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.”

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.  

Continuing the Republican push to make fossil fuels projects a priority for this Congress, yesterday the U.S. House approved the “Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act” by by 253 votes to 169 (roll call). Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

Under the measure, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would be ordered to approve or deny a [natural gas] pipeline application within 12 months.  Agencies responsible for issuing licenses or permits must act within 90 days after FERC issues a final environmental review, though the deadline could be extended by 30 days if the agency demonstrates it can’t finish in time.

But if the agency doesn’t make a decision by then, a pipeline would automatically be approved.

Republicans said the legislation would put pressure on agencies to avoid unnecessary delays for natural gas pipelines. […]

The White House issued a veto threat against the measure, saying it would “create conflicts” with current requirements and force agencies to make rushed decisions or deny applications entirely because they don’t have enough information by the established deadlines.

All the Republicans present supported this bill, including Iowans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04). They were joined by fourteen House Democrats, but Dave Loebsack (IA-02) stuck with the majority of his caucus in opposing this bill. Loebsack also voted against a similar bill that the House approved in 2013. I haven’t seen any public comment on yesterday’s vote, but I will update this post as needed.

House Republicans tried yesterday to pass a package of eleven bills that would roll back one or more parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

The measure – one of the first to be considered in the new Congress – was brought up under a fast-track procedure typically considered for noncontroversial legislation that requires a two-thirds majority to pass. But Democratic opposition led to its defeat, by a vote of 276-146.

After the jump I’ve posted the floor speech by Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who laid out the Democratic case against passing this bill. He pointed out its substantive flaws and argued against a process that allowed such a complex bill to be brought to the floor in 24 hours, outside “regular order.”

The roll call shows that not only did all three Iowa Republicans vote for this bill, Dave Loebsack (IA-02) was among the 35 Democrats who supported it too. On social media I’ve seen some confused or angry Iowa Democrats ask why Loebsack would vote for such a bad bill. Although he may agree with its content, I would guess that he mostly wanted to protect himself against future campaign attacks. (Political considerations have pushed Loebsack to vote for many bad Republican bills.) Even if he agrees with rolling back Dodd-Frank reforms, though, Loebsack should not have gone along with rushing it through on the second day of the new Congressional session. Legislation this complicated and far-reaching should be debated and marked up in committee first.

Democrats who aren’t happy with Loebsack’s vote should be sure to let him know. Unfortunately, I anticipate many votes like this one to follow.

Senator Tom Harkin cast his final votes in Congress yesterday as the upper chamber wrapped up the lame-duck session. He and Senator Chuck Grassley were on opposite sides as Democrats confirmed a batch of presidential nominees on Monday and Tuesday. You can view all the roll calls here; the nominees were approved mostly along party lines. They included several judges and assistant secretaries of various agencies and Dr. Vivek Murthy, confirmed as surgeon general by 51 votes to 43, with only one Republican yes vote. Murthy had been the target of a relentless “smear campaign” by conservative media and the National Rifle Association, because of his comment in October 2012 that “Guns are a health care issue.”

The conservative media attacks against Murthy began in early March. Coverage of his nomination focused on his past acknowledgement that gun violence affects public health, which conservative media spun as evidence Murthy is obsessed with gun regulations. (Murthy has actually said his focus as Surgeon General will not be on gun violence, but rather obesity.)

Because of strange Senate procedural rules, hardline conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz inadvertently made this week’s raft of confirmations possible. His constitutional point of order against the massive federal government funding bill last Friday prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to convene the chamber on Saturday. That gave Democrats more time to set up confirmation votes on nominees this Monday and Tuesday. Rebecca Kaplan of CBS News explained here that the most controversial presidential nominees to be confirmed “thanks to Ted Cruz” are Murthy, Tony Blinken for Deputy Secretary of State, and Sarah Saldaña, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director in the Department of Homeland Security. Harkin voted for and Grassley against all of those nominees.

Iowa’s senators ended up on the same side in one big vote this week: the bill extending dozens of tax breaks for corporations and individuals. Steven Dennis noted in Roll Call,

Handing out mostly corporate tax breaks and adding to the debt to do it has proven to be a popular thing for Congress. Democrats including President Barack Obama spent the better part of 2013 trying to get Republicans to agree to more revenue as part of a budget deal, but are now signing on to deficit expansion for the sake of tax breaks that will expire, again, in two weeks.

Usually, these tax breaks – which range from the R&D tax break to breaks for NASCAR, racehorse owners and wind farms – are touted as incentives – and indeed some senators called them that Tuesday. But it’s hard to retroactively incentivize anything – a point made on the Senate floor by outgoing Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who voted no and said the tax bill didn’t even have the shelf life of a carton of eggs. […] After President Barack Obama threatened to veto an emerging deal after the midterms that would have added close to half a trillion to the debt over a decade, the scaled-back bill was all Congress could muster.

The tax extenders bill passed by 76 votes to 16. Joining Iowa’s senators in the yes column were possible GOP presidential candidates Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. Opponents of this bill included Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Independent Bernie Sanders, who is exploring a presidential campaign as a Democrat, missed yesterday’s votes because he was in Iowa.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Grassley’s official statement on the tax extenders bill is after the jump.

Senator Tom Harkin cast his last votes in Congress over the weekend. After the jump I’ve posted the video and full transcript of Harkin’s final speech on the U.S. Senate floor, delivered on December 12. He and Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley were at odds in many roll-call votes these past two days. However, they both voted against the $1.1 trillion government funding bill senators passed late Saturday night. The 56 to 40 roll call reveals an unusual bipartisan split. Yes votes came from 32 Democrats and 24 Republicans, while 21 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted no. Liberals like Harkin found plenty to dislike in the so-called “cromnibus” spending bill. Notably, it included a big change to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was literally written by one of the large banks that will benefit. The spending bill also includes a “big coal giveaway”, big cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency budget, and several other bad environmental provisions. What Democrats supposedly got out of the “cromnibus” wasn’t worth it in my opinion.

Just before the final vote on the spending bill, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas raised a constitutional point of order:

“If you believe President Obama’s executive order was unconstitutional vote yes,” Cruz said ahead of the vote on Saturday. “If you think the president’s executive order is constitutional vote no.”

Only 22 senators voted with Cruz and 74 voted against his point of order.

The roll call shows that Grassley was one of the Republicans who voted for the point of order. The group included several senators who may run for president (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman) and a bunch of Republicans who are up for re-election in 2016 and presumably want to avoid a GOP primary challenge.

Many of the Republicans who opposed Cruz’s motion (including the Senate GOP leadership team) probably were motivated by the desire to avoid a government shutdown. Nevertheless, they are now on record voting no when Cruz said such a vote signified a belief that “the president’s executive order is constitutional.”

Also on Saturday, senators approved on party lines a series of motions to advance judicial nominees. Here Harkin and Grassley were on opposite sides. In fact, disagreements over whether to vote on these nominations delayed a final vote on the spending bill. Harkin and other Democrats backed all the nominations. Grassley will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee when the new Congress convenes and has promised more vigorous oversight of nominations. He objected to moving the judicial nominations during the lame-duck session, even though many of the nominees were non-controversial and had been approved by a Judiciary Committee voice vote. In fact, Republican senators from Illinois and Texas had recommended some of these nominees for federal judgeships.

Last night the U.S. House approved a $1.1 trillion “cromnibus,” a massive continuing resolution to fund most of the federal government through September 2015. The 219 to 206 roll call showed an unusual bipartisan split, with 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats supporting the bill, while 67 Republicans and 139 Democrats voted against it. Many of the most outspoken House progressives and conservatives were against the cromnibus, for different reasons. Only one of Iowa’s four U.S. House members voted yes: retiring Republican Tom Latham (IA-03). I have not seen any official statement explaining his reasons.

Republican Steve King (IA-04) opposed the bill primarily because in his view, it did not do enough to block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. I’ve posted some of King’s recent statements on the issue after the jump. King’s office has not responded to my request for comment on assertions by House Appropriations Committee staff that it would be “impossible” to defend the immigration order. King offered an amendment (full text here) which would have funded “all of the government until January 30 of next year but [would] prohibit any and all funds from being used to carry out the president’s lawless, unconstitutional executive amnesty in all its forms.” But an analysis by Scott Wong for The Hill suggests that the Obama administration would be able to carry out the executive order even if Congress shut down the federal government.

Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) both voted against the funding bill. I have not seen any official statement explaining those votes but will update this post as needed.

Catching up on news from last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released new standards for ground-level ozone that will reduce the incidence and severity of various respiratory diseases. Click here for details on the standards.

Ground level or “bad” ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOx and VOC. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also have harmful effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.

Current regulations allow ozone at 75 parts per billion. The new rules would lower that to a level between 65 and 70 parts per billion. Mark Drajem reported for Bloomberg News, “The EPA’s independent science advisers this year recommended the administration set the standard at 60 to 70 parts per billion, and urged the agency to consider the lower end of that range.”

After the jump I’ve posted the EPA’s press release and excerpts from a commentary by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, along with some reaction by critics of the proposal. Predictably, some business groups say the new standards will be devastating for the economy. McCarthy pointed out that same dire warnings have accompanied every new environmental regulation for decades.

The Iowa Association for Business and Industry is concerned that the EPA proposal may be expensive for manufacturers. Data collected between 2011 and 2013 at various monitoring sites around Iowa indicate that ground-level ozone is already below 70 parts per billion at all tested locations. Some of the Iowa sites recorded levels below 65 parts per billion; others are slightly above that level. The EPA does not anticipate that any counties in Iowa will violate the new ozone standard by 2025. Counties with the worst smog problems, including many in California, will be given more time to comply with the new ozone standards.

Before adjourning for the Thanksgiving recess, the U.S. House approved three bills last week designed to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to function. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) voted for all three bills, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against them all. On November 18, representatives passed the “EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act” by 229 votes to 191 (roll call). Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill, “Among other provisions, the measure would require the Scientific Advisory Board, which consults the EPA on its regulations, to have at least ten percent of members from state, local or tribal governments. […] Democrats said the measure would hinder the board’s effectiveness and compromise its members’ scientific expertise.” Scientists are alarmed about the prospect of more industry experts on an EPA board.

On November 19, House Republicans and a handful of Democrats approved the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014” by 237 votes to 190 (roll call). This bill would block the EPA from adopting new regulations based on scientific research unless all raw data were publicly available. Its backers claim they are only trying to improve transparency at the federal agency. But peer-reviewed studies, particularly in the field of public health, often rely on confidential patient information that cannot be made public.

Andrew Rosenberg, who heads the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussed both of these “attacks on independent science” by House Republicans. I’ve enclosed excerpts from his commentary after the jump.

Finally, on November 20 every House Republican and sixteen Democrats approved the “Promoting New Manufacturing Act” by 238 votes to 172 (roll call). Cristina Marcos reported that this bill would ” enhance the Environmental Protection Agency’s reporting requirements for the number of pre-construction permits it issues under the Clean Air Act.”

In addition, the bill would direct the EPA to report to Congress each year on how it can expedite the permitting process. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), the measure’s sponsor, argued it would promote manufacturing and increase transparency. […]

But Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the measure would weaken environmental protections by allowing permit applicants to avoid updated EPA air quality standards if the facilities are new or expanding, calling it “pollution amnesty.”

“This bill does not do anything to improve the permitting process for new and expanding facilities, but it does weaken air quality protection,” Waxman said.

Marcos’ reporting indicates that the White House has issued veto threats against all three of these bills. Once Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate in the new year, Obama may get several opportunities to reject bad bills affecting the EPA.  

On Friday the U.S. House of Representatives filed a federal lawsuit challenging several aspects of how the Obama administration has implemented the 2010 Affordable Care Act. You can read the plaintiffs’ full case here (pdf) against two cabinet secretaries and the agencies they lead. The main arguments are that the Obama administration broke the law by delaying the employer mandate to provide health insurance, and also by providing certain payments to health insurance companies without having Congress appropriate those funds. The first point was expected, but the second argument surprised even those who have closely followed the political battle over Obamacare. Sarah Kliff explained the challenged payments and how they fit into the law. Ashley Parker reported for the New York Times, “If the lawsuit is successful, poor people would not lose their health care, because the insurance companies would still be required to provide coverage – but without the help of the government subsidy, the companies might be forced to raise costs elsewhere.”

In contrast, the legal challenge to delaying the employer mandate is more “symbolic,” as that provision of the Affordable Care Act will have gone into effect by the time this lawsuit works its way through federal courts.

House Republicans voted to authorize this lawsuit shortly before going on a long summer recess. Iowa’s four representatives split on party lines, with Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) supporting the measure and Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) opposed, along with every other House Democrat present. At the time, the lawsuit was perceived as House Speaker John Boehner’s way of deflecting conservative sentiment toward drafting articles of impeachment. At times this fall, Congress-watchers wondered whether the lawsuit would go forward, as two major law firms worked on the case for a while before declining to participate in litigation. A conservative legal scholar eventually took the case.

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

About a year ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to change the Renewable Fuel Standard, which regulates how much ethanol must be blended into gasoline. Iowa elected officials from both parties expressed unanimous outrage, with Governor Terry Branstad and Representative Bruce Braley seeking out especially prominent roles in the battle against reducing the Renewable Fuel Standard. The very first week of the Iowa legislature’s 2014 session, state lawmakers unanimously approved a non-binding resolution urging the EPA to abandon its proposed rule.

The EPA proposal was supposed to become final in the spring of 2014, but political pressure forced a series of delays. Finally, this past Friday the agency announced “that it will not be finalizing 2014 applicable percentage standards under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program before the end of 2014.” After the jump I’ve posted reaction from Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Governor Branstad, and Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02).

The immediate impact will be more uncertainty for Iowans whose livelihood depends either directly or indirectly on the ethanol industry. But I would guess that every delay makes it less likely that the EPA will move forward with its original proposal, which could be construed as a victory for Iowa biofuels.

The reality is more complicated than such unusual political consensus implies. At an “all-day pepfest for ethanol” organized by the governor in January, Francis Thicke was the only person to offer the “other side” of the story. Thicke has a doctorate in agronomy and soil science from Iowa State University. His testimony asserted that it is “disingenuous to frame the debate on the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) as a struggle between farmers and Big Oil” and that “EPA’s proposed changes to the RFS are not that radical.” Thicke also pointed out, “Corn ethanol was always meant to be a stepping stone to advanced biofuels.” In this guest post, Bleeding Heartland user black desert nomad likewise questioned whether corn ethanol was really “under attack” and argued that “Vested interests want to double-down on endless growth in corn ethanol, but they have lost sight of the long game amidst a tangled web of conflict-of-interest.”  

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

The enrollment period for 2015 health insurance coverage began today and runs through February 15. Approximately “23,000 people nationwide successfully submitted applications to enroll or re-enroll in health insurance plans” today at Healthcare.gov. The Obama administration has set a target of 9.1 million enrollees for 2015. As of this past April, approximately 29,000 Iowans had selected a health insurance plan through the federal marketplace. But roughly double that number are eligible to enroll in a marketplace plan.

Democrats in the Iowa Senate advocated for creating a state portal where Iowans could buy health insurance under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. However, Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa House Republicans refused to go along, perhaps hoping that the health care reform law would be overturned in court or soon after the 2012 presidential election. So, Iowa formed a “partnership” exchange, whereby the state regulates insurance plans, but citizens purchase those plans on the website created and maintained by the federal government. That political decision may prove costly for tens of thousands of Iowans and millions of people in more than 30 other states.

On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal that could end tax credit subsidies for all Americans who purchase health insurance plans through the federal website. The SCOTUS blog has compiled links on the King v Burwell case here. Jonathan Cohn provides a concise explanation of how the lawsuit could “wreck Obamacare” if a Supreme Court majority finds in favor of plaintiffs, who argue that subsidies should be available only to people who purchase insurance on state exchanges.

Brianne Gorod argues here that the Supreme Court should “recognize what the statutory text makes clear, and the structure, purpose, and history of the statute all confirm: tax credits and subsidies should be available on all exchanges, state-run and federally facilitated.”

Michael Cannon argues the opposite side here: namely, that the Affordable Care Act “makes no provision for subsidies in federally established exchanges.”

Chief Justice John Roberts is a highly political, results-oriented judge rather than a consistent legal theorist. Will he seize this chance to destroy Obamacare, or will he allow the current system to survive, as he did in the Supreme Court ruling that left most of the Affordable Care Act intact?

The outcome of King v. Burwell should not affect roughly 105,000 Iowans who have received health insurance coverage under the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, the compromise alternative to simple Medicaid expansion in this state. According to a report by the Iowa Policy Project, those people “previously were not eligible for Medicaid or who were enrolled only in the IowaCare program.” (IowaCare benefits were inferior to Medicaid in various ways.) Iowa hospitals have benefited from these policy changes, as they provided much less uncompensated care to uninsured Iowans during the first half of this year compared to the previous year.

UPDATE: Added after the jump excerpts from the Des Moines Register’s unsigned editorial published on November 17. The editors note the irony of conservatives who oppose the Affordable Care Act hoping that “activist judges” will help unravel it.

As a 34-year incumbent, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley will have a choice among leading the Senate’s Finance, Judiciary or Budget committees when the new Congress convenes in January. In a statement to the Des Moines Register yesterday, he said he will pick the Judiciary Committee.

“Oversight is too often overlooked as Congress focuses on new legislation […] So, anybody who knows my efforts in this area will understand that the Judiciary Committee’s work will reflect that sentiment. My goal is to promote transparency and accountability and restore the committee’s role as a true check on the massive and powerful federal bureaucracy.” […]

“The Judiciary Committee should not be a rubber stamp for the president,” he said. “However, as I have as ranking member, I will work to confirm consensus nominees. Factors I consider important include intellectual ability, respect for the Constitution, fidelity to the law, personal integrity, appropriate judicial temperament, and professional competence.

“Judges are to decide cases and controversies – not establish public policy or make law,” he said.

Sounds like under Grassley’s leadership, the Judiciary Committee will approve few, if any, of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees for a vote on the Senate floor. I would guess that only conservative-leaning judges will meet the new chairman’s standard for “consensus.” Other political observers have reached the same conclusion (see also here). In recent years, Grassley and his fellow Republicans blocked confirmation votes on numerous judicial nominees, including everyone the president picked for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regardless of qualifications. The standoff prompted Senate Democrats to sharply curtail the use of the filibuster on presidential nominations. Grassley and other Republicans warned at that time that someday they tables would be turned.

Taking a contrarian view, the non-profit Alliance for Justice argues here that “no one should give up on judicial confirmations in a Republican-controlled Senate.” I’ve posted excerpts from that piece after the jump, but it’s worth clicking through to read in full.

I also enclose below Grassley’s official comment on U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, whom the president has tapped to be the next attorney general. Grassley has been a vocal critic of outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder. The Judiciary Committee holds confirmation hearings on attorney general nominees.

UPDATE: Added more comments from Grassley on his role and the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It's official. EPA and USDA have both evaluated Dow Chemical's new  line of 2,4-D-resistant seeds, Enlist — and have approved both the seeds  and the accompanying pesticide formulation for market.

This is a turning point, not just for grain production but for food  production in the U.S. and internationally. The introduction of Enlist  corn and soybeans, and the widespread adoption of this new seed line,  will have pervasive impacts on farmer livelihoods, public health and  control of our food system.

This is a decision that our regulators should not have taken lightly.  And yet, it seems they did. Both USDA and EPA set up an intentionally  narrow scope for evaluating the potential harms posed by 2,4-D resistant  crops — one that ignored the biggest problems and held up irrelevant  factors as evidence of safety.

As small farmers brace for the impact of pesticide drift that will  hit with the introduction of Enlist crops, it is time for us to look  forward. It's time to demand a regulatory system that takes a rigorous  approach to pesticides and genetically engineered crops, one that values  small farmers as much as industrial agriculture — and public health as  much as corporate profit.

Whose idea was it to hold so many Iowa candidate debates on Saturday nights this year? At 7 pm this evening, Bruce Braley and Joni Ernst face off in the second of three scheduled debates. (C-SPAN will televise nationwide, and KWQC TV will televise in the Quad Cities area.) Immediately after that, KWQC will broadcast the second and final debate between Representative Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the second Congressional district race. (That debate will be taped earlier in the day.)

I won’t be able to watch either showdown live because of a family wedding, but I will catch up later with some links and recap, as well as highlights from the new Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. A bunch of links related to the IA-Sen race are after the jump. I still see the debate as equally risky for Braley and Ernst, for different reasons.

UPDATE: The new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll by Selzer & Co has Braley and Ernst nearly tied. Ernst is ahead by a statistically insignificant 47 percent to 46 percent. I do not believe Ernst lost a lot of ground during the last two weeks. I believe she was never as far ahead as the last Selzer poll indicated. Other polls in the field around the same time showed a much closer race. In particular, I do not believe that in two weeks, Braley went from a 25-point deficit among men to a 16-point deficit now.

SECOND UPDATE: The full debate video is on the KWQC website.

THIRD UPDATE: I wish every undecided voter in Iowa had seen this debate. Having finally watched the full video myself, I understand why shills for Ernst kept reaching for their security blankets on Saturday night. Talk about a disastrous performance. She repeatedly fell back on rote talking points that didn’t answer the question. On several occasions it was apparent that she did not understand the policy implications of her own words. I particularly loved how she insisted that the bipartisan Senate-passed immigration reform bill was “amnesty,” even though Braley had already explained why it was different from amnesty. She talked about securing the border, even though Braley had already explained that we would have 20,000 more border control agents if that immigration reform bill had become law. Toward the end of that exchange, though, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Ernst say she would not vote to repeal President Barack Obama’s DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). A lot of conservatives were presumably surprised too, but not in a pleasant way.

At the end of this post I’ve linked to several pieces summarizing the debate highlights.

Former State Senator Staci Appel and David Young are holding their second debate, hosted by KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register at Simpson College in Indianola. I’m live-blogging after the jump. KCCI will have the video up later on their website.

Who else was stunned by recent reports about the lapses by the Secret Service?  Sebastian Payne listed the “the top 10 recent Secret Service headaches” here. Dylan Matthews goes into more detail on three astounding incidents: an intruder with a knife got all the way into the East Room of the White House; President Barack Obama ended up in an elevator with a convicted criminal who was carrying a gun; and it “took the Secret Service four days to realize that shots had hit the White House residence.”

Secret Service Director Julia Pierson resigned this week, and I agree 100 percent with Bryce Covert’s take:

Reasonable people can disagree about whether, ultimately, she deserved to lose her job or whether anyone in charge during such an incident would have to resign. But it’s probably not pure chance that Pierson, who held that position for just a year-and-a-half, was a woman. Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door. The academics Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam even coined a term for this phenomenon: They call it getting pushed over the glass cliff. […]

The understaffing, for which Pierson was not responsible, could have played a significant role in the breach that led to her losing her position. Former secret service agents told the Washington Post that the incident may have been related to the severe staffing shortage in the division responsible for securing the White House. […]

As for the Secret Service, it turns out that Joseph Clancy will be Pierson’s temporary replacement, even though he was in charge of the presidential detail the night the Salahis slipped past checkpoints [in 2009].

I don’t know how much of the security lapses can be attributed to inadequate Secret Service staffing and funding levels during Obama’s presidency, and how much stem from a too-broad mission or aspects of the Secret Service training and organizational culture. For the safety and of the president and everyone around him, I hope these problems will be solved quickly. It will take a lot more than a change at the top.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

President Barack Obama announced today that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will resign as soon as a successor is confirmed. Carrie Johnson reported for National Public Radio,

Holder already is one of the longest-serving members of the Obama Cabinet and currently ranks as the fourth-longest tenured AG in history. Hundreds of employees waited in lines, stacked three rows deep, in early February 2009 to witness his return to the Justice Department, where he previously worked as a young corruption prosecutor and as deputy attorney general – the second in command – during the Clinton administration. […]

Holder most wants to be remembered for his record on civil rights: refusing to defend a law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman; suing North Carolina and Texas over voting restrictions that disproportionately affect minorities and the elderly; launching 20 investigations of abuses by local police departments; and using his bully pulpit to lobby Congress to reduce prison sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Many of those sentences disproportionately hurt minority communities.

Republicans in Congress have long clashed with Holder over many issues, notably the “Fast and Furious” gun trafficking scandal and Holder’s original plan to prosecute the alleged plotters in the 9/11 attacks in federal court in New York City. (Eventually those cases were moved to military courts.)

I had very high hopes for Holder when Obama appointed him, and while he’s far from the worst in the current cabinet, he’s probably the most disappointing from my perspective. As Eric Posner explains well here, “Holder’s Justice Department has helped suppress civil liberties that interfere with what the Bush administration called the ‘war on terror,’ the currently nameless global operation to confront Islamic terrorism wherever it appears.” Although Holder doesn’t explicitly condone torture, the Department of Justice failed to prosecute CIA officials involved in torturing suspects.

Any comments about Holder’s legacy are welcome in this thread. I’ve enclosed below Senator Chuck Grassley’s comment on the attorney general’s plans to step down, and will update this post as needed with other Iowa reaction to the news.

P.S.-Although an early 2009 speech by Holder is now considered a “stumble” or gaffe, there was some truth in his observation, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Four-term Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack and his three-time Republican challenger Mariannette Miller-Meeks are debating in Iowa City tonight, starting at 7 pm. Iowa Public TV is live-streaming the event here. I’ll post updates after the jump.

Any comments about the race in Iowa’s second Congressional district are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: The archived video is now available at IPTV’s site. My comments are below.  

President Barack Obama signed an executive order today that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Labor Secretary Tom Perez explained,

My colleagues in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs have enforced the government’s nondiscrimination laws for federal contractors for years. Their work ensures that contractors and subcontractors doing business with the government don’t use taxpayer money to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. With this executive order, it will also include America’s LGBT workers.

We still need to go further. Passage of federal legislation to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity would mean that all workers across the country would enjoy these protections. But with Congress failing to lead on this issue, the president is taking the initiative as part of this Year of Action.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed the U.S. Senate last fall with bipartisan support but is going nowhere in the Republican-controlled U.S. House.

Justin Sink noted in his report for The Hill that the president still wants Congress to pass that bill, although “some gay and civil rights groups have abandoned ENDA over concerns stemming from the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.” After the jump I’ve posted more background on that aspect of today’s news. While the Hobby Lobby ruling ostensibly was limited to a religious exemption from the contraception mandate in the 2010 health care reform law, it’s likely to have more far-reaching effects.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I’ll update this post if needed with Iowa political reaction.

A detailed analysis by the Iowa Policy Project shows that immigrants contribute substantially “to Iowa’s economy both as workers and employers,” and could contribute more “if immigration reform were to make work authorization or a path to citizenship possible” for some undocumented Iowa residents. You can read the full report by Heather Gibney and Peter Fisher here (pdf). I’ve enclosed excerpts from the executive summary after the jump.

One key finding is that contrary to the image fostered by some politicians, undocumented immigrants are not a drain on state or federal budgets. They generate significant revenue for public assistance programs, from which they cannot benefit. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) is notorious for his demagoguery against “illegals,” but sadly many other Iowa Republican elected officials, including Governor Terry Branstad, have promoted myths about undocumented immigrants taking state benefits.

Commenting on the latest evidence of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” spreading in Iowa, Drake Law Professor Neil Hamilton argued in an editorial this week that we must not embrace “solutions” offered by biotech companies that “will simply repeat our mistakes.”

Hamilton’s appeal was not addressed to any specific person. Yet one Iowan is uniquely positioned to heed his warning: U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. As the USDA considers the biotech industry’s “next silver bullet solution” for herbicide-resistant weeds, Vilsack should think hard about the risks, “rather than just believing people who have some shiny new product to sell,” in Hamilton’s words. Vilsack’s record raises doubts about whether he is up to this task.

The DSM Register had an article today on the IRS scrutiny of Sen. Chuck Grassley. To be fair to the Register, conservatives are trying to make it appear that the IRS is on a witch hunt for members of Congress, and so while there’s no news here, the Register is covering it because the conservatives are trying to make it a story.

The real witch hunt here is fed by conservative’s disconnection with reality. Here’s the short version of the facts: The IRS was sent a complaint that an organization might be offering Grassley something as a benefit. The IRS investigator looked at it and rightly asked her supervisor if this was something that could justify an audit. The supervisor said no, the only thing that would justify an audit would be if Grassley accepted and then didn’t report it. End of story. No further action by the IRS.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday that a District Court should hear a lawsuit eight Muscatine residents have filed against the Grain Processing Corporation. Muscatine locals have long had to breathe some of Iowa’s dirtiest air, and the Grain Processing Corporation has long been one of the area’s major polluters. Despite being forced to pay a $538,000 civil penalty for air pollution violations eight years ago, the corporation continued to emit excessive amounts, leading to a lawsuit by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller in 2011. Earlier this year, the company settled that lawsuit, agreeing to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty and to take several steps to reduce toxic emissions from the facility.

But the Grain Processing Corporation stood and fought when local residents filed a class-action lawsuit two years ago, citing health risks as well as damage to personal property related to the air pollution near the plant.

In 2013, a District Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, prompting plaintiffs to appeal. The Iowa Supreme Court found that the Grain Processing Corporation “was not entitled to summary judgment” and sent the case back to District Court, which will consider the lawsuit on its merits. You can read the full text of Justice Brent Appel’s ruling here (pdf). (It’s more than 60 pages long and gets into some technical legal issues.) All the other Iowa Superme Court justices concurred, except for Justice Edward Mansfield, who recused himself because some of his former law partners were representing the corporation.

After the jump I’ve posted more background on the lawsuit and excerpts from Jason Liegois’ report for the Muscatine Journal on the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. The plaintiffs are not guaranteed to succeed in District Court, but at least they can present their case. In addition to fighting the lawsuit at the lower court level in Iowa, the Grain Processing Corporation could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the federal Clean Air Act preempts claims like the ones the Muscatine residents are making.

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

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

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

A new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research points to significant long-term benefits for children in poverty whose families received cash transfers through the first U.S. government welfare program. Researchers used census, World War II and death records to compare male children of mothers who received help through the federal Mothers’ Pension program between 1911 and 1935 to male children whose mothers applied for help but were rejected from the program. You can read the full research paper here (pdf) or access it here. I’ve posted a few excerpts after the jump.

The main takeaway: “Male children of accepted mothers received one-third more years of schooling, were less likely to be underweight, and had higher income in adulthood than children of rejected mothers.” The study did not include female children of early welfare recipients because name changes through marriage make it much harder to track long-term outcomes for girls.  

We liberals have been fighting the wrong battle with the Minimum Wage.  I am not sure whether liberals understand the economics of the minimum wage and choose to ignore them, or whether we just don’t understand basic principles of economics.  I can’t do much about the former, but I can at least shed some light on what actually happens when we raise the minimum wage.

We liberals all share a fundamental belief that government has the power and the resources to improve the standard of living of the poor and the middle class in this country.  Because we have the power and the resources, we have an obligation to take action to do so.  But we should also do no harm in the process, especially to those whose lives we are trying to improve.  The Earned Income Tax Credit is a more efficient way to accomplish our objectives, at a lower cost to society as a whole, with fewer unintended consequences that end up hurting poor people.

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

Monday marked the fifth anniversary of President Barack Obama signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the federal stimulus) into law. Bleeding Heartland has long held that the stimulus mitigated the impact of the “Great Recession,” in part because the package saved Iowa and other states from enacting deep cuts in public services and . The stimulus had flaws, stemming primarily from the president aiming too low on the size of the package and concessions made to win a handful of conservative votes in Congress.

After the jump I’ve posted more links on the recovery act’s impact.

P.S. – The dumbest thing I’ve read this week was Kevin Hall’s comment for The Iowa Republican blog about former State Senator Swati Dandekar, a candidate for Congress in the first district. “Swati Dandekar is obviously an intelligent and accomplished woman. However, she speaks in broken English and I don’t think that translates very well to a wide electorate.” Reality: Dandekar’s English is very fluent. Having a noticeable accent is different from not speaking a language well. I would like to hear Hall try to talk in a non-native language.  

Catching up on news from last week, Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) continued his pattern of voting for certain Republican bills aimed at undercutting federal regulations, especially in the environmental area (see also here). The latest example came when the U.S. House approved a bill “aimed at reducing the federal government’s restrictions on hunting, fishing and sport shooting on federal land.”  

The U.S. Department of Justice announced today a new policy to “recognize lawful same-sex marriages as broadly as possible, and to recognize all marriages valid in the jurisdiction where the marriage was celebrated,” even if the couple currently resides in a state that does not allow same-sex marriages. You can read the full text of Attorney General Eric Holder’s memo here (pdf). Jaywon Choe reported for PBS,

Practically speaking, the decision means that same-sex couples will be given benefits that previously were only extended to heterosexual couples. For federal inmates, this includes spousal visits and the possibility of furloughs in the event of a crisis involving a spouse. Meanwhile in the courtroom, same-sex couples will now be given the right to refuse testimony that might incriminate their spouse, even in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized.

The policy stems from last June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Windsor case, which struck down key provisions in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The DOJ memo makes clear that the policy does not apply to domestic partnerships or civil unions–only to the thousands of LGBT couples married in Iowa or one of the other states where marriage equality is the law.

The Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Treasury confirmed last summer that legally married same-sex couples will be able to file the same kind of federal tax returns (jointly or separately) as married heterosexual couples.

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

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

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

Today I attended the hearing put on by Governor Branstad to bash the EPA for proposing to change the rules on the Renewable Fuels Standard for ethanol.  It was an all-day pepfest for ethanol.  I came late, but I think was the only one to talk about the “other side” of ethanol.Here are my remarks (although the footnote explanations and references don’t come through):

Later this week state and regional agribusiness leaders will gather at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates to cheerlead for corn ethanol.  The agenda for this “Hearing in the Heartland” is to rail against a proposed update to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bipartisan entrenchment against the update suggests corn ethanol is being somehow threatened, but despite the fanfare it really isn’t.

The EPA’s update to the 2007 law deals mostly with 2^nd and 3^rd generation biofuels. The proposed volume requirements don't hinder corn ethanol; the grain mandates shifts a few percent as business models tend to do when they are updated after 7 years.  The long-term prospects for next generation biofuels also remain strong. So why an update?  Projections for next generation biofuel have not panned out, yet. Simply put: science & engineering need to catch up to ambitious policy.

Corn ethanol was always meant as a stepping stone to “advanced” biofuels. The RFS update only seriously impedes corn if convoluted math is done to figure corn as the stop-gap filler for our old overestimates for next generation biofuels. Vested interests want to double-down on endless growth in corn ethanol, but they have lost sight of the long game amidst a tangled web of conflict-of-interest.  

Talk about lousy timing: just before a chemical spill made tap water unusable for 300,000 West Virginians, the U.S. House approved a bill that would “weaken the nation’s hazardous waste laws and place American communities at increased risk of toxic exposure.” The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013 (H.R. 2279) includes three bills House Republicans drafted last year. In a letter signed by 129 public interest groups, Earth Justice listed the key points of each bill and explained why the package would “threaten human health and the environment while protecting polluters from liability for the costs of toxic cleanups.” I’ve posted an excerpt from that open letter after the jump. In a post for the Earth Justice blog last week, Lisa Evans called this bill “Kryptonite for Superfund” and “a con job of the highest order, allowing polluters to walk away without losing a penny, while taxpayers are left footing the bill.”

Under its current leadership, the House has been called “the most anti-environmental House in our nation’s history” because of the many bills passed that would curtail federal regulations and take power away from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Occasionally Iowa’s two House Democrats have gone along with those efforts, but I was pleased to see that on January 9, Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the latest effort to hamstring the EPA and for the Democratic motion to recommit this bill with instructions (often a last-ditch effort to kill legislation in the House). Iowa Republicans Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) lived up to their abysmal voting records on the environment by voting for the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act and against the motion to recommit.

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

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

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

In an excellent two-part series on food stamps and the need for food assistance in Iowa, Mike Wiser caught Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks in an embarrassing lie:

“The No. 1 food item bought with food stamps in Iowa is Mountain Dew,” said Miller-Meeks, director of the Iowa Department of Public Health [in a speech to the World Food Prize Hunger Week symposium in October].

Several in the audience of a few hundred — an international crowd of academics, journalists and nonprofit types — shook their heads or smiled with bemusement. Phones came out, tweets were sent.

But what Miller-Meeks said wasn’t true.

At least not in any verifiable way. The Iowa Department of Human Services — the state agency that oversees the food stamp program, correctly called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, in Iowa — doesn’t track food purchases down to the brand of soft drink. Asked where she came up with the statistic, Miller-Meeks later said through a spokesperson she “found it online” but couldn’t remember where.

Bleeding Heartland has long argued against cutting food assistance for many reasons. The SNAP program addresses real need efficiently and is rarely abused. In addition, government spending on food assistance has tremendous “bang for the buck” compared to most other policies designed to stimulate the economy. I recommend reading the full text of Wiser’s latest reports on the rhetoric and reality of the food stamp debate and on reasons private aid agencies are struggling to help all the hungry Iowans.

Today I want to speculate on how a fake “fact” about food stamp purchases landed on Miller-Meeks’ radar.

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

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

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

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

Governor Terry Branstad announced today that his administration and officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have struck a deal over the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, our state’s alternative to a straightforward Medicaid expansion. Earlier this week, federal officials approved most of the proposal but rejected a provision that would have kicked some low-income Iowans off the plan if they failed to pay monthly premiums. Under the tentative agreement, Iowa would still be able to charge premiums to some people who did not meet wellness criteria, but those people would not lose coverage for not paying the premiums. A statement released by the governor’s office is after the jump.

Branstad had the option of appealing the HHS decision, and Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen suggested yesterday that Iowa officials should fight for the whole plan state legislators approved in May. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal argued that the governor should “take the deal” federal officials approved: “It wasn’t the whole nine yards, but it was about 8.9 yards. It was most of what we asked for.” Commenting on this evening’s news, Senate President Pam Jochum said, “Hallelujah. Amen. […] I can’t imagine the governor would have wanted to be held responsible for 55,000-plus people losing coverage come Jan. 1.”

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. Charging even small health insurance premiums to people making less than $11,000 a year is stupid in my opinion, but this compromise is better than no coverage for tens of thousands of Iowans.

P.S.- Can’t help noticing how just like the messaging from his re-election campaign, the governor’s press releases invariably mention Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds whenever possible. I doubt she played any role in these negotiations or the governor’s decision not to appeal the HHS decision on the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan.

UPDATE: Added comments from Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) below. Last week he wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius urging the federal government to approve a waiver for Iowa.

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

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