Sometimes debate on a low-profile bill reveals a lot about how the Iowa legislature operates.

So it was on April 9, when the Iowa Senate took up House File 363, “an Act relating to the final disposition of remains.”

The bill was one of ten non-controversial measures (often called “non-cons”) that senators approved that day. But don’t be fooled by the 47-0 vote for final passage. The debate on this bill showed the Republican majority’s intensely partisan approach to legislating.

CORRECTING AN OVERSIGHT IN IOWA LAW

House File 363 corrects an oversight in Iowa Code to clarify that someone charged in connection with a person’s death can never be designated to control what happens to that person’s remains. Lobbyists representing Iowa cemeteries, funeral directors, and attorneys are registered in favor of the proposal; no entity has registered against it.

The two-minute Iowa House debate on the bill was uneventful, and members voted 91 to zero to approve it. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the bill on April 2 after less than a minute of discussion.

So I didn’t expect anything newsworthy when Republican State Senator Tom Shipley stepped up to floor manage House File 363 on April 9. He briefly explained the gap in Iowa Code language, which could allow someone charged with homicide or manslaughter to end up deciding how to dispose of the deceased person’s remains.

HELPING FAMILIES HONOR THEIR LOVED ONES

Democratic State Senator Tony Bisignano offered a simple amendment. The idea grew out of a concern an Iowan brought to his attention “a couple of years ago,” he told Senate colleagues. The woman contacted him because after her brother had died several years prior, his widow never claimed the cremains. Because this woman had no legal way to claim her brother’s remains, the ashes were in the mortuary indefinitely.

Bisignano said he had approached the funeral industry about this problem, but “they didn’t seem to want to resolve it.”

“This is important,” he went on. Some people choose not to take remains, “while a family knows that their loved one is sitting in a basement somewhere at a funeral home.”

Under Bisignano’s amendment, the deceased person’s closest relative would have one year to claim the remains. After that, other relatives would be able to claim them, following the order Iowa Code provides for situations where the closest relative is ineligible to control the disposition, due to criminal charges.

He said legislators don’t have many opportunities to solve little issues that could be big problems for some Iowans. He didn’t know the name of the woman who reached out to him or whose constituent she was, but he speculated that a number of Iowans have been in the same situation.

Who knows how many urns are sitting unclaimed in funeral homes? “We should make it as easy as possible to get the remains of a human being back to the family, so they could honor that person,” Bisignano said.

“THIS IMPACTS IOWANS IN ALL 99 COUNTIES”

Shipley rose in his role as floor manager to recommend a vote against the amendment. He acknowledged the proposal addresses “an issue that’s been around for a while.” But he expressed concern that if senators amended the bill and sent it back to the House, “everybody’s going to lose everything they wanted out of the whole deal.”

Shipley pledged to propose legislation next year to resolve this problem.

His argument didn’t make any sense. The Senate frequently sends bills back to the House with an amendment. There is no particular urgency to get House File 363 to the governor’s desk. The legislature won’t adjourn for weeks, so there is plenty of time for the House to take up the bill and pass it again. There’s no substantive reason for anyone to object to Bisignano’s idea.

Democratic State Senator Zach Wahls pointed out that you may think this scenario couldn’t happen to you, but it could happen in your family. He thanked Bisignano for the “common-sense amendment,” and thanked Shipley for not questioning its germaneness, “giving the body a chance to actually vote on it.”

(Iowa Republican lawmakers routinely avoid voting on Democratic amendments by ruling them not germane to the bill. That happened on April 8, when Senate Democrats tried to add constructive policies to a technical bill on nursing homes, and earlier on April 9, when State Senator Janet Petersen tried to amend an education bill to require annual reports on private school tuition and fees.)

Petersen also spoke in support of Bisignano’s amendment. She reminded colleagues, “This impacts Iowans in all 99 counties. Funeral homes have unclaimed remains. We should fix this while we have an opportunity to do so.”

“MY GOD. EVEN ON HUMAN REMAINS, WE SPLIT PARTISAN?”

Things got hot when Bisignano delivered his closing remarks. I pulled this video from the official Senate feed.

Bisignano thanked Shipley for offering to resolve the issue next year. But he didn’t agree that senators would “lose everything” by sending the bill back to the House.

“What’s wrong with this place? I mean, this is something very, very, simple.” The Senate amends bills and sends them to the House all the time. “That’s not an excuse.”

Raising his voice, he continued:

This is a legitimate problem for Iowans. Can we not solve problems as simple as this?

Now if you want to know the truth, you’re not supporting this amendment because I’m a Democrat. Yeah, oooh. You’re not voting for this amendment because I’m a Democrat. This amendment was sponsored by a Democrat!

My God. Even on human remains, we split partisan? Is there shame in this body? I don’t know. This will define that. That you would turn your back on Iowans that are saying that my relative that had died is sitting in a funeral home. No one wants the remains, but I do. Just give me the access. Give me the access!

And you’re a no, because I’m a Democrat!

Bisignano acknowledged that if Shipley filed the same bill next year under his name, it would pass. But “with my name on it, it will fail. You’ve lost sight of why you’re here.”

He asked his Republican colleagues, “Does that not make you feel bad? That something as basic and fundamental as your remains become partisan in the Iowa Senate.” He wondered aloud why he even comes to the state capitol—”maybe for your entertainment.” He represents more than 60,000 people, “and I can’t get anything passed.”

At least the floor manager didn’t question the germaneness of his amendment, Bisignano noted. He thanked Shipley for letting him “exercise my right as an elected senator.”

Raising his voice again, he wrapped up: “This amendment fits! This amendment solves a problem! It could be your neighbor that called me. I don’t know who it was. But they were desperate, and we can help them. But we don’t help desperate people. Not if it’s a Democrat that’s proposing it.”

Republicans voted down the amendment by 26 votes to 17. The chamber then unanimously approved House File 363.

“THEY DON’T WANT TO BE CALLED OUT”

The last bill the Senate considered on April 9 involved another senseless rejection of a Democratic amendment.

Senate File 515 is designed to allow courts to consider a child’s educational setting in the context of a child custody proceeding. Democratic State Senator Herman Quirmbach’s amendment sought to fix language that might have deprived a parent of access to their own child during the day, if the child were being homeschooled in the home of a third party. He had flagged that problem during the subcommittee hearing and when the Senate Education Committee considered the bill.

The floor manager, Republican State Senator Jeff Taylor, credited Quirmbach with identifying the problem and even said he agreed with his analysis. But Taylor said he had filed his own amendment that was “a little bit more straightforward,” so he urged colleagues to vote against Quirmbach’s amendment.

Quirmbach blasted GOP leaders in his closing remarks. He highlighted that Republicans were opposing his amendment solely because it came from a Democrat.

Quirmbach had offered to co-sponsor a similar amendment with Taylor, but Republican leadership rejected his offer, “Because they want to hold firm to denying Democrats to run any kind of an amendment”—even one that addresses a real problem.

Republicans interrupted Quirmbach more than once. State Senator Jesse Green called a point of order, complaining the Democrat was questioning the motives of GOP counterparts. State Senator Ken Rozenboom, who was presiding over the floor debate, told Quirmbach to “confine your remarks to the appropriate content.”

Quirmbach observed that Bisignano “made it very clear earlier today” that “Republican excessive partisanship” was getting in the way of constructive amendments.

“It hasn’t always been this way,” he added, alluding to a “relatively recent history” of bipartisan work in the Iowa Senate to solve problems. He began to say he understood that the minority party’s amendments would usually not be considered, but Rozenboom broke in: “I asked you to confine your remarks to the content of the amendment, please, and you are straying from that, clearly.”

Quirmbach was visibly angry: “Yeah. What we’re seeing here is not only that Republicans don’t want to consider Democratic amendments, but they don’t want to be called out in public for their partisanship.” He withdrew his amendment without putting it to a vote.

Taylor offered his own proposal to address the problem Quirmbach had identified. Senators approved it by voice vote, then unanimously passed Senate File 515.

Just before the chamber adjourned for the day, Quirmbach delivered a point of personal privilege. He recounted examples of bipartisan work during the years Democrats controlled the Senate (from 2007 through 2016). As chair of the Senate Education Committee, he occasionally moved Republican proposals forward and even allowed GOP Senators Nancy Boettger and Amy Sinclair to floor manage a couple of bills.

“So we don’t have to be locked into the partisanship that has been displayed today by the Republican Party,” Quirmbach said. “We can consider bills and amendments on their merits.”

He closed by expressing hope that senators would think about how the chamber operates, and “rise above the narrow partisanship we have seen today and seen consistently this session.”

Don’t bet on that happening anytime soon.