While Congress is on recess until after July 4, it’s time to catch up on an unusually busy few weeks in June for U.S. House members. Bleeding Heartland previously covered how Iowa’s representatives voted on the failed and successful attempts to pass trade promotion authority, repeal of country-of-origin labeling requirements for meat, a bill to eliminate a tax on medical devices, and the Intelligence Authorization Act.

Follow me after the jump to find out how Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voted on the latest defense budget bill, more trade-related policies, and legislation dealing with chemical safety, Medicare cost controls, and regulations of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Iowa’s representatives also voted last week on a matter relating to the growing national controversy over Confederate symbols.

Something you don’t see often when looking through Congressional roll calls: three of Iowa’s four House members crossed party lines more than once during the floor debate on the defense budget.

I was planning to compile presidential candidate reactions to this week’s two big U.S. Supreme Court decisions for the weekend thread, but this disturbing feature for the Kansas City Star derailed my plans. Jason Hancock and Steve Kraske report on a pervasive hostile work environment for women at the Missouri Capitol. I’ve posted a few excerpts below, but you need to click through and read the whole piece, which explores the toxic culture fueling the harassment and lack of accountability.

Too many women working at the Iowa statehouse have had similar experiences. I’ve heard some appalling stories in private communications, and no, it’s not a partisan problem. My impression is that over the last 15 to 20 years, the work environment at the Capitol in Des Moines has improved, and sexual harassment is no longer as prevalent for Iowa legislative staffers as it is in Jefferson City, Missouri. That said, if even half of what Kirsten Anderson alleged in court filings is true, the culture at the Iowa statehouse is far from where it needs to be.

For a politically-engaged young person starting a career, there can hardly be a more exciting job than working in a state legislature. I feel physically ill thinking of how many women have had powerful men ruin these potentially enriching experiences. Harassment can cause severe emotional trauma. One former Missouri legislative staffer told the Kansas City Star, “The best thing that ever happened to me was getting another job and leaving that building.” Hardly any of the perpetrators faced real consequences for their unethical (and in some cases illegal) conduct toward female interns or legislative employees.

Speaking of hostile environments, many social conservatives appear to be hunkering down in a siege mentality following Friday’s Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. I am continually baffled to see how opinion leaders on the Christian right are so eager to view themselves as persecuted minorities. No church will be forced to officiate or recognize a same-sex marriage, any more than the Catholic Church has been forced to marry people who had civil divorces over the last five decades.

Some of the over-the-top reactions to the marriage ruling are laughable. But when you think about it, how unhealthy to convince yourself and your followers that religious Americans are now “vulnerable.” Christian martyrdom is still a tragic reality in some parts of the world, but fomenting paranoid ideas about the fate of American conservatives doesn’t benefit anyone. Check that: I can see how some people and corporations could profit from spreading fear that Christians are about to be persecuted on a mass scale and “Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country.”

Having spent most of my life in metro areas where my fellow Jews made up less than 1 percent of the population, I’ve wondered what it would have been like to live in a larger Jewish community as a child. But one huge plus about growing up in Iowa was learning at an early age that the whole world wasn’t ever going to validate my religious perspective, nor did I need the mass culture to approve and promote my beliefs. I encourage disappointed social conservatives to learn that life lesson sooner rather than later.

In a 5-4 decision announced Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry in all 50 states and ordered state governments to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in the country. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell v Hodges, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. Each of the dissenting justices wrote a separate opinion; all are available in this pdf file after Kennedy’s opinion. Amy Howe explained the majority opinion in “Plain English” while Lyle Denniston posted a brief analysis.

Follow me after the jump for Iowa reaction on both sides of the marriage debate. Two years ago, Bleeding Heartland compiled Iowa politicians’ comments on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Windsor, which struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriages but left state bans intact.

As a group, Iowa Democratic politicians are more enthusiastic and less cautious about welcoming marriage equality now than was the case in 2009, when the Iowa Supreme Court struck down our state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Many Iowa Republicans called for elected officials to overturn the 2009 Varnum v Brien ruling by passing a constitutional amendment, but reacting to the latest U.S. Supreme Court ruling, few in the Iowa GOP sounded hopeful that there was any chance to reinstate state bans on same-sex marriage.

I will update this post as needed.  

A unanimous Supreme Court ruling against your position is usually a sign that your legal arguments lack merit. But Governor Terry Branstad hasn’t learned that lesson from his administration being on the wrong end of not one, not two, but three unanimous Iowa Supreme Court rulings.

Last week, the court ruled with no dissenting justices that Iowa’s ban on using telemedicine to provide abortion services is unconstitutional. Three of the justices who concurred in the decision are Branstad appointees (Chief Justice Mark Cady and Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman). Two of them–Waterman and Mansfield–have demonstrated in previous cases that they are reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of executive branch bodies responsible for rulemaking. Yet Branstad not only rejects the reasoning underlying the telemedicine ruling, but also refuses to accept legal experts’ determination that his administration cannot appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Some 40,000 Iowans will continue to receive federal subsidies for purchasing health insurance, thanks to a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court opinion announced today. Plaintiffs in King v Burwell had argued that Congress intended for subsidies to be available only to Americans who purchased health insurance through state-run exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that interpretation in his opinion (pdf), joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Amy Howe explained the ruling in “plain English” at the SCOTUS blog, where Lyle Denniston wrote a separate analysis of the opinion.

Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia accused his colleagues of changing “usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act,” as the Supreme Court majority did (in his view) when it upheld the individual mandate to purchase health insurance in 2012.

A ruling for the plaintiffs in King v Burwell would not only have threatened health care access for roughly 6.4 million people who receive subsidies for health insurance purchased through the federal website Healthcare.gov. It could have caused cascading effects such as sharp premium increases for millions of Americans who do not qualify for subsidies but would nevertheless have been priced out of the health insurance market. In theory, Congress could have fixed the problem with a one-paragraph bill clarifying that people who buy insurance through the federal exchange qualified for subsidies, but most House and Senate Republicans appeared unwilling to go that route.

Today’s Supreme Court decision removes the only remaining threat to federal health insurance subsidies for eligible Iowans. Last month, several insurance companies applied to offer policies for 2016 to Iowans through the exchange. Only one provider did so for 2015, and if that company had pulled out of Iowa, health insurance subsidies would not have been available to anyone in our state for next year.

UPDATE: Added Iowa political reaction below. Note that several of the Republican statements renew a vow to repeal and replace “Obamacare.” Though destroying the system created by the 2010 health care reform law was transparently the goal of the King v Burwell plaintiffs, their lawyers maintained the charade that the lawsuit was only about getting the Obama administration to follow the Affordable Care Act.

Less than two weeks after an embarrassing defeat for President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, a trade promotion authority bill is headed to the president’s desk. The trade promotion authority legislation, often called “fast-track” or TPA,

will allow the White House to send trade deals to Congress for up-or-down votes. The Senate will not be able to filibuster them, and lawmakers will not have the power to amend them.

The expedited process, which lasts until 2018 and can be extended until 2021, greatly increases Obama’s chances of concluding negotiations on the TPP [12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership], which is a top goal of the president’s.

Follow me after the jump for details on how the Iowans in Congress voted on the latest trade-related bills. Bleeding Heartland covered the Iowans’ legislative maneuvering in late May and early June here. For background and context, I highly recommend David Dayen’s article for The American Prospect magazine, which covers the modern history of trade negotiations and how fast-track emerged some 40 years ago. Dayen also explores “the political transfer of power, away from Congress and into a potent but relatively obscure executive branch office: the United States Trade Representative (USTR).”

I also enclose below some Iowa reaction to the latest Congressional voting on trade. Representative Steve King (IA-04) highlighted one angle I hadn’t heard before, claiming victory because new language allegedly will prevent the president from negotiating provisions on climate change or immigration in trade agreements. UPDATE: Those provisions may not stay in the related bill King is counting on. More on that below.

Today’s featured native plant is a perennial that “can be used as a ground cover in shaded areas,” but I doubt anyone in the Bleeding Heartland community will seek it out for a garden or flower bed. Common black snakeroot (Sanicula odorata), known in some sources by the common name Clustered black snakeroot and/or the Latin name Sanicula gregaria, has flowers so unobtrusive they can be difficult to see. Clusters of them develop into burs, which stick to clothing, shoes, and pets. White avens plants use the same effective, if annoying, seed dispersal method, but the black snakeroot flowers are not as eye-catching as white avens.

I enclose below several pictures of common black snakeroot, which is prevalent in and near wooded areas throughout much of North America east of the Rocky Mountains.

This post is also a mid-week open thread: all topics welcome.  

Representative Steve King and Senator Joni Ernst joined the long list of Republicans who announced plans this week to reject or donate campaign contributions from a white supremacist leader based in Texas. Earl Holt is the president of the Council of Conservative Citizens. That group’s publications inspired the racist beliefs of Dylann Roof, who allegedly shot and killed nine people and injured others at last week’s attack in a historic black church.

Holt donated $1,000 to King’s 2012 re-election campaign and $1,500 to the Republican’s 2014 campaign in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. On June 22, King posted this statement on his campaign website:

King for Congress will be donating the amount of past donations received from Earl Holt, President of the Council for Conservative Citizens, to both the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund and to the Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC. Our prayers are with the families and friends of those affected by this tragedy.

Also on Monday, Ernst announced on Simon Conway’s WHO Radio show that she will donate $1,000 (the amount Holt donated to her U.S. Senate campaign) to the Charleston church. I didn’t see any statement on her Facebook page or campaign website, which at this writing consists only of a landing page seeking contact information and donations from supporters.

Ravi Patel announced yesterday that he is no longer running for Congress in Iowa’s first district. I enclose below the full statement from the Patel for Iowa website, which says “it has become clear” that a “tough battle for the Democratic primary nomination” would “have diverted energy and resources that should be directed at changing the course of our nation.” Patel added that he will be able to have more influence on “public life in Northeast Iowa […] through the private sector.” He will offer full refunds to campaign contributors, who donated more than half a million dollars during the first quarter of this year alone.

I have no idea what prompted Patel’s decision. The stated reason makes no sense, as “it has been clear” for months that Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon was the front-runner in this primary, and that she would also raise significant campaign funds. Factor in Patel’s youth and the fact that he has mostly lived in IA-02, and there was never any reason for him to think winning the primary wouldn’t be a “tough battle.” Backers were allegedly getting ready to launch a super-PAC to support his candidacy, a move without precedent in this state.

Before we assume Patel still has a future in Iowa politics, let’s wait to learn more about why he quit this race. Pat Rynard cited a Dubuque Telegraph-Herald article from a few days ago, which showed that Patel “didn’t have much of an answer on some basic issues Congress would face, including the Renewable Fuel Standard and dealing with ISIS.” I find it hard to imagine any highly-motivated candidate would drop out because of some bad press nearly a year before the primary. Rynard speculated that Patel made a “mature” decision to end a candidacy with a low probability of success. If so, good for him, but count me among the cynics waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Patel’s exit leaves Vernon and Gary Kroeger as the only declared Democratic candidates in IA-01. Vernon will be heavily favored. Former State Senator Swati Dandekar, who finished third behind Pat Murphy and Vernon in the 2014 primary to represent IA-01, is considering a repeat bid here. Winning the Democratic nomination would be an uphill battle for Dandekar for various reasons.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. IA-01 Representative Rod Blum is widely considered to be one of the most vulnerable Congressional incumbents.

UPDATE: Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) endorsed Vernon on June 24: “She has proven that she is committed to improving the lives of Iowa’s working families. I look forward to having her in Congress along side of me, fighting for the people of Iowa.” Loebsack lived and worked in Linn County (now the most populous in IA-01) for most of his adult life and represented the county in Congress from 2007 through 2012, when it was part of the second district.

Added below statements from Vernon and Kroeger on Patel dropping out.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign announced several key Iowa hires yesterday. Robert Becker will be state director, having filled the same role on Bill Richardson’s 2008 Iowa caucus campaign. Becker also worked on Bill Bradley’s Iowa staff before the 2000 Iowa caucuses. Three organizers who are joining Sanders’ campaign as regional field directors did the same work earlier this year on behalf of the effort to draft Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for president. Brendan Summers will serve as caucus director for Sanders in Iowa; he worked for the Iowa Democratic Party during the 2008 election cycle. After the jump I’ve enclosed a statement from the Sanders campaign with more background on all the new staffers.

Pete D’Alessandro has been coordinating the Sanders campaign in Iowa since mid-May. Earlier this month, the Sanders campaign tapped Blair Lawton as political director for Iowa. Most recently, Lawton headed the “Run Warren Run” effort here. Justin Huck will be field director for Sanders in Iowa, having previously done that job for the League of Conservation Voters in this state. Tara Thobe will serve as Sanders’ statewide operations director.

Ed Tibbetts reported for the Quad-City Times, “The [Sanders] campaign has said it plans to have about two dozen staffers on the ground sometime this summer.” Hillary Clinton’s campaign has had more staff than that working in Iowa since April. She can be proud of her campaign’s innovative digital organizing strategy and her staffers’ persistence in trying to obtain signed supporter cards. During Clinton’s recent appearance at the Iowa State Fairgrounds, at least six or eight Clinton campaign workers approached me and others nearby, supporter cards in hand–starting from the first few minutes we were standing in line outside and continuing inside the room, before and after Clinton’s speech.

Clinton should be ashamed, however, that her campaign will exploit 100 unpaid interns in Iowa this summer. These volunteer “fellows” will work full-time for free, knowing that may be their best chance of obtaining paid work for the campaign in the fall and winter. Democrats who criticize the use of unpaid interns in the business world shouldn’t replicate that model, especially since Clinton is likely to report many millions of dollars raised for her presidential bid during the second quarter of this year. It’s not right, and if I were working for Sanders, I would make sure Iowa liberals and labor Democrats know about the arrangement.  

Late last week, the U.S. House voted yet again to repeal a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, which was part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Effective lobbying by medical device manufacturers has repeatedly put this legislation on the GOP Congressional agenda, even though those manufacturers profited from other provisions in the health care reform law.

Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among the 46 House Democrats who joined all the Republicans present to pass the “Protect Medical Innovation Act” by 280 votes to 140 (roll call). Loebsack voted for a similar bill in 2012 but not for repealing the same tax in September 2013, when Republicans were trying to defund Obamacare as a condition for approving further federal government spending. In recent years, Loebsack has voted against most of the several dozen House bills to repeal all or part of health care reform, with a few notable exceptions.

Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01) and David Young (IA-03) supported the latest medical device tax repeal bill. Fellow Republican Steve King (IA-04) missed the June 18 vote, but we know where he stands. He has supported any and all efforts to scrap Obamacare, including rescinding this very tax in 2012 and 2013.

Next time the Iowans in the U.S. House claim to care about the deficit, remember that this bill would reduce federal revenues by nearly $25 billion over ten years without any spending cuts to offset the lost revenue.

The White House has warned that President Barack Obama would veto this bill, since it grants “a large tax break to profitable corporations” that are gaining new customers, thanks to health care reform. Bleeding Heartland user Jon Muller explained the economics here and exposed the “pure rent-seeking behavior” of an industry that “wants the fruits of ACA, but does not wish to put anything back on the table to make it happen.”

Another must-read on this issue is Matt Gardner’s post for the Tax Justice blog from earlier this year: “Big Medical Device Makers Decry Device Tax While Dodging Billions by Offshoring Profits.” I’ve enclosed excerpts below but encourage you to click through to read Gardner’s whole piece.

UPDATE: Added below David Young’s press release about this vote.

“Alarming rates” of rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military, most of which go unpunished, are an ongoing scandal. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has been the leading voice in the Senate for reforms to address the “vastly underreported” problem. Last year, Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both supported a bill Gillibrand introduced, which would have taken sexual assault cases outside the military chain of command.

While former Representative Bruce Braley served in the U.S. House, he repeatedly introduced legislation aimed at reducing rates of sexual assault in the military and removing “decisions over investigating and prosecuting sexual assault allegations […] from the normal chain of command.” Braley’s guest at the 2014 State of the Union address was Service Women’s Action Network executive director Anu Bhagwati, whose group “has been at the center of the national effort to reform the military’s handling of military sexual assault.”

As the Republican nominee facing Braley in last year’s U.S. Senate campaign, Joni Ernst talked a good game on this issue. After disclosing that she had faced sexual harassment while serving in the Iowa National Guard, Ernst promised to support reforms that would remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command, even if she got “push-back” from Pentagon leaders or GOP Senate colleagues. She also said ensuring “sexual crimes in the military are both independently investigated and prosecuted […] should not be a partisan issue, and as a woman in uniform, I know that we must act now.”

Last week, Ernst had a chance to walk the walk. Instead, she helped kill Gillibrand’s amendment to the 2016 defense authorization bill, going back on her campaign pledge and casting a rare vote in opposition to her fellow Iowa Republican Grassley.

Follow me after the jump for more background and details on Ernst’s broken promise.

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

Last week Andrea Farrington’s family buried the Coral Ridge Mall shooting victim, who should have enjoyed a long and healthy life but had the misfortune to attract the attention of a loser with a gun fetish. After she reported his sexual harassment, he allegedly went home to retrieve his gun and shot her three times before running away. I have nothing profound to say about this horrendous crime, so I refer you to Lynda Waddington’s latest column for the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

Since Wednesday, millions of Americans have grieved for the nine people killed and others who were hurt during a massacre in a historic South Carolina black church. The alleged murderer appears to have been motivated by paranoid racist fantasies. Again, words fail me. Grant Rodgers and Danielle Ferguson reported for the Des Moines Register,

Two Cedar Rapids [black] churches have reached out to their city’s police department, asking officers to review their emergency plans and possibly provide additional active shooter training, said Greg Buelow, a department spokesman. Buelow said he would not release the names of the churches at their request.

Similar conversations will happen at Des Moines’ Faith Missionary Baptist Church, where parishioners finished their own open-door Wednesday night worship service shortly before news broke of the Charleston killings, said deacon Arnold Woods Jr., who’s also president of the Des Moines NAACP.

How sad that people have to think about such contingencies when they come together to worship.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that Iowa’s ban on the use of telemedicine to provide abortion services was unconstitutional because it imposed an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion. You can read the whole ruling here (pdf). I’ve posted highlights after the jump, along with some reaction to the decision from both sides in the debate.

A few points are worth remembering.

On my drive to work this morning, I tuned into Jan Mickelson's interview with Iowa Senator Randy Feenstra (R) from Hull.  The Senator made the point repeatedly that Iowa's high corporate income tax rate is an impediment to economic development.

This myth pops up every once in a while, and it's a hard one to kill. I attempted to explain by calling in, but there was very little time left.

Iowa's corporate income tax statutory rate of 12% is indeed high. Iowa corporate income tax paid by corporations (Iowa and non-Iowa) is not high. But that is not the point of this discussion. There are two much more quantifiable facts every lawmaker should understand:

1) Companies that choose to locate or domicile in Iowa will not be greeted with an increase in corporate income tax liability. For companies doing business within Iowa and without, there is zero income tax cost to setting up shop in Iowa.

2) Companies choosing to leave the State of Iowa will not save a nickel in Iowa corporate income tax. If the company sells its goods and services in Iowa, the company will not save Iowa corporate income tax by relocating to another state.

These statements are true because of the process the State of Iowa uses to determine the amount of profit on which the company is required to pay tax. States with corporate income taxes generally use one of two approaches. Most states use a “Three Factor Formula.”  Iowa uses a “Single Factor Formula.” It's not that complicated once you get your arms around it.

The U.S. Treasury Department announced yesterday, “Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew has decided that the new $10 note should feature a woman who was a champion for our inclusive democracy […].”

Many people shared my immediate reaction: why not dump President Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill instead? Binyamin Appelbaum put it most succinctly: “Hard choices: Should we get rid of the hard-working immigrant on the $10 bill or the homicidal racist on the $20 bill? Hmmmmm”. Alexandra Petri explained in more detail why Jackson doesn’t deserve the honor of being on our currency. Among other things, he bears responsibility for the Indian Removal Act and the subsequent “Trail of Tears,” one of the most shameful crimes in U.S. history. As Steven Mufson pointed out, Hamilton “was a founding father, co-author of the Federalist Papers, Revolutionary War staff aide to George Washington, first Treasury Secretary and architect of the early American economy.’ Someone already started a White House petition to keep Hamilton on the $10 bill, but the Treasury Department’s FAQ page on “The New 10” don’t indicate that switching the $20 bill is an option.

Currency is primarily redesigned as necessary to address current and potential security threats to currency notes. When recommending a note for redesign, the Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence (ACD) Steering Committee considers these primary goals: that U.S. currency utilizes unique and technologically advanced security features to deter counterfeiting, that it facilitates the public’s use and authentication, provides accessibility and usability, and maintains public confidence. Based on analysis of these criteria, in June 2013, the Committee recommended that the $10 note should be the next note to be redesigned, assuming no other counterfeit threats emerge.

This thread is for any opinions about who belongs on the new currency. My first choice to celebrate women’s contributions to democracy would be Carrie Chapman Catt, a “Key coordinator of the woman suffrage movement and skillful political strategist.” She grew up in Charles City, Iowa, graduated from what later became Iowa State University, then worked in Charles City and Mason City.

Another good choice would be Francis Perkins, the first woman to serve in the president’s cabinet as labor secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Naturalist and photographer Eileen Miller has contributed stunning pictures as well as a description of Blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides) for today’s installment of Iowa wildflower Wednesday. She found these plants, which are native to most of North America east of the Rocky Mountains, at Dolliver Memorial State Park. I highly recommend visiting that park if you are in striking distance of Webster County. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources website notes,

A unique facet of the sandstone formations at Dolliver are the “Copperas beds.” The towering 100-foot bluff on Prairie Creek is a cross-sectional view of the ancient river bed that is over 150 million years old. Over the ages, the erosive power of Prairie Creek uncovered this unique feature. The porous nature of the sandstone has caused many minerals such as calcite and sulfur to dissolve as the water seeps through. As the water evaporates, the mineral deposits are left behind. You can see many of these deposits in the sandstone cliffs, as well as petrified logs and sticks.

This post is also a mid-week open thread: all topics welcome.

Yesterday the U.S. House approved by by 247 votes to 178 (roll call) a bill to fund sixteen intelligence agencies for the next fiscal year. Most of the Republican caucus supported the bill, including Iowa’s Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04). Although 31 Democrats also voted yes, most of the House Democrats, including Dave Loebsack (IA-02), opposed the bill, as did 25 Republicans. None of the Iowans issued a statement explaining their votes, but I will update this post if I see any relevant comments.

Because the Intelligence Authorization Act is mostly classified, it’s not clear how much money House members appropriated to run the various intelligence agencies. The Obama administration requested $53.9 billion for the National Intelligence Program for fiscal year 2016, while the Pentagon requested $17.9 billion for the Military Intelligence Program. According to The Hill’s Julian Hattem, House Democrats who opposed the bill “objected to provisions limiting the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, budget maneuvers they called ‘gimmicks’ and other provisions.” Congressional Republicans had promised to abide by the “sequester” spending limits for next year’s budget, but the intelligence funding bill gets around those limits by using money from the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency Operations fund. The same maneuver added spending to the 2016 Defense Authorization bill House members approved last month.

Before the vote on final passage of the intelligence funding bill, House members considered an amendment to remove language that would “ban the government from transferring detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S. or a recognized ‘combat zone.’” Loebsack and most of the House Democrats voted for that amendment, but Iowa’s three Republicans helped to vote it down (roll call). The White House contends that restricting transfers from Guantanamo would “violate constitutional separation-of-powers principles” and “could interfere with the President’s authority to protect sensitive national security information.”

Some House members in both parties warned last week that a “one-sentence provision tucked into an annual intelligence policy bill […] could hobble the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board,” but leaders did not allow floor votes on several amendments that sought to reverse the restrictions on the privacy board.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Bonus points if you can provide a good reason the federal government runs so many separate intelligence and security agencies.

The Environmental Protection Commission voted yesterday to eviscerate a rule adopted in 2012 to reduce stormwater runoff from new construction sites. The rule previously required developers to put at least four inches of topsoil back on sites. Thanks to a lobbying campaign from home-builders, the new wording requires topsoil replacement “unless infeasible,” without defining that term. So any developer who doesn’t feel like spending money to put topsoil back can claim it would have been “infeasible” to do so. If the homeowner can’t grow anything on the impacted clay, and runoff contributes to more flash flooding in the area or downstream, too bad.

Dar Danielson reported for Radio Iowa that only two of the nine Environmental Protection Commission members voted against the rule change: Bob Sinclair and Nancy Couser. Sinclair proposed different wording, which sounded like a reasonable compromise, but other commission members did not want to adopt new wording, which would restart the lengthy public input process. The full list of EPC members is available on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources website.

One of the newest commissioners, who joined the majority yesterday in putting a few developers’ interests ahead of the environment, is former State Representative Joe Riding. Branstad named the Democrat to the EPC earlier this year. Riding’s action is disappointing but hardly surprising. He didn’t serve on committees that focused on environmental issues during his one term in the Iowa House. A former city council member in the rapidly-growing Des Moines suburb of Altoona, Riding has probably worked with lots of home-builders.

As Todd Dorman wrote earlier this year, the EPC “abandoned all sense of balance and fairness on this issue.” Expect more flooding in Iowa, more topsoil loss, and more pollution from yard chemicals making its way to our waterways.

UPDATE: Matthew Patane reported for the Des Moines Register,

Prior to voting, Couser said the rule change would mean homeowners will get “thrown under the bus” if builders don’t have to evenly distribute topsoil.

“Although it may not be the intent of the rule to protect the homeowner, the homeowner definitely, 7-to-1, is telling us that’s what they want from us. They want their soil,” she said.

Shortly before the end of this year’s legislative session, former State Representative Ed Fallon announced “political action” to stop the proposed Bakken Oil Pipeline. He warned that if the Iowa House and Senate did not approve a bill to block the use of eminent domain for the project, he would organize and fundraise “to help defeat one or two Democratic Senators and one or two Republican Representatives” who oppose the bill.

On June 5, the Iowa House and Senate adjourned for the year without passing an eminent domain bill in either chamber. Last week Fallon confirmed that he is sticking to his goal of defeating one or two majority party members in both the House and Senate, adding that he had already raised $4,500 toward the cause.

All I can say is, count me out of that political crusade.

Come to think of it, I have a few more things to say on the subject.