He has repeatedly criticized Reid in recent months for not allowing more votes on minority amendments.  

Small but important victory: White House officials revealed yesterday that President Barack Obama’s proposed budget for the 2015 fiscal year will not include Social Security cuts he proposed last year. The president had hoped Congressional Republicans would agree to small tax increases in exchange for using the “chained Consumer Price Index” to calculate annual cost of living adjustments for Social Security recipients. It’s a terrible idea that never should have emerged from a Democratic administration.

Maybe Obama recognized that in an election year, he was never going to get any real Republican concession in exchange for cuts that would inflict real pain on seniors who rely on Social Security. Democrats may need to fight this battle again before the end of Obama’s presidency, though.

[White House] Spokesman Josh Earnest said the decision to move away from chained CPI was motivated partially by the “substantial progress in reducing the deficit.” […]

Earnest repeatedly insisted that Obama would still consider chained CPI as part of a grand bargain on the debt, and that the move “does not reflect any reduction in the president’s willingness to try to meet Republicans in the middle.”

For now, Congressional Democrats are celebrating. Senators including Iowa’s Tom Harkin had strongly urged the president to abandon the “chained CPI” proposal. More than 100 House Democrats, including Iowa’s Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02), sent a similar letter to Obama this week. After the jump I’ve posted press releases from Harkin and Braley about the issue. UPDATE: Added a comment from Loebsack below.

By a voice vote on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate confirmed Kevin Techau as U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Iowa, based in Cedar Rapids. Senator Tom Harkin recommended Techau for the position, and President Barack Obama nominated him in November. The Senate Judiciary Committee, where Iowa’s Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican, approved Techau’s nomination by voice vote last month.

For more background on Techau’s career, click here or read Grassley’s Senate floor statement in support of the nomination, which I’ve posted below.

Techau will replace Stephanie Rose, who left the position as U.S. Attorney for Iowa’s Northern District to become a federal judge in Iowa’s Southern District, based in Des Moines.

This afternoon the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation to reverse a planned change in cost of living adjustments for some military pensions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to bring up the bill that passed the U.S. House yesterday, rather than a Democratic alternative that fixed the military pension policy without any spending cuts to offset the $6 billion cost over ten years. Senators approved the House bill by 95 votes to 3, with Iowa’s Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley both supporting the measure.

Also today, senators approved a bill “to temporarily extend the public debt limit” with no strings attached. That bill also cleared the House yesterday. A dozen Republicans including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell crossed party lines to approve the cloture motion on the debt ceiling hike, but the procedural vote was a nail-biter that took more than an hour. Grassley was one of the 31 Republicans who opposed cloture. The debt ceiling increase then passed on a a straight party-line vote of 55 to 43, with Harkin voting yes and Grassley voting no.

Possible 2016 presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio all voted against cloture on the debt ceiling increase as well as against the bill on final passage.

UPDATE: Erik Wasson, Ramsey Cox and Peter Schroeder wrote a fascinating piece on the battle to advance the debt ceiling bill: “McConnell and top lieutenant Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) reluctantly backed ending debate after it became clear that no one in their conference wanted to cast the deciding 60th vote.”

This post covers reaction to the debt ceiling vote from Republican candidates for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Added a statement from Braley below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Senate voted yesterday to delay for four years “most flood insurance premium hikes resulting from a 2012 law.” Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill,

The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, S. 1926, delays a required increase in flood insurance premiums for some homes and would allow homeowners to maintain existing flood insurance subsidies even after they are sold. Supporters of the bill say these changes are needed while the government studies whether homeowners can afford these higher costs.

In 2012, Congress passed flood insurance reform, the Biggert-Waters Act, to ensure the bankrupt program regained stability, but some lawmakers have complained that the law was ill-conceived because the new rates are too high for some people to stay in their homes.

S. 1926 would delay language that would immediately eliminate flood insurance subsidies for homes built before 1975 upon the sale of those homes. The bill would delay this trigger until the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does an affordability study. FEMA would also have to certify that its flood maps are accurate, a process the agency has said could take three years.

Fourteen Republicans joined all of the Democrats present, including Senator Tom Harkin, to pass the bill by 67 votes to 32 (roll call). Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the no votes. Before the vote on final passage, the Senate rejected three amendments to the flood insurance bill (click through for details). Harkin opposed all three amendments, while Grassley voted for two of the GOP amendments and against a third. I have not seen any public comment from Iowa’s senators on this bill but will update this post as needed.

President Barack Obama will finally have an opportunity to sign a five-year Farm Bill into law. The U.S. House approved the conference committee report today by 251 votes to 166, and the U.S. Senate is expected to approve the deal this week. The House roll call shows an unusual partisan split. Iowa’s four representatives were all among the 162 Republicans and 89 Democrats who voted for the final deal. But 63 House Republicans and 103 Democrats voted no, a mixture of conservatives who objected to spending in the $956 billion bill and liberals who opposed cuts to nutrition programs.

Although 41 representatives and senators served on the conference committee (including Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Steve King), the four top-ranking members of House and Senate Agriculture Committees hashed out the final details. King’s controversial amendment aimed at California’s egg regulations was left on the cutting room floor.

After the jump I’ve posted several takes on the farm bill’s key provisions and comments from the Iowa delegation.  

President Barack Obama addresses both houses of Congress tonight. The big policy news will be a new executive order requiring federal contractors to pay workers hourly wages of at least $10.10. The move could affect hundreds of thousands of workers. Last year the president proposed increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.00 per hour, but Senator Tom Harkin and other liberal Democrats argued for raising the wage to $10.10. Obama indicated his support for that wage level in November.

I will update this post later with highlights from tonight’s speech and reaction from Iowa’s Congressional delegation. Meanwhile, this thread is for any comments about the substance or the politics of the State of the Union address.

On a related note, I hope Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is right about the president refusing to negotiate with Congressional Republicans over raising the debt ceiling.

UPDATE: Click here for the full transcript of the president’s speech, as prepared. I’ve added some Iowa reaction after the jump.

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.  

Today the U.S. Senate confirmed Janet Yellen to be the first woman to chair the Federal Reserve. All of the Democrats present, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for the cloture motion on Yellen’s nomination in December. All of the Democrats present on January 6 voted to confirm her, joined by eleven Republicans. Incidentally, only 59 senators voted for cloture, which would have sunk Yellen under old Senate rules. Senate Democrats removed the 60-vote requirement for motions on presidential nominations in November.

Although a sizable group of Republicans voted to confirm Yellen, most of the Senate GOP caucus opposed her nomination, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley. In a floor statement I’ve posted after the jump, Grassley said he could not support her nomination because he is concerned the Federal Reserve’s “easy money” policies are “misguided” and will lead to high inflation. Yellen is widely considered an “inflation dove” who is willing to balance the Fed’s longstanding concern for keeping inflation down with a focus on reducing unemployment.

UPDATE: Corrected to clarify that the cloture vote on Yellen happened before the holiday recess. Grassley was among the 26 Republicans who voted no on Yellen’s confirmation. Harkin was absent for the final vote on Yellen on January 6, as were many other senators because of the extreme winter weather.

In a departure from the usual brinksmanship over funding the federal government, the U.S. Senate approved yesterday the recent bipartisan budget deal. Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan worked out a compromise on overall budget targets for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, replacing some of the “sequester” cuts that went into effect earlier this year. The deal passed the House last week with strong bipartisan support, including three of Iowa’s four representatives.

Senate Republicans were less supportive of the budget agreement than House GOP members, but nine Republicans crossed over to vote with the entire Democratic caucus, approving the deal by 64 votes to 36 (roll call). Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the 36 Republicans who voted no, along with possible future presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul. I have not seen any statement from Grassley’s office explaining that vote but will update this post as needed. UPDATE: Added a few comments from Grassley.

President Barack Obama will sign off on this agreement, but Congress still needs to pass an omnibus budget bill before January 15 to avoid another government shutdown. After the jump I’ve posted a statement from Senator Tom Harkin supporting the deal, as well as details on why some conservatives oppose this deal.

Republicans are preventing the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee from conducting routine business in retaliation for last month’s rules reform that limited the Senate minority’s power to filibuster presidential nominations. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on Judiciary and a vocal critic of what he called a “power grab” that stopped Republicans from demanding a 60-vote majority on almost every Senate action. Yesterday Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy criticized “obstruction” by his Republican colleagues, who boycotted an executive meeting to consider eighteen nominations last week and “invoked procedural tactics” to scuttle a hearing on five U.S. District Court nominees, which had been scheduled for December 18. Leahy warned that he may “reconsider long-held policies that have upheld the rights of the minority party” in committee matters.

Leahy’s statement is enclosed after the jump, along with Grassley’s response. He denied that Republicans have obstructed judicial nominations and said it would inevitably be “harder to get things done” after “Democrats broke the rules to change the rules.”

An October 2013 report by the Alliance for Justice found that “‘Pervasive and surreptitious’ obstruction of President [Barack] Obama’s judicial nominees is prolonging an ‘unprecedented vacancy crisis’ in America’s federal courts.” You can find that full report here. I’ve posted a few excerpts below.

UPDATE: Added a December 19 Judiciary Committee floor statement from Grassley on “so-called obstruction.”

The U.S. Senate continued to move forward last week on more of President Barack Obama’s stalled nominees. Since Bleeding Heartland posted this update last Tuesday, four U.S. district court judge nominations and five more executive branch nominations advanced to the Senate floor under new rules that do not require 60 votes for a cloture motion. You can find links to all the roll calls here.

All of the Democrats, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for cloture every time and to confirm all of the nominees. Almost all of Republicans, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted against every cloture motion. Each judge was then confirmed by much larger majorities of at least 70 senators. Grassley voted for confirming Elizabeth A. Wolford as a judge for the Western District of New York, Landya B. McCafferty for the District of New Hampshire, and Brian Morris and Susan P. Watters, both for judgeships in the District of Montana. As a general rule, even before filibuster reform, district court judicial nominees have moved through the Senate confirmation process more easily than U.S. appeals court nominees.

The executive branch nominees considered last week were Rachel Feldblum to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Patricia M. Wald to be a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Deborah Lee James to be Secretary of the Air Force, Heather Higginbottom to be deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, and Anne W. Patterson to be an Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Grassley voted against the cloture motions on all of those nominations. When the Senate considered the nominations themselves, Grassley voted against confirming Feldblum and Wald but for confirming James and Higginbottom. The final vote on Patterson’s nomination will take place this week.

I didn’t see any public comments from Harkin or Grassley regarding the latest confirmation votes. Last week, Grassley again objected strongly to the Senate rules reform as a “power grab” and “erosion of the separation of powers” in order to “remove a meaningful judicial check on the executive branch of government and its agenda.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has granted a waiver for Iowa’s alternative to the Medicaid expansion foreseen under the 2010 health care reform law. Governor Terry Branstad signed the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan compromise into law in June, and state officials submitted a formal request for a waiver in August. Iowa elected officials from both parties as well as many non-profit organizations with a stake in the outcome had urged Health and Human Services to approve the plan.

However, Governor Terry Branstad may appeal today’s decision, because federal officials rejected a provision he insisted on during negotiations with Democrats in the Iowa legislature.

In its first confirmation votes since changing U.S. Senate rules on the filibuster, a majority of senators voted today to confirm Patricia Millett as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Millett was one of three nominees for that court blocked by Senate Republicans this fall. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has argued that the D.C. Circuit does not need more than eight judges and strongly objected to new limits on the filibuster. But he wasn’t able to stop Senate Democrats from passing a cloture motion on Millett’s nomination shortly before the Thanksgiving recess. A last-ditch effort by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to challenge the rule change failed this morning. Then Democrats and one Republican confirmed Judge Millett by 56 votes to 38.

Later today, the Senate is expected to confirm Representative Mel Watt as Federal Housing Finance Agency director. A Republican filibuster had derailed his nomination in October. Today the Senate approved by 57 votes to 40 a cloture motion “to set up eight hours of debate on his nomination.” A final confirmation vote is scheduled for this evening.

After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from a recent commentary by Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin, a leading advocate of filibuster reform. I’ll add comments from Harkin and Grassley on today’s votes if they become available.

UPDATE: Senators confirmed Watt by 57 votes to 41, then moved on to reconsider a cloture motion on Cornelia Pillard’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That motion passed by 56 votes to 42. Harkin and Grassley were on opposite sides on all of these votes. Grassley had led a successful filibuster of Pillard’s nomination in November.

SECOND UPDATE: Added Grassley’s floor statement on Millett’s nomination. He repeated his case against adding any more judges to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After years of trying, Senator Tom Harkin finally got a majority of his colleagues on board with Senate rules reform. Today 52 members of the Democratic caucus voted to curtail the minority’s ability to filibuster presidential nominees. The same 52 senators then rejected Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s objection to the ruling from the chair. Just like that, Reid invoked the so-called “nuclear option,” which Republicans used to call the “constitutional option” when they flirted with the same rule change in 2006. From now on, only a simple majority of 51 votes will be needed to end debate on a judicial or executive branch nomination–not the 60 votes needed for cloture before today.

A series of Republican filibusters against nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finally pushed Reid to action. Immediately following the rules change, the Senate passed by 55 votes to 43 a cloture motion on the nomination of Patricia Millett, whom Republicans filibustered last month.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, vehemently objected to the rules change as a “blatant power grab,” while Harkin called for more limits to filibusters that block legislation. Comments from both senators are after the jump. President Barack Obama welcomed the rules change, saying, “I realize neither party has been blameless for these tactics … But today’s pattern of obstruction just isn’t normal.” But McConnell warned Democrats, “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”

UPDATE: Added more comments from both Harkin and Grassley below. Grassley warned that when his party is in the majority, they will likely remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees as well. For the record, Senate Democrats have never filibustered a Republican president’s Supreme Court nominee.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate again blocked a vote on one of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees yesterday. Robert Wilkins has served on the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC since his unanimous confirmation in 2010. But a cloture motion on Wilkins’ nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit failed with just 53 votes out of the 60 needed to end debate. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has led recent filibusters on two other nominees to the D.C. Circuit, claiming the court’s workload does not justify additional judges. In a floor statement that I’ve posted after the jump, Grassley made the same assertion but added a new twist:

There is no crisis on the D.C. Circuit, because they don’t have enough work to do as it is. […]

Even though we have a very real and very serious crisis facing this country because of Obamacare, the other side is desperately trying to divert attention to anything but the Obamacare disaster.

I’ve also posted statements below from the National Women’s Law Center and the Alliance for Justice, which again called for Senate rules reform. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says that presidential nominees need a super-majority to be confirmed by the Senate.

UPDATE: I did not realize that Judge Wilkins filed the lawsuit against the Maryland State Police “that helped popularize the term ‘driving while black'” during the 1990s.

I’ve added some clips at the end of this post on the growing momentum for changing Senate rules to end fillibusters of judicial nominees.

All four Iowans in the House of Representatives voted today for the Keep Your Health Plan Act “that allows insurance companies to offer health plans that were cancelled for not meeting new requirements under ObamaCare.” Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 39 Democrats who crossed party lines to support the bill, joining Tom Latham (IA-03), Steve King (IA-04), and almost all the Republicans present.

Braley and Loebsack both voted for the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and have opposed most of the Republican bills to repeal the health care reform law. For instance, Iowa’s representatives split on party lines when the House voted in August a bill “to prevent the IRS from enforcing any aspect of ObamaCare,” and when the House voted in July to delay the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

However, occasionally Braley and/or Loebsack have gone along with GOP efforts to alter the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, Loebsack voted with Republicans to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on medical device manufacturers. In July of this year, Braley joined Republicans to pass a bill delaying the employer mandate to provide health insurance for one year. (President Barack Obama had already announced his decision to delay the employer mandate, despite the financial and political costs of doing so.)

Given the media firestorm over some Americans losing the health insurance plans Obama promised they could keep, I’m not surprised Braley and Loebsack ran for cover today. Both had narrow escapes in 2010 and may face tough election campaigns in 2014.

After the jump I’ve enclosed comments from some of the Iowans in Congress on today’s vote and on the president’s administrative “fix” that may allow some people to keep insurance policies that would have been cancelled for not meeting ACA requirements. (Few Iowans need this fix, because Wellmark and most other health insurance providers were already allowing Iowans to keep their individual policies for another year.) I also enclosed details on why Obama has threatened to veto the bill that passed the House today. Senator Tom Harkin is determined to prevent it from passing the U.S. Senate.

UPDATE: Added a statement from Latham below. Also, the Koch-funded group Americans for Prosperity wasted no time in signaling that they will attack Braley on “Obamacare” regardless of this vote. I doubt he’s gained any political protection for the U.S. Senate race.

SECOND UPDATE: Added new comments from Braley.

Iowa wildflower Wednesday is on hiatus, but here’s an open thread. What’s on your mind, Bleeding Heartland readers?

I didn’t manage to post a Veterans Day linkfest on Monday, but I was interested in this article about the “long decline of veterans in Congress.”

Military service was once almost a prerequisite for service in Congress. Veterans comprised more than three-fourths of both the House and Senate at one point last century. Since then, their membership has declined to about 20 percent of both chambers.

Of the Iowans now serving in Congress, only Senator Tom Harkin is a veteran. Several Iowa candidates for federal office have served in the military, though, including Steve King’s Democratic challenger Jim Mowrer and Republican U.S. Senate hopefuls Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst.

The suicide rate among U.S. veterans has long been a national disgrace. The Military Suicide Research Consortium provides information on the problem and resources for those needing help.

Speaking of national disgraces, roughly 900,000 veterans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) saw their food assistance benefits cut at the beginning of November. The SNAP cuts King and other House Republicans are demanding in conference committee negotiations over the farm bill would deny federal food assistance to approximately 170,000 low-income veterans.

Representative Tom Latham fell for some Veterans Day-themed satire about MSNBC host Chris Hayes. A good reminder that deleted tweets and Facebook posts never truly disappear.  

Republicans in the U.S. Senate successfully filibustered yet another judicial appointment today. President Barack Obama had nominated Cornelia Pillard to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But a cloture motion failed to gain the 60 votes necessary under Senate rules to end debate on her nomination. Two Republicans joined all of the Democrats present, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, to vote for cloture, but the motion still failed 56 to 41 (roll call). As with Caitlin Halligan and Patricia Millett, two other Obama nominees defeated by GOP filibusters, opponents did not even try to pretend Pillard was not qualified to serve on the court. Rather, Grassley (the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee) again claimed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals does not have a large enough caseload to justify eleven judges.  

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s floor statement explaining his vote against confirming Pillard. I’ve also enclosed a statement from the Alliance for Justice, which has thoroughly debunked Grassley’s arguments about the D.C. court’s caseload. Senate Democrats made a huge mistake by not embracing Harkin’s call for filibuster reform years ago.

The White House announced yesterday that President Barack Obama has nominated Kevin W. Techau for U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Iowa, based in Cedar Rapids. He would replace Stephanie Rose, whom the U.S. Senate confirmed last year as a federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa. Senator Tom Harkin had recommended Techau for the position and welcomed the nomination in a statement I’ve posted after the jump, along with the White House press release. Both contain short bios of the nominee.

Techau should have no trouble being confirmed by the Senate. He has worked as a litigator in private practice, as a federal public defender, and most recently as an in-house attorney for an insurance company. He also has extensive management experience as director of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals and later Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety during Tom Vilsack’s administration. Techau has lived in central Iowa for many years but grew up in Marion, a suburb of Cedar Rapids.  

Ten Republicans joined all the Democrats present as the U.S. Senate approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by 64 votes to 32 (roll call). Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill,

Under the bill, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would enforce the new workplace rules. Small businesses with fewer than 15 employees would be exempt.

The legislation also contains language that exempts religious organizations.

The Senate on Thursday adopted an amendment from [Republican Rob] Portman that would prevent government retaliation against religious organizations that don’t hire someone because of sexual orientation or identity.

But Democrats rejected an amendment from [Republican Pat] Toomey that would have extended the religious exemption to any employer that is partially owned or funded by a religion or has religious affiliations – including universities.

Both Portman and Toomey voted for the bill. Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted against the cloture motion to end debate on ENDA as well as against the bill itself. I have not seen any statement from Grassley’s office explaining why he opposes the bill. I will update this post if I see any new comment. House Speaker John Boehner has asserted that codifying workplace protections for LGBT Americans would generate “frivolous lawsuits” against businesses.

Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin chairs the committee that moved this bill over the summer and has been one of its staunchest advocates. At the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last Saturday, Senator Chuck Schumer hailed Harkin for allowing first-term Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley to be lead sponsor on the ENDA. Merkley is up for re-election in Oregon next year. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s floor speech from Monday’s session and a statement release after today’s vote.  

Little-known fact: the deal that ended the government shutdown in mid-October did not technically involve a Congressional vote to raise the country’s debt ceiling. Rather, it allowed President Barack Obama to suspend the debt ceiling until February 7, unless both chambers of Congress passed motions disapproving of the action. The compromise enabled Republicans to put themselves on record opposing any further increase in the debt limit without pushing the U.S. into default. As Susan Davis explained in USA Today, even if a disapproval motion cleared the House and Senate, the president “would presumably veto it, putting the burden on Congress to find veto-proof majorities to override it – a near-impossible outcome […].”

Last week both chambers considered identical disapproval resolutions, drafted by Republicans. Supporters of the resolution asserted that they were not voting for default, just trying to send a message that “We have to get our debt under control.” When the Senate considered the resolution on October 29, all 45 Republicans present voted yes, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley. But it failed to pass as all 54 members of the Democratic caucus voted no, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin.

The House took up the resolution the following day and passed it by 222 votes to 191 (roll call). Only a few representatives crossed party lines on the vote. Iowa’s House members split as one would expect: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) went on record against “the President’s exercise of authority to suspend the debt limit,” while Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed the resolution. I have to laugh at Latham’s faux-statesmanship, voting for the deal that averted default before turning around and voting against the presidential action that averted default.

I’m with those who would make this phony “disapproval” exercise a permanent replacement for Congressional votes to raise the debt ceiling. A symbolic gesture is a small price to pay to avoid future hostage-taking scenarios.  

Senator Tom Harkin promised Iowa Democrats Saturday night that the U.S. Senate would soon approve the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to protect the workplace rights of LGBT Americans. Today a fifth Republican senator indicated that he will vote for the ENDA. Those five plus the 55 members of the Democratic caucus (including newly sworn-in Cory Booker of New Jersey) will give supporters the 60 votes needed to break the inevitable Republican filibuster. President Barack Obama has called on Congress to pass the law.

Passing ENDA was a priority for Senator Ted Kennedy, the longtime chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pension committee Harkin now leads. In 1996, an earlier version of this legislation fell just short of passage on the Senate floor. Harkin voted yes, while Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley voted no. In recent years, most Congressional Democrats have supported a version of ENDA that protects transgender employees as well as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Such a bill passed the U.S. House in 2007 but died in the Senate.

More details on the current bill’s provisions are after the jump. House Speaker John Boehner opposes ENDA and would be unlikely to put it to a vote in the lower chamber.

UPDATE: On Monday night the Senate approved a motion to proceed with debating the bill by 61 votes to 30 (roll call). Grassley was one of the 30 Republicans who attempted to filibuster. After the jump I’ve posted a video of Harkin’s floor statement supporting ENDA, which he called “another step in the direction of opening America up and making our society more inclusive rather than exclusive.”

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

The Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner was an entertaining affair. I’ve posted some highlights after the jump. The “news” of the evening was Senator Chuck Schumer of New York endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, but for my money that wasn’t the most interesting part of his speech.

This summer, Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate reached an informal deal to allow presidential nominees to be confirmed more smoothly without any new limits on the minority’s filibuster powers. The deal held for a while, allowing a bunch of stalled nominations to move forward. But filibuster reform may be back on the agenda soon, because today Republicans including Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley blocked the confirmation of two more presidential nominees today: Patricia Millett for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Representative Mel Watt to be the Federal Housing Finance Agency director. All the Senate Democrats, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for the cloture motions on the Millett and Watt nominations.

Millett is highly qualified for the judgeship, so instead of pretending to have a substantive case against her, Grassley says the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have a large enough caseload to justify more judges. That didn’t stop him or other Senate Republicans from voting to confirm all of President George W. Bush’s nominees for that court, as Judith E. Schaeffer explained in this excellent background piece on the controversy. Other analysts have discussed the many problems judicial vacancies are creating in the federal court system. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley helps set the tone for the GOP on these confirmations.

After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s Senate floor statement on the Millett nomination, comments from the Iowa Fair Courts Coalition, and an excerpt from Schaeffer’s post on Grassley and the D.C. Circuit. I haven’t seen any comment from Grassley on the Watt nomination but will update this post if he explains why he opposed him. According to Peter Schroeder of The Hill, “GOP lawmakers argued Watt lacked the experience to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Today members of the U.S. House and Senate began conference committee negotiations on the farm bill. The last five-year farm bill expired in 2012, and the latest extension of most federal farm programs (except for some related to conservation and sustainable agriculture) lapsed on September 30. Two Iowans are on the 41-member conference committee: Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and Republican Representative Steve King (IA-04).

One issue is likely to dominate the Congressional talks: funding levels for nutrition programs, especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. This summer, both Harkin and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley voted for the Senate farm bill, which cut SNAP by about $4 billion over 10 years. Iowa’s four U.S. House members split along party lines when the House approved a Republican bill with $39 billion in cuts over the same time frame. Keep in mind that regardless of what happens in the farm bill talks, all SNAP recipients–including an estimated 1 million veterans and approximately 421,000 Iowans–will see their food assistance reduced as of November 1. Click here for a detailed report on those cuts, which will occur as extra funding from the 2009 federal stimulus bill runs out.

After the jump I’ve posted the latest comments about the farm bill from Iowa politicians.

UPDATE: Added King’s opening statement from the conference committee meeting below.

SECOND UPDATE: Added new comments from Harkin.

The U.S. Senate and House voted tonight to fund the federal government through mid-January 2014 and raise the debt ceiling by enough to last until early February. Here’s the bullet-point version of the deal Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid negotiated with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. In classic Congressional fashion, senators loaded this must-pass bill with a bunch of goodies. A new House and Senate conference committee will negotiate over the federal budget for fiscal year 2014, and that committee must reach some agreement by December 13. The big sticking point will be whether to fund the government at levels approved for fiscal year 2013 before the “sequester” cuts went into effect in January.

Tonight the Senate approved the deal first by 81 votes to 18. All the Democrats, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, and most Senate Republicans supported the deal to reopen the government. Our state’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley was one of the 18 no votes.

House Speaker John Boehner reluctantly agreed to put the bipartisan Senate agreement up for a vote on the House floor. He had wanted to bring up a different bill, but a “stunning rebuke” from GOP colleagues forced him to abandon a House vote yesterday on his latest plan.

The House approved the deal by 285 votes to 144. Every Democrat present voted yes, including Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Tom Latham (IA-03) was among 87 Republicans who also voted yes. Steve King (IA-04) was one of the 144 House Republicans who voted no. He has long demanded that “Obamacare” be defunded as a condition of funding the federal government, and he does not believe that the U.S. faced a real risk of default if Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling by October 17.

I enclose below some Iowa reaction to today’s events. I will update this post as needed.  

Two weeks into the partial federal government shutdown, U.S. Senate leaders appear close to a deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling while a new joint budget committee negotiates “a replacement for the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.” After the jump I’ve posted details on last week’s Congressional votes related to funding the federal government and preventing a possible default.

Although Iowa is reportedly the state least affected by the shutdown, because we lack national parks and have few military facilities, thousands of Iowans in the National Guard are still without paychecks. Thousands more who receive benefits through the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program will suffer if the shutdown extends into next month, because WIC is only funded through October.

The lack of a new farm bill arguably affects more Iowans directly than the shutdown does. The latest temporary extension of federal farm programs expired on September 30. At the end of this post, I’ve included some news and comments on efforts to pass a comprehensive farm bill.

President Barack Obama finally settled on Janet Yellen to succeed Ben Bernanke as the next chair of the Federal Reserve. No woman has previously held that position, nor has any previous nominee for the job been as qualified as Yellen. Binyamin Appelbaum’s profile of Yellen for the New York Times is excellent. Some other good links about her views are here. She is commonly described as an “inflation dove,” meaning that in her opinion, reducing unemployment should be a higher priority than keeping inflation low (the traditional obsession of Fed chairs). A few years ago, Bleeding Heartland user PrairieBreezeCheeze discussed why it’s time for a Fed chair willing to prioritize employment. Even now, long-term unemployment is still near historically high levels.

Nobody’s perfect, and Zach Carter offers a more negative take on Yellen, focusing on her support for NAFTA, a chained Consumer Price Index, and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act during the 1990s. Nevertheless, Yellen is a much better person to run the Fed than Obama’s first choice for the job, Larry Summers. Credit goes to the coalition that came out early against Summers, convincing five Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee to oppose him.

Despite today’s news, President Obama’s record on appointing women to cabinet-level positions remains worse than Bill Clinton’s–and not for lack of qualified women to choose from.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added some remarks from President Obama and Yellen at today’s press conference. SECOND UPDATE: Added Senator Tom Harkin’s official comment.

The 2014 fiscal year began at midnight. Congress is ringing in the occasion with the first partial federal government shutdown since the mid-1990s. The U.S. House and Senate have been unable to agree on a continuing spending resolution, because most House Republicans insist on defunding or delaying the 2010 health care reform law as a condition of funding most government operations.

Details on Iowa Congressional votes on budget resolutions are after the jump, along with comments from all the Iowans in Congress and many of the candidates for U.S. House or Senate.

Authorization for most federal agricultural programs also expired at midnight, and it’s not clear when Congress will be able to agree on a short-term extension or a new five-year farm bill. Toward the end of this post I’ve enclosed some comments on the failure to pass a farm bill.

The U.S. House voted mostly along party lines on September 19 to cut the leading federal food assistance program by $39 billion over the next decade. Iowa’s four representatives split in the expected way: Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supported the “Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act,” while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no. In fact, the roll call shows that not even the bluest Blue Dog Democrat supported this bill.

After the jump I’ve posted comments on this vote from some of the Iowans in Congress, along with the latest Iowa and national figures on food insecurity and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps.”