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.

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.

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.

A rare visit to Capitol Hill by President Barack Obama wasn’t enough to bring House Democrats on board with a crucial companion bill for “fast-track” trade authority today. The House rejected the trade adjustment assistance bill by a surprisingly wide margin of 126 to 302 (roll call). A few minutes later, House members narrowly approved the other part of the trade legislation by 219 votes to 211 (roll call). However, the fast-track package can’t reach Obama’s desk without both parts clearing the lower chamber. David Dayen explained the significance of the votes well at Salon. I’ve enclosed excerpts from his analysis below, but you should click through to read the whole piece. Dayen lays out several possible next steps for Congressional leaders who support giving Obama fast-track authority, with a view to approving a new Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Splitting the trade bill into two House votes was a gambit to let the trade adjustment assistance language pass with primarily Democratic support, while the fast-track language passed with primarily Republican support. As Dayen describes, the concept has worked for decades but didn’t pan out today. Only 40 Democrats fell in line with Obama, while 144 voted against the trade adjustment assistance provisions, including Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Representative Steve King (IA-04) also voted against the trade adjustment assistance language, even as Rod Blum (IA-01) and David Young (IA-03) were among the 86 Republicans to vote yes. All three Iowa Republicans were in the yes column on the subsequent vote for the fast-track language. Loebsack again voted no, as did all but 28 House Democrats. After the jump I’ve enclosed Blum’s statement; I will update as needed with comments from the other Iowans in Congress.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both supported the fast-track trade bill the U.S. Senate approved last month by 62 votes to 37 (roll call). They have consistently supported trade promotion authority for the president. In that Senate vote, Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham voted for fast-track, while Rand Paul voted no, along with Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In case you missed it, I highly recommend State Representative Chuck Isenhart’s warning that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement could threaten our ability to enforce state laws.” Conservatives as well as progressives have reason to fear that outcome.

UPDATE: Added below more Iowa political reaction to these votes. House leaders will bring the trade adjustment assistance legislation up for another vote next week.

SECOND UPDATE: Added a statement from Monica Vernon, one of Blum’s three Democratic challengers in IA-01. She opposes fast-track legislation.

The U.S. House voted yesterday to “repeal country-of-origin labeling requirements for beef, pork and chicken products.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture has required meat products to list the country of origin since 2009 and most recently revised the rule in 2013.

Multiple polls have found that some 90 percent of American adults support country-of-origin labeling for meat. U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld the rule. However, last October the World Trade Organization ruled in favor of a challenge brought by Canada and Mexico, saying the U.S. labeling rule unfairly discriminates against imported meat products. Last month the WTO rejected the U.S. appeal of that decision, though advocates of the rule say reduced consumer demand for imported meat stemmed from the “Great Recession” beginning in 2008, rather than from labeling requirements. A broad coalition of farm, labor, environmental, and consumer groups have long opposed any change to country-of-origin labeling. This week, 282 organizations urged the U.S. House not to repeal the rule, while more than 100 business and industry groups advocated repeal to avoid retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.

Yesterday House members easily passed the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 by 300 votes to 131 (roll call). Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) were among the 234 GOP representatives to support the bill. The Democratic caucus was more divided, with 66 House members in favor of repealing the labeling rule and 121 opposed. Iowa’s Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the bill.

Senator Chuck Grassley told reporters this week, “I’m still a supporter of COOL (country-of-origin labeling) but I also recognize the rule of law and international trade has to be respected and I want to respect it.” Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill, “The White House has not issued a Statement of Administration Policy regarding the [country-of-origin labeling] legislation.”

UPDATE: King spoke on the House floor in favor of this bill; you can view his remarks here. Among other things, he said the current labeling rule penalizes Iowa farmers raising pigs that were born in Canadian farrowing operations.

Two provisions of the Patriot Act and one other legal provision granting surveillance powers expired on Sunday night, as the U.S. Senate failed to pass either a short-term Patriot Act extension or the House-approved USA Freedom Act, which would revise parts of that law. Jamie Dupree wrote a good overview of the key points of contention, including the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection practices. Julian Hattem previews the next likely steps in the Senate and House (assuming the Senate approves an amended version of the USA Freedom Act this week). Carl Hulse analyzed the “lose-lose-lose result” for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who prefers not to curtail NSA surveillance powers but arguably “overplayed his hand.”

How Congress will resolve this dispute remains unclear, but we have learned one thing from the last ten days: Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst oppose the current bipartisan compromise on how to revise the Patriot Act. For Ernst, the expiring Patriot Act provisions “are critical to the safety and security of our country”–a view similar to Representative Steve King’s reasons for voting against “data disarmament” when the House considered the USA Freedom Act.

In Grassley’s more nuanced view, Congress should enact “meaningful reform by ending the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records under Section 215” of the Patriot Act, while allowing the government to gather such information in a targeted way. Grassley also objects to how the USA Freedom Act would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  

Details on the relevant Senate votes are after the jump, along with statements from Grassley and Ernst. I’ve also noted which Republican senators who are running for president supported either the USA Freedom Act or a short-term Patriot Act extension.

UPDATE: Grassley and Ernst split on June 2 as the Senate passed the USA Freedom Act. Details on their votes are below, along with their explanations. While Iowa’s two Republican senators have voted differently on a handful of amendments or motions related to consideration of other bills, today’s votes represent their first major policy disagreement since Ernst was sworn in.

Scroll to the end of this post for details on how the GOP presidential candidates voted today.

First-term Representative Rod Blum will be one of the top targets next year for EMILY’s List, the political action committee supporting pro-choice Democratic women announced today.  

By STATE REP. CHUCK ISENHART, Dubuque

For two years, along with other state legislators, I have waved yellow flags about the Pacific and European trade deals being negotiated by the Obama Administration.

As Congress moves to give the president authority to “fast-track” trade treaties with other nations — meaning Congress would give up its ability to change the agreements — those flags are turning red.

Why do state legislators care? Proposed language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement could threaten our ability to enforce state laws. This undermines the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.” Congress may give the President the ability to effectively negotiate this amendment away.

Pat Rynard broke an interesting story today at Iowa Starting Line: a super-PAC is being created to support Ravi Patel’s campaign in Iowa’s first Congressional district. Patel is one of three declared Democratic candidates seeking to challenge Representative Rod Blum. He has already raised a shocking amount of money for a first-time candidate–more than half a million dollars by the end of March. That haul included funds from some 80 people who maxed out to Patel’s campaign for the general election as well as for the primary. Congressional campaigns can’t spend more than $2,700 from any individual donor before the 2016 primary, but a super-PAC could collect and spend as much as anyone wants to donate, anytime.

Rynard quotes Patel adviser Norm Sterzenbach (a former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party) as saying, “There is already one Super PAC operating in this race. EMILY’s List came out early with their support of Monica Vernon and we fully expect them to run a considerable independent campaign on her behalf.” Yes and no.

EMILY’s List did endorse Vernon early. Technically, that group is a regular political action committee, not a super-PAC. The Women Vote! super-PAC is associated with EMILY’s List, and it spent quite a bit of money during the last election cycle, but mostly not on expenditures for women in competitive Democratic primaries for U.S. House seats. It remains to be seen how much money EMILY’s List will put behind Vernon; I would guess not nearly as much as a super-PAC would spend for Patel or against his rivals. EMILY’s List gave $10,000 directly to Staci Appel’s 2014 campaign in IA-03 and bundled another $233,283 in contributions to Appel, who had no competition in her primary.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. P.S.- If Rynard’s sources are correct, Jeff Link will lead the super-PAC for Patel.  

Catching up on Iowa Congressional news, on May 15 the U.S. House approved a $612 billion Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2016 by 269 votes to 151 (roll call). Not surprisingly, all four Iowans supported the bill on final passage. Votes on several amendments were the most interesting part of the process, as was the case during House debate of the first two spending bills to clear the lower chamber this year.

Follow me after the jump for details on last week’s defense-related votes by Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04), and Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02). Notably, King and his allies removed language that would have allowed military service by some undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children. The House approved some other amendments by voice vote; click here for brief descriptions.

The FCC’s landmark decision in February to protect net neutrality was widely heralded as a victory for most Internet users. The Federal Communications Commission even committed to making America’s broadband networks fast, fair, and open. However, as more information became available, it became clear that the FCC’s decision to reclassify the Internet as a depression-era utility would make it anything but fair.

Title II was developed for old communication devices, like telephone networks in the 1930s. This regulatory classification is more than 80 years old, and was never intended for the fast-moving, innovative world of Internet and app infrastructure. Title II will re-classify the Internet as a utility, and increase state and local fees for Internet access. Infrastructure issues, when left to Congress to update, become a part of a slower-moving, bureaucratic structure. Upgrades to the Internet happen much faster than upgrades to roads and bridges; it does not make sense to regulate them the same way.

Instead of making sure that the Internet remained open for all, the FCC’s decision ensured that low-income and underserved Americans will pay higher rates, making the Internet less accessible. Dozens of groups have spoken out about how Title II regulation will be harmful for small businesses, particularly those owned by minority groups. When chambers of commerce and unions agree that something is harmful, it is generally a good sign that it is time to re-think.

Representatives Blum, Loebsack, Young, and King should follow the lead of the diverse coalition that has spoken out against Title II regulation – including the Communications Workers of America, the NAACP, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the United State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Urban League, the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and dozens more – to draft bipartisan legislation that protects all Internet users from high fees and keeps the Internet truly open.  

An important Congressional vote went unreported in the Des Moines Register this week, despite two lead editorials in the paper within the past month urging Congress to act on that very issue.

The disconnect provides a good example of a problem I flagged in this post about the Des Moines Register’s political coverage. Ever since the Register closed its Washington bureau, Iowans are less likely to know what our representatives in Congress are doing on our behalf.  

Yesterday the U.S. House approved the USA Freedom Act, which revises some provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act and extends them until December 2019. The Patriot Act is set to expire on June 1 without Congressional action. The main changes in the bill concern bulk data collection and domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency. Groups advocating for civil liberties are seeking more changes to the USA Freedom Act following a recent federal appeals court ruling, which “determined that the NSA’s telephone records program went far beyond what Congress authorized when it passed Section 215 of the Patriot Act in 2001.”

Proponents argue that the USA Freedom Act strikes a reasonable compromise between security and privacy. The overwhelming majority of House members agreed, as the bill passed by 338 votes to 88 (roll call). Representative David Young (IA-03) was among the 196 Republicans who voted yes, while Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among the 142 Democratic supporters.

Forty-one Democrats and 47 Republicans, including Iowa’s Steve King (IA-04) and Rod Blum (IA-01), opposed the USA Freedom Act. In a statement I’ve enclosed in full below, King warned that the bill amounted to “data disarmament,” with too little weight given to “the investigative value” of information gathered through bulk collection techniques, or how to protect “the vital data we need for national security.”

In a Twitter post yesterday, Blum said he voted against the bill “because it continues the violation of the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens.” In a Facebook post, Blum added, ” Protecting your constitutional right to privacy is one of my top priorities, and I will continue to stand strong for the Fourth Amendment in Congress. I think America can be secure WITHOUT sacrificing our civil liberties.” I am seeking a more extensive comment and will update this post if I receive one. Blum has long aligned himself with the Iowa GOP’s “Liberty” wing.

Yesterday the U.S. House passed by 242 votes to 184 (roll call) a bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. House GOP leaders originally planned to pass this legislation around the anniversary of the Roe v Wade ruling in January, but pulled the bill from the floor “following a revolt from female members who objected to language regarding exceptions for rape.” Sarah Ferris and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill yesterday that the bill “requires a 48-hour waiting period, informed consent forms and mandatory counseling for victims of rape and sexual assault before abortions.” The latest version “eliminates a requirement for rape victims to go to the police, though it did not change a controversial provision that allows victims of incest to receive an abortion only if they are under 18 years old.”

Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) all voted for the 20-week abortion ban, while Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against it. Iowa’s House members split along the same party lines regarding another anti-abortion bill that passed earlier this year, as well as a resolution that would “overturn the District of Columbia’s law prohibiting workplace discrimination based on reproductive health choices.”

I haven’t seen any comments from Blum, Loebsack, Young, or King on yesterday’s votes, but I’ll update this post as needed. UPDATE: Added a statement from Blum.After the jump I’ve enclosed comments from Iowa Democratic Party Chair Andy McGuire, an e-mail blast Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign sent regarding the vote, and a statement from the pro-choice PAC EMILY’s List, which has endorsed Monica Vernon in the Democratic primary to challenge Blum.

The U.S. House voted today by 261 votes to 155 to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the “waters of the United States” rule. The EPA released the final version of that rule last month. The American Farm Bureau Federation and other agribusiness groups have long bashed the proposed regulation as a threat to farmers. Last summer, Kyle Rabin wrote a clear and concise “debunking” of the Farm Bureau’s deceptive hyperbole.

Today’s votes to pass the “Regulatory Integrity Protection Act” came from 24 Democrats and all the Republicans present, including Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04). Meanwhile, Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted with most of the House Democrats against the bill–a pleasant surprise, since he voted for last year’s version of the same legislation.

I’ve been accused of being hostile to Loebsack, in part because Bleeding Heartland has called attention to a few bad votes for Republican bills seeking to rein in the EPA. Some of those bills were merely silly, while others posed a real threat to public health if enacted. I appreciate that since last November’s election, Loebsack has voted against several House GOP efforts to target the EPA. More like that, please.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I haven’t seen any official statement from the Iowans in Congress about today’s vote, but I’ll update this post as needed.

Today Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocked a motion to proceed to debating a “fast-track” bill that would allow President Barack Obama “to negotiate new trade deals without amendments from Congress.” Obama wants the authority so that he can negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which most Congressional Democrats oppose. The motion to proceed to debating the Trade Promotion Authority bill gained just 52 votes in favor (roll call), well short of the 60 needed for cloture. All of the Senate Republicans support the fast-track bill, including Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst.

I enclose below statements from Grassley and Ernst on the trade issue and today’s failed vote. Grassley called on Obama to “put the bully pulpit of the presidency” behind expanding trade. Perhaps he is not aware that within the last week, the president has used White House meetings, phone calls from Vice President Joe Biden, a high-profile speech, and at least one media interview to bring his fellow Democrats on board with his trade agenda. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Elizabeth Warren have been leading the opposition to fast-track trade authority. After today’s vote, Obama met with ten Senate Democrats generally considered to be for expanded trade. Most of them would need to join Republicans to get to the 60 votes needed to proceed to debate or end debate on Senate bills.

Yesterday the U.S. Senate approved by 98 votes to 1 a bill that would let Congress vote to disapprove any agreement the U.S. may reach with Iran regarding that country’s nuclear program. Iowa’s The lone vote against the bill came from Senator Tom Cotton, who spearheaded a letter 47 GOP senators sent to Iranian leaders earlier this year. He argued that any deal with Iran should be a formal treaty subject to Senate ratification.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted for the bill, although Grassley was one of only six senators (all Republicans) to vote against ending debate before the vote on final passage. I have not seen any statement from Grassley explaining why he voted against cloture but for the final bill anyway. I’ll update this post as needed.

After the jump I’ve enclosed a statement from Ernst as well as more details on the bill’s provisions and on failed attempts by presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to offer amendments on the Senate floor.  

It’s been a while since Bleeding Heartland checked in on how Iowa’s four U.S. House members have been voting. After no House roll calls for more than two weeks, the second half of April has been unusually busy.

Follow me after the jump to see how Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) and Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted on more than a dozen bills that reached the House floor this month, covering a range of economic, fiscal, and security issues.

Incidentally, I’m always intrigued by how rarely members of Congress comment on bills they vote for or against on the House floor. For instance, I didn’t see any press release from Blum, Loebsack, Young, or King about any of the legislation discussed below. Instead, members of Congress often play up bills they’ve introduced which have zero chance of becoming law. This month Blum has repeatedly publicized work on lost causes such as co-founding a caucus backing term limits for members of Congress, and introducing a lifetime ban on lobbying by members of Congress. Like Steve King’s attempted end-run around the U.S. Supreme Court on marriage equality, Blum’s posturing has more to do with image-making than legislating.  

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

Iowa’s own Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) grabbed national attention this week by introducing a bill to “prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases,” thereby stopping the U.S. Supreme Court from “destroying traditional marriage.” After the jump I’ve posted King’s official statement about the “Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act” as well as the full text.

President Barack Obama would surely veto this bill, even if it quickly passed the U.S. House (unlikely) and Senate (less likely). So King’s effort looks like a publicity stunt to bolster his image as one of the leading culture warriors on the right.

Out of curiosity, I asked Drake Law School Professor Mark Kende, an expert on constitutional law, whether it would theoretically be possible for Congress to limit the Supreme Court’s authority to consider any case on marriage. According to Kende, the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to “make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.” Most Congressional efforts along these lines have failed to become law. However, a 19th-century precedent exists; in that case, Congress blocked the Supreme Court from ruling on an appeal in which justices had already heard oral arguments.

Whether King’s proposal would be constitutional is a more complicated question, Kende said. The Reconstruction-era law blocked a specific kind of appeal based on habeas corpus but did not bar the Supreme Court from ruling on all cases in that area of the law. The Constitution allows some leeway for “jurisdiction stripping” as a Congressional check on the judiciary, but that doesn’t necessarily mean citizens could be prevented from taking any case about their fundamental marriage rights to the Supreme Court.

In an alternate universe where Congress passed and the president signed King’s bill, the twelve federal appellate court rulings would be binding in their regions. Most federal court rulings on same-sex marriage bans have supported the principle of marriage equality. Only a divided 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld states’ ability to limit marriage rights to opposite-sex couples.

The U.S. Senate finally confirmed Loretta Lynch as attorney general today, more than five months after President Barack Obama nominated her and nearly two months after the Senate Judiciary Committee forwarded her nomination. The confirmation vote was held up in part because of a dispute over abortion-related language in a separate human trafficking bill. Senate Democrats filibustered that bill several times in March. Compromise wording that allowed both sides to claim victory led to a unanimous vote to approve the trafficking bill yesterday.

Lynch has had more than 50 senators backing her confirmation for some time, but whether her nomination could get to a final vote on the floor was another question. This morning, twenty Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus to approve cloture on Lynch’s nomination by 66 votes to 34 (roll call). As expected, Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst voted against the motion; they’ve been on record for weeks opposing the attorney general nominee. According to a report by Alexander Bolton of The Hill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “worked quietly to round up more than 60 votes” for cloture in order to avoid “publicly validating” a rules change Democrats implemented in 2013, which allowed most presidential nominees to reach a floor vote with support from a simple majority of senators.

The Senate confirmed Lynch later today by 56 votes to 43 (roll call). The ten Republicans who supported her included four who are considered among the most vulnerable incumbents up for re-election in 2016. Grassley and Ernst voted no again. I enclose below Grassley’s floor statement explaining his opposition and Ernst’s official comment after the vote.

The three GOP presidential candidates now serving in the Senate–Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz–all voted against cloture on Lynch’s nomination. Paul and Rubio then voted against her confirmation, while Cruz was absent for that vote.

Changes to entitlement programs rarely attract strong bipartisan support, but on Tuesday the U.S. Senate approved a bill to change how Medicare sets reimbursement rates for doctors by 92 votes to 8 (roll call). All of the no votes came from Republicans, but Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both supported the bill. Follow me after the jump for background and details.

A rare event happened on Thursday, as the U.S. House approved by a large bipartisan majority a bill changing a major entitlement program. Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01) and Steve King (IA-04) were among those who opposed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

A leading political action committee for pro-choice Democratic women has endorsed Monica Vernon in Iowa’s first Congressional district. EMILY’s List announced their support today in a statement I’ve posted after the jump. The PAC didn’t endorse any of the three women who sought the IA-01 nomination in 2014, but donated $10,000 and bundled another $233,283 to Staci Appel’s campaign in IA-03.

Vernon finished second in the 2014 primary and is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination this cycle. However, she may not be the only pro-choice woman in this race. Former State Senator Swati Dandekar, who finished third in last year’s primary, is considering another Congressional bid.

Please share any comments about the IA-01 campaign in this thread.

The U.S. House approved a draft budget yesterday with some drama along the way. Details on the important budget provisions and how the Iowans voted are after the jump.

Today the U.S. House passed a new version of a bill to change who can serve on the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific advisory board. As happened last year, the Iowans split along party lines.

According to Representative Steve King (R, IA-04), he and other House conservatives are facing “retribution” from House Speaker John Boehner after they insisted that any Homeland Security funding bill must include language against President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

State Senator Matt McCoy has confirmed that he may seek the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. At least two other Democrats are thinking about challenging first-term Representative David Young as well.

The U.S. House approved $8 billion in funding for Amtrak passenger rail on Wednesday. Keith Lang and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

Since its inception in 1971, Amtrak has historically received about $1 billion per year from the government for operations and construction projects.

The measure would authorize about $982 million per year for the company’s national network and another $470 million annually for its popular Northeast U.S. routes.

The bill, which would expire in 2019, sets another $300 million per year for construction on Amtrak routes in the rest of country and about $24 million per year for the company’s inspector general.

All 184 Democrats present voted yes, including Iowa’s Dave Loebsack (IA-02). But as the 316 to 101 roll call shows, more than 100 House conservatives voted against the Amtrak bill, including Iowa’s Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04).

Young should know better. Currently, the only Amtrak routes across Iowa travel through the southern part of the state, calling at stations in the third and second Congressional districts. (King used to represent some of those southwest Iowa counties, but he hasn’t since the last redistricting.) Anyway, Young has lived on the east coast long enough to understand how important passenger rail is for the U.S. transportation system.  

As expected, the U.S. Senate failed yesterday to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill that would clear the way for building the Keystone XL pipeline. Supporters of the bill managed 62 votes, five short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both voted yes, along with all of their Republican colleagues and eight Democrats (roll call). Republicans will now try to attach the Keystone language to some bill the president won’t want to veto. Laura Barron-Lopez reported for The Hill,

“If we don’t win the battle today, we will win the war, because we will attach it to another piece of legislation,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who wrote the bill, said Wednesday.

Hoeven said Republicans are likely to try to attach the legislation to a long-term transportation funding bill. Congress faces a May 31 deadline to approve new transportation funding.

“This is coming back in the form an infrastructure bill, a road bill that we are all voting for,” said Manchin.

Keystone supporters are optimistic that Obama won’t veto a six-year highway bill if it includes Keystone, despite vows by the president to veto any attempt to circumvent the federal review process of the pipeline.

If attaching Keystone to a transpiration bill doesn’t work, supporters say, they will try to link it to a broader energy package.

That sounds like a good strategy. I suspect Keystone XL is a price Obama would be willing to pay for a long-term transportation funding bill. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch appears likely to be confirmed as the next attorney general after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, but both of Iowa’s U.S. senators will oppose her confirmation. Senator Chuck Grassley voted against Lynch on the Judiciary Committee, saying she had not convinced him that she “will lead the department in a different direction” from outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. In a statement I’ve posted after the jump, Grassley said that as “the nation’s top law enforcement officer,” the attorney general’s job is “not to be the President’s ‘wingman.'” He then cited several news headlines about Lynch defending President Barack Obama’s executive orders halting deportations for some undocumented immigrants.

Today Senator Joni Ernst confirmed that she will also vote against confirming Lynch. O.Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa,

“I have some very serious concerns with Loretta Lynch,” Ernst says, “especially during her testimony when she had stated that she does uphold what the president has done and his decisions, especially when it comes to executive amnesty.”

Late last week, Ernst and Grassley voted against the “clean” bill to continue funding the Department of Homeland Security, stripped of language opposing Obama’s immigration policies.

Three Republican senators (Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Jeff Flake) voted to forward Lynch’s nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate. Assuming all 46 Democrats are present for her confirmation vote, she will need only one more GOP supporter to reach the 60-vote threshold.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that Iowa’s U.S. Representatives Steve King (IA-04) and Rod Blum (IA-01) signed a letter urging Senate Judiciary Committee members to reject Lynch. To my knowledge, Representative David Young (IA-03) did not sign the letter.

Funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been bogged down in a dispute over how far Congressional Republicans should go to overturn President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. The rest of the federal government is funded through the end of this fiscal year (September 30), under a deal the previous House and Senate members approved in December. But conservatives held up funding for Homeland Security to preserve leverage for the new Congress.

Last night, a partial shutdown of the department was averted when senators approved a one-week funding measure and House members followed suit. Whether a majority can be found next week for a longer-term bill remains unclear.

Iowa’s own Steve King (R, IA-04) has been beating the drum for weeks urging conservatives not to give in and pass a “clean” Homeland Security funding bill. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have been less vocal about the matter, but they opposed the clean bill approved by a majority of senators yesterday (which didn’t come to a House vote).

Follow me after the jump for details on where the Iowans stood on all the recent Congressional votes related to this standoff.

An e-mail appearing to come from the sender “Stop Steve King” popped up in my in-box this week. I opened it, wondering whether a Democratic candidate was ready to announce already in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. King’s last challenger, Jim Mowrer, raised a huge amount of money in 2013 and last year, partly through mass e-mails coming from “Stop Steve King” or “Stop Steve King 2014.” Getting voters to read messages from political campaigns is increasingly challenging, and “clickbait” subject headings don’t always do the trick. Of all Iowa Republicans, King is probably the most hated by Democrats.    

As it turned out, the February 24 “Stop Steve King” message wasn’t from a potential challenger in IA-04. New Blue Interactive sent it on behalf of Monica Vernon’s Congressional campaign in Iowa’s first district. The e-mail urged recipients to sign a petition demanding that Congress fund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a “clean” bill, not including “anti-immigration amendments.” Clicking through the embedded link takes you to a petition page titled, “Tell the Tea Party to stop playing games with our national security!” Vernon’s opponent, Representative Rod Blum, is mentioned as standing in lock-step with King, House Speaker John Boehner, and “tea party” Republicans. I’ve enclosed screenshots of the mass e-mail and the petition after the jump.

Within the House GOP caucus, King has been one of the loudest voices demanding that Congress use the Homeland Security funding measure to make a point on immigration policy. Blum has indicated that he also supports using the Homeland Security budget bill to withhold funding from programs related to the President Barack Obama’s executive orders granting temporary legal status to some undocumented immigrants. In Blum’s view, holding the line on this matter “will not impact national security” because even after current funding expires at the end of February, “85 percent of the federal employees funded through Homeland Security are deemed essential and will continue work without pay until the funding issue is resolved.”

So it seems fair for Vernon’s campaign to lump Blum in with King and other Republicans engaging in brinksmanship over Homeland Security funding. Clearly “Stop Steve King” will catch the eye of many more Democrats than “Stop Rod Blum” or “Vernon for Congress.” Whether this exercise in list-building will eventually translate into lots of new donors or volunteers for Vernon is anyone’s guess.

Any comments about the race in IA-01 are welcome in this thread.

As expected, President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have forced approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. In his message to Congress, Obama said the bill “conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment.”  

Republican leaders will attempt to override the veto, but those efforts will almost certainly fail, since the bill didn’t muster a two-thirds majority in either the House or the Senate. The next likely step is for Congressional Republicans to attach language on Keystone XL to some other “must-pass” bill. I am concerned that under those conditions, language on the pipeline would not be a deal-breaker for Obama.

All four Iowans in the U.S. House supported the Keystone XL bill, as did Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst. I haven’t seen any official comment on the veto from Representatives Rod Blum (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), David Young (IA-03), or Steve King (IA-04). After the jump I’ve posted the full text of the president’s veto message, along with reaction from Grassley and Ernst. I will update as needed.

Entrepreneur Ravi Patel made his Congressional bid official yesterday in Iowa’s first district. His campaign is on the web at PatelforIowa.com, on Facebook here and on Twitter here. Pat Rynard profiled Patel at the Iowa Starting Line blog; excerpts are at the end of this post. Patel has indicated that his campaign will “be data-driven and heavy on social media.” His biggest challenges will be convincing voters that he’s not too young at age 29 to do this job, and connecting with voters in northeast Iowa, since he grew up and spent much of his adult life in cities that are part of Iowa’s second district.

At least three Democrats are likely to compete for the chance to face first-term Representative Rod Blum. The front-runner will be Cedar Rapids City Council member Monica Vernon, who finished second in last year’s IA-01 Democratic primary. She was the first to announce in this race and has been endorsed by some prominent Iowa politicians. UPDATE: Former State Senator Jack Hatch, who picked Vernon as his running mate in last year’s gubernatorial race, officially endorsed her for Congress in a February 17 e-mail. I’ve added that to the end of this post.

Former “Saturday Night Live” cast member Gary Kroeger seems ready to enter the race too. I had to laugh when the Des Moines Register’s Michael Morain reported this past weekend that Kroeger may run for Congress. The Register’s article did not mention that Iowa Starting Line broke that news way back on January 19.

Former Governor Chet Culver has said he is thinking about running for Congress in the northeast Iowa district as well.

Any comments about this race are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: Online ads for Patel’s campaign are already running on various websites. At the end of this post, I’ve enclosed an ad that appeared on a page with Iowa weather information.  

Before adjourning for a weeklong recess for Presidents’ Day, the U.S. House of Representatives approved two bills extending some tax credits that had expired at the end of 2014. Follow me after the jump for key points of the legislation and how the Iowans voted.

Catching up on news from last week, the U.S. Senate confirmed Ashton Carter as secretary of defense by 93 votes to 5 (roll call) on February 12. Only five Republicans opposed the nomination, which is rare for President Barack Obama’s administration. Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst both supported Carter, and I’ve enclosed their statements after the jump. Grassley emphasized that he will “continue to press for clean, accurate audits at the Defense Department,” while Ernst praised Carter’s “strong support and dedication to our service members and their families.” Ernst serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which unanimously forwarded Carter’s nomination earlier in the week. Kristina Wong reported for The Hill, “Republicans on the committee were particularly pleased that Carter said he would consider recommending that Obama modify his Afghanistan troop drawdown schedule, if necessary, and that he was inclined to arm Ukraine against Russian aggression.”

I’ve also enclosed below Carter’s official bio, summarizing his extensive Pentagon experience.

On February 9, Grassley and Ernst joined their colleagues in unanimously confirming Michael Botticelli as director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Grassley’s statement on the country’s new “drug czar” is after the jump too. He praised Botticelli for recognizing “the dangers of smoking marijuana.” In recent testimony before a U.S. House committee, Botticelli said “The [Obama] Administration continues to oppose attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs.”

Iowa’s new U.S. Senator Joni Ernst is often described as the first female combat veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate, but Andrew Reinbach took issue with that label in a recent commentary for the Huffington Post. I’ve posted excerpts after the jump, along with Ernst’s response. Reinbach’s main point is that while Ernst technically qualifies as a combat veteran, she should not use that label, never having come under enemy fire during her service in Iraq and Kuwait.

No one will ever mistake me for a big fan of Ernst, but I disagreed with those who grumbled about the “combat veteran” label last year, and I disagree with Reinbach now. Ernst served in a war zone during wartime. Lots of Americans were severely wounded or killed while performing supply or supporting roles during the Iraq War. Fortunately, the Iowa National Guard’s 1168th Transportation Company was not ambushed and never drove over a bomb. That fact doesn’t diminish the real risks facing everyone who served in the company.

Reinbach did make one valid argument, in my opinion: Ernst should correct those who say she “led troops into combat,” because that phrase gives a misleading impression of her role. Speaking to Radio Iowa about the criticism, Ernst did not directly acknowledge the point but said in her defense, “I have never once claimed that I have a combat action badge. I have never claimed that I have had a purple heart. What I have claimed is that I have served in a combat zone.”

Far too many combat veterans take their own lives after completing their wartime service. Congress recently addressed this national disgrace by approving the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act unanimously in the U.S. House and Senate. This bill should have become law last year, but a jackass who has since left the Senate blocked the bill from passing by unanimous consent during the lame-duck session.

Meanwhile, new Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald put his foot in his mouth in a huge way during a House committee hearing today. Pete Kasperowicz reported for The Blaze,

At the end of a few minutes of sniping, McDonald ended by barking at [GOP Representative Mike] Coffman, “I’ve run a large company, sir. What have you done?”

As it turns out, Coffman is a combat veteran who started his own company, and is the only member of Congress to have served in both Iraq wars.

The comments from McDonald, who once ran Procter & Gamble, were later described by Coffman’s office as “obnoxious.”

Hey, corporate genius: next time you go up to the Hill, have your staff brief you ahead of time on who will be asking the questions.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

The U.S. House approved two more anti-regulation bills this week. On February 4, all the Republicans present and nine Democrats passed the “Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015” by 250 votes to 173 (roll call). The following day, nineteen Democrats joined the whole GOP caucus to approve the “Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015” by 260 votes to 163 (roll call).

Iowa Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voted for both bills. Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed them both; he also voted against last year’s version of the unfunded mandates bill.

The bill claiming to deal with unfunded mandates “would further require agencies to consult with private sector entities impacted by the proposed rules,” Cristina Marcos reported. The bill approved on Thursday “would require federal agencies to calculate the direct, as well as indirect, costs of proposed rules.”

I haven’t seen any public comment on these votes from the Iowans in Congress, but after the jump I enclose open letters from leaders of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance of more than 150 “consumer, small business, labor, scientific, research, good government, faith, community, health, environmental, and public interest groups.” They urged House members to reject the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, because it “neither improves nor streamlines the regulatory process” and “would rob the American people of many critical upgrades to public health and safety standards, especially those that ensure clean air and water, safe food and consumer products, safe workplaces, and a stable, prosperous economy.” The same coalition opposed the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, because it “would increase unnecessary and lengthy regulatory delays, increase undue influence by regulated industries and encourage convoluted court challenges.”

Votes like this fly under the radar as media pursue more news stories that interest the “core demographic.” That’s unfortunate, because this kind of non-glamorous policy-making could affect millions of people. Few Iowans will learn that under the guise of “cutting red tape,” our state’s Republicans in Congress would jeopardize rules that are meant to protect the public interest. Loebsack deserves credit for standing up against these bad bills. Major corporations and industries already have too much influence over government rules.  

Yesterday the U.S. House approved a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act by 239 votes to 186 (roll call). No Democrats supported the bill, and only three Republicans broke ranks with their party to oppose it. By some counts, it was the 56th time the Republican-led House has voted to repeal all or part of the 2010 health care reform law. Still, many newly-elected GOP lawmakers wanted a chance to weigh in after campaigning against Obamacare.

Iowa’s four representatives split along the usual party lines, with Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) voting yes and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed. Loebsack has occasionally voted for Republican bills that reverse specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act, but he has never supported any of the broad repeal bills.

I enclose below statements released by King and Young on yesterday’s vote.  During last year’s campaign, Young suggested that Obamacare was “here to stay” and said he would be “at the table trying to fix” the law if elected to Congress. In yesterday’s press release, Young advocated several GOP proposals on health insurance but added that Republicans “must continue to ensure coverage is provided to individuals even if they have preexisting conditions and that young people still struggling in the job market are able to continue to receive coverage under a parent’s plan.” King’s official comments said nothing about preserving any aspects of the current law. He emphasized that he filed the very first Obamacare repeal measure on the day after House members approved the bill in March 2010.

I highly recommend Dana Milbank’s entertaining account of the House debate on the latest bill. Excerpts are after the jump, but you should click through to read the whole Washington Post column.

UPDATE: According to Sahil Kapur,

The [Republican] party is divided on whether it should even attempt to craft a contingency health care plan of its own. Illustrating the dispute, Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Jeff Duncan (R-SC) tried to propose an amendment that strips out the language calling for “replacement legislation.”