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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND UPDATE: Added new comments from Braley.

Iowa’s four representatives to the U.S. House split on two bills passed this week, while a bill all of them support moved closer to final approval. Details are after the jump.

The writing was on the wall this summer, but U.S. House Speaker John Boehner made it official yesterday: the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not take up the bipartisan Senate-passed immigration reform bill, nor will the House ever go to conference committee negotiations on that bill.

It’s a triumph for Representative Steve King (IA-04), who has made it his mission to stop any effort to grant legal status or citizenship to undocumented immigrants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catching up on news from last week, the U.S. House voted 292 to 122 to undermine part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Cheyenne Hopkins reported for Bloomberg that H.R. 922

would upend the 2010 law’s pushout provision by allowing trades of almost all types of derivatives by lenders with access to deposit insurance and discount borrowing. […]

Lawmakers included the original measure as a way to limit risk-taking by banks that got federal bailouts during the 2008 credit crisis. The pushout provision was faulted by banks and also by regulators including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who expressed concern that it could drive swaps trading to less-regulated entities.

All but three Republicans present voted for this bill, joined by 70 Democrats. Iowa’s Tom Latham (IA-03) was a yes, while Steve King (IA-04) did not vote. Meanwhile, Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against the bill, as did most of the Democratic caucus. I did not see any public comment on this bill from any of Iowa’s four representatives. During the floor debate on October 30, Democrat Collin Peterson of Minnesota warned,

“This bill would effectively gut important financial reforms and put taxpayers potentially on the hook for big banks’ risky behavior,” Peterson said. “The provision is a modest measure designed to prevent the federal government for bailing out or subsidizing bank activity that is not related to the business of banking.”

Peterson also noted that under current law, banks can still perform about 90 percent of the swaps hedges they were able to perform before Dodd-Frank.

Sounds like Braley and Loebsack made the right call. A White House statement argued against the bill as “premature” and possibly “disruptive,” but did not threaten a presidential veto.

LATE UPDATE: Iowa’s representatives also split on party lines when the House approved the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act on October 29.

The bill prevents the Department of Labor from issuing rules under the Dodd-Frank financial reform act that describes when financial advisors are considered a fiduciary, which means they must must work in their clients’ best interest. Under the bill, Labor would have to wait until the Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) acts first in this area.

Alicia Munnell explained here why that Republican-backed bill was “fundamentally misconceived.”

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

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

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

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

SECOND UPDATE: Added new comments from Harkin.

Judging from the reception he got in Des Moines and Le Mars on Friday and Saturday, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is still a hot property for conservative Iowa Republicans. I’ve posted links and highlights about Cruz’s latest visit after the jump. Any comments about his impact on Iowa politics or his potential as a presidential candidate are welcome in this thread.

I see Cruz as a showboater who will peak long before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, as people tire of his over-promising. Granted, many Republicans savor the fantasy that everything would go their way if the evil establishment only listened to “constitutional conservatives” like Cruz. Nevertheless, I expect Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker will have a winning message during the next caucus campaign. He can claim to have delivered on more conservative dreams than members of Congress like Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, or Representative Paul Ryan. I would love to be wrong and see the GOP nominate Cruz for president, though.

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

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

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

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

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

All Congressional candidates had to file third-quarter fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission by October 15. After the jump I’ve posted details on the fundraising by Iowa’s candidates for U.S. House.

The Senate reports are not online yet at the Federal Election Commission’s website, so those numbers will come later.

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

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

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

New surveys by Public Policy Polling indicate slight leads for an unnamed Democratic candidate against Republican incumbents Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04). The generic Democrat’s lead over Latham increased after respondents were told Latham “supported the government shutdown.”

UPDATE: Added a press release from King’s challenger Jim Mowrer at the end of this post.

It’s time for a new post on how Iowa’s representatives in the U.S. House and Senate are handling the ongoing shutdown of non-essential federal government operations. (Click here for details on Congressional votes and Iowa political reaction up to October 1.)

Thousands of Iowans who work for the federal government or serve in the National Guard still have no idea when they’ll receive their next paycheck. The best news I’ve heard all week is that an estimated 66,000 Iowa women and children who receive benefits through the WIC program will get their checks for October, at least.  

Although there has been no progress toward an agreement on a continuing spending resolution, I’ve noticed one big change in Iowa Congressional voting during the last few days. Whereas Representatives Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were sticking with most of their fellow Democrats in earlier votes on federal spending, this week both Braley and Loebsack have joined House Republican attempts to fund the federal government in bits and pieces. Follow me after the jump for more details.

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

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

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

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

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

Depending on how a possible diplomatic breakthrough develops, the U.S. House and Senate may not take any vote on authorizing the use of military force in Syria. However, several members of Congress and Iowa Congressional candidates have made additional comments on the situation since last week’s news roundup. I’ve posted the latest statements about military action in Syria after the jump and will update this post as needed.

UPDATE: Added reaction to President Barack Obama’s televised address on Syria this evening.

Several members of Congress from Iowa spoke out about potential U.S. intervention in Syria last week, and Bleeding Heartland sought comment on the issue from the declared Congressional candidates. News clips and the statements I’ve received so far are after the jump. I will update this post as needed. Note: most of the comments enclosed below came before President Barack Obama confirmed on August 31 that he will seek Congressional authorization for a strike on Syria. (He never sought approval for military action in Libya two years ago and he believes he has “the authority to carry out this military action [in Syria] without specific congressional authorization”.)

I am 100 percent convinced that both the House and the Senate will approve the use of force in Syria, perhaps after revising the administration’s first draft, which “is not particularly constrained.”  

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I am no expert on foreign policy or the Middle East, but my gut feeling is that military intervention will not accomplish anything good in Syria. It’s a “tall order” to “mount a limited, targeted, and effective strike that will indeed deter Assad without drawing the United States deeper into the ongoing civil war, causing unacceptable unintended consequences.” By the way, former State Department official William Polk wrote the most interesting analysis I’ve read so far about the situation there.  

Polk County Republican Party co-chair Chad Brown has resigned his office and switched his voter registration to no-party, Kathie Obradovich reported for the Des Moines Register today. Click through to read his resignation letter to the Polk GOP Executive Committee, which is as damning as any focus group comments or “autopsy” I’ve seen. Brown pointed out that Republicans have lost ground in Polk County, not just in the city of Des Moines but even in the suburbs. He has concluded that “we are now headed in the wrong direction on several fronts” and that he would only be “enabling” to help “a dysfunctional Party that does not want to address its problems.”

In his resignation letter, Brown wrote that he finds it “increasingly difficult to defend issues and statements made by Party leaders and officials” at the national, state, and local levels. Speaking to Obradovich by phone, Brown cited Representative Steve King’s recent comments about undocumented immigrants, guns, and what he characterized as “war on science and common sense” with respect to climate change.

UPDATE: The Sunday Des Moines Register published a guest column by Brown on August 25. Excerpts are after the jump. He plans to switch his party registration to Democrat.

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

Representative Steve King’s views about a path to legal residence for undocumented immigrants continue to make national news. Follow me after the jump for more comments and recent reports.

Yesterday I heard an ad on a Des Moines radio station criticizing Representative Steve King for taking a “five-week taxpayer-funded vacation instead of working to create jobs.” The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid for the ad in IA-04 and 17 other Republican-held House districts. The ad script is in a press release I’ve posted after the jump. This radio campaign is not targeting Representative Tom Latham in IA-03 for whatever reason. (The National Republican Congressional Committee recently added Latham to its incumbent protection program.) King has received so much unflattering media attention over the past two weeks because of his comments about undocumented immigrants that the DCCC may have felt it was the right time to focus on driving up King’s negatives with Iowans.

Meanwhile, during an interview with Sioux City-based KSCJ Radio, King criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close some U.S. embassies this week. Excerpts from his comments are after the jump, along with reaction from IA-04 Democratic candidate Jim Mowrer, who accused King of politicizing national security.

The Koch Brothers-funded group, Americans for Prosperity, is conducting a series of town halls in Iowa attacking Congressman Bruce Braley who is running for senate. They call it the “Big Government Braley” tour. The first two events, yesterday in Fort Dodge, and today in Carroll, featured Congressman Steve King. The third, on Saturday in Marshalltown, will be conducted by Sen. Chuck Grassley.

The meeting today was kicked off by AFP state director Mark Lucas. He said the greatest threat to the United States is the deficit. He also talked about cap and trade and a carbon tax as threats.

Then Lucas turned the mike over to Steve King.

What King said follows: 

This summer the U.S. House has approved several energy-related bills, which could affect public health and the environment as well as corporations in the oil, gas and coal sectors. As we saw last year, Iowa’s four U.S. representatives don’t consistently split on party lines when such bills come to the House floor.

Follow me after the jump for details on the latest energy legislation approved in the lower chamber. None of these bills are likely to pass the current U.S. Senate, but they would have better prospects if Republicans won a Senate majority in the 2014 elections.

Representative Steve King’s assertion that there are 100 drug mules for every “DREAMer” who’s a valedictorian continues to reverberate across the country. National television networks and blogs have chewed over the story, and many politicians have condemned King’s statement, including House Speaker John Boehner.

King stands by his comments and claims that the intense criticism proves he has “won the debate” over immigration policy. Yet a new poll of residents in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district suggests that King is out of step even with his own constituents.

Follow me after the jump for details on that poll and a roundup of reaction to King’s words about undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children.

Earlier this evening, the U.S. House tried to limit the scope of the NSA's domestic spying, but this amendment failed by 205-217.  It was an unusual cross-party vote, with Democrats voting 111-83, and Republians voting 94-134.  (Here is the full roll call vote).

Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted Yes (to restrict the NSA), while Steve King and Tom Latham voted No.  I haven't been able to find any more detailed statements from any of Iowa's congressmen.

Does anyone know where the 1st district candidates stand on this issue?  It would be a good debate topic.

 Representative Steve King (R – IA4) is no stranger to nationwide controversy over his comments towards immigration.  Having compared immigrants as unwanted dogs sleeping in the corner, he has emerged as the far right’s spokesperson for immigration reform talks in Congress.

One of Representative Steve King’s top priorities this year is blocking comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. House. A few months ago, King was concerned that House GOP leaders might cut a deal including “amnesty” for  approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants. He condemned the immigration reform bill U.S. senators approved last month with bipartisan support.

News out of Washington during the last week suggests that King’s faction may be on the way to winning their battle to block any legislation outlining a path to citizenship.  

Yesterday was the deadline for Congressional candidates to submit second-quarter financial reports to the Federal Election Commission. Highlights from the reports in Iowa’s four U.S. House districts are after the jump.

Bleeding Heartland will cover the U.S. Senate candidates’ financial reports in a separate post.

Speaking of the Federal Election Commission, did you know that Republican commissioners are trying to make it more difficult for professional staff to report campaign finance violations to federal prosecutors? Republicans are all about “law and order” except when laws inconvenience big-money interests.

A Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of both second-degree murder and manslaughter today in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The verdict doesn’t surprise me. No one witnessed the whole encounter that led Zimmerman to shoot an unarmed teenager. Although I did not watch the trial, I gather from commentaries and coverage at Talk Left and elsewhere that the defense turned several of the prosecution witnesses and produced their own witnesses supporting parts of Zimmerman’s story. They didn’t need to prove the self-defense narrative–only create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

That said, I doubt any jury would have acquitted an African-American man of shooting an unarmed white teenager under the same circumstances.

Roberto Martinez, a former U.S. attorney in Florida’s Southern District, made the case for a manslaughter conviction in the Miami Herald. I recommend reading the whole piece, but I’ve posted an excerpt after the jump. Even those who believe the jury reached the right verdict from a narrow legal perspective should acknowledge that Zimmerman’s stupid and reckless behavior caused the death of an innocent child. This verdict does not vindicate the actions of vigilante wannabe cops.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

UPDATE: Why am I not surprised? State Senator Kent Sorenson (contender for creepiest Iowa lawmaker) celebrated the verdict as “a victory for 2nd Amendment rights around the nation.” Hat tip to Christian Ucles, who commented, “Really Kent? The death of a child is a victory for 2nd amendment rights. […] You make me sick. I can’t believe to think that you and I both went to the same church, an considered you a Brother in Christ. You value guns and the actions of gun owners over the lives of children not your own?” In the comment thread, Sorenson responded, “Your [sic] a political hack that [sic] doesn’t care about anything other then [sic] your parties [sic] talking points!”

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa House Democrat Ako Abdul-Samad reacted to the verdict here.

THIRD UPDATE: Comments from President Barack Obama and Representative Steve King are after the jump. King really goes out of his way to stir up the pot sometimes.

After last month’s embarrassing failure to pass a five-year Farm Bill in the U.S. House, Republicans moved new legislation yesterday that included funding for agricultural programs but excluded the nutrition programs that have been embedded in farm bills for decades.

After Democrats forced a long slog through procedural votes, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act barely passed by 216 votes to 208. Every Democrat present voted against the bill, as did twelve Republicans. The rest of the GOP caucus voted yes, including Representatives Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04). Last month, King tried but failed to muster sufficient conservative support for a farm bill including big cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (more commonly known as food stamps). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) rejected yesterday’s bill. They were among the small group of House Democrats to support the previous version of the farm bill despite cuts in nutrition programs that drove away most of their caucus.

Comments from Senator Tom Harkin and most of Iowa’s House delegation are after the jump. I will update this post as needed with more comments from Iowa candidates or elected officials. At this writing, I don’t see anything about yesterday’s vote on Latham’s Congressional website. According to Radio Iowa, Latham “said he was disappointed with the process, but pleased the House was ‘at least able to pass the agriculture portion.'”

After several months of preparations, Jim Mowrer made it official today: he is challenging Representative Steve King in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. I’ve posted his formal announcement after the jump. His campaign is on the web here and also on Facebook and twitter.

Mowrer grew up in Boone and lived in Des Moines for a time after his tour in Iraq. He headed the Iowa Veterans for Joe Biden committee in 2007 and was Midwest Veterans Chair for the Obama-Biden campaign in 2008. He was a private contractor in Iraq during 2009 before getting a job as special assistant to the Under Secretary of the Army in the U.S. Department of Defense. Mowrer has also been a senior adviser to Vote Vets, a political advocacy group focused on veterans’ issues.

Mowrer recently resigned from his Pentagon job and returned to Boone with his wife and two sons. Speaking to Radio Iowa, he criticized politicians who focus on partisan sound bites rather than accomplishments:

“The work that I did there [at the Pentagon] was on making the Army and our defense more efficient and effective and saving taxpayer dollars and ensuring that we have the strongest Army the world has ever seen,” Mowrer said, “so I’m running for congress because I saw firsthand the problems and the damages that a broken congress can cause and I want to be a part of the solution.” […]

“Democrats and Republicans need to work together to get things done,” Mowrer said. “Regardless of party, people on extremes on both sides need to come to the table to find common sense solutions to make sure they protect middle class families like the one I grew up in.” […]

“Steve King isn’t working for Iowans. He’s not working for the 4th district and I have a record of actually getting things done,” Mowrer said.

Mowrer would need strong Democratic turnout and probably 70 percent of the independents to have any prayer against King. As of July 2013, IA-04 contained 127,701 registered Democrats, 178,309 Republicans, and 173,985 no-party voters.

UPDATE: Ben Nesselhuf resigned as South Dakota Democratic Party chair in order to manage Mowrer’s campaign. I’ve also added Mowrer’s official bio below.

Using an unusual voting procedure reserved for very important legislation, the U.S. Senate approved a comprehensive immigration reform bill yesterday by 68 votes to 32 (roll call). Every senator who caucuses with Democrats voted yes, joined by fourteen Republicans. The rest of the GOP caucus, including the entire leadership team and Senator Chuck Grassley, voted no.

In the run-up to the vote on final passage, senators considered many amendments to the immigration reform conceived by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.” After the jump I cover how Grassley and Senator Tom Harkin voted on the significant amendments, as well as reaction to the bill’s passage from both senators and other Iowa politicians. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) has vowed to block any comparable legislation from passing the U.S. House. He opposes any path to legal status or citizenship, even for undocumented immigrants brought to this country as young children.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The ruling means that legally married gay and lesbian couples in Iowa and elsewhere will be entitled to equal treatment under federal law. More than 200 Congressional Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, signed an amicus curiae brief urging justices to strike down the key provision of the DOMA, adopted in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support.  

In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that backers of California’s Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal a lower-court ruling striking down that ballot initiative. The decision means that LGBT couples will be allowed to marry in California. It does not affect other states’ statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Braley and Loebsack were among scores of Congressional Democrats who recently posed for the “NoH8” campaign supporting marriage equality and opposing Prop 8.

Excerpts from the DOMA decision and Iowa reaction to today’s rulings are after the jump. I will update this post as needed. At this writing, most of the Congressional delegation has not publicly commented on the Supreme Court decisions.

I also enclose below Democratic State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad’s reaction to yesterday’s disgraceful 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

The future of most U.S. farm programs is in question today, as the House of Representatives voted down a new five-year farm bill that had bipartisan support in the House Agriculture Committee. Background, details on today’s vote, and some Iowa reaction are after the jump.

None of Iowa’s four U.S. House members has issued a press release about the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance of phone and online communications, but all have now made some public comment about the controversy. I enclose the details below.

Recently-fired Iowa Senate GOP communications director Kirsten Anderson filed a complaint last week with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, alleging that Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix and three staffers for the GOP Senate caucus subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against her for complaining about the work environment.

A pdf file of Anderson’s complaint can be viewed here. I’ve posted the two-page narrative section after the jump.

Reading the allegations, two points stood out for me. Anderson told WHO-TV’s Dave Price that legislators as well as GOP staffers made inappropriate comments to and about women on staff. But her complaint to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission does not accuse any Republican lawmakers of making such remarks. The only named respondents are Dix (for failing to provide a safe work environment) and three staffers.

Second, in her narrative about alleged retaliation, Anderson describes meetings in May 2013, during which she was told her work was “not where it needed to be.” Those meetings involved Eric Johansen, a named respondent in the complaint who is Iowa GOP Senate staff director, and Tracie Gibler, an assistant to Dix. Anderson did not accuse Gibler of creating a hostile work environment. Representative Steve King’s office just announced yesterday that Gibler will be King’s new Congressional chief of staff, as of June 10. (I’ve posted that press release below.) I can’t blame Gibler for wanting to get out of Dix’s office–or maybe the timing of her departure is a coincidence, just like named respondent Ed Failor, Jr. and Dix have claimed it was a coincidence that Anderson was fired for cause on the very same day she documented complaints about the work environment.  

Internal Revenue Service Acting Director Steven Miller was forced to resign this week following revelations that the IRS targeted tea party organizations that applied for tax-exempt status. I enclose below reaction to this scandal from Iowa’s Congressional delegation.

A separate post is in progress to catch up on recent votes by Iowa’s four U.S. representatives and two senators.

The more I think about Steve King’s Friday night announcement that he will not run for U.S. Senate in 2014, the more I suspect that someone rushed him into that decision.

Representative Steve King announced on twitter Friday night, “I will not run for Senate in 2014. A Senate race takes me out of urgent battles in Congress that can’t wait until 2015. Many thanks to all.”

Those battles include immigration reform, where King is a leading voice House Republican voice against any path to legal residency or citizenship. He has also pledged to block the implementation of the 2010 health care reform law.

King’s decision should not surprise anyone. He could not win a statewide election for any office in Iowa. I believe that if his internal polling showed the “path to victory” he claimed to see, he would be in the Senate race already. In contrast, he is favored to hold the Republican-leaning fourth Congressional district for the next decade. His likely Democratic opponent Jim Mowrer will face a steep uphill battle.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. The statement posted on King’s Congressional campaign website is after the jump.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey announced on twitter this morning, “I have decided not to run for US #Senate. Thx for many kind, encouraging words. Hoping Congr King runs. Other good R candidates as well.”

That’s bad news for State Representative Pat Grassley, rumored to be interested in the secretary of agriculture job if Northey had run for Senate.

Thousands of Democrats share Northey’s hope that Representative Steve King will run, but it’s not going to happen. Really. I got a kick out of his comments yesterday, though.

“There’s a lot of support to do this, and I just don’t know the answer. And I’m embarrassed that I don’t know the answer,” he said with a laugh.  He said he doesn’t know when he’ll make a decision.

He said he never expected to still be undecided in May. “Things are stacking up on me so fast,  I hardly have time to deal with the issue,” the Kiron Republican said.  He cited events pending in Congress, especially the farm bill and the immigration issue.

If I compiled a list of things Steve King should be embarrassed about, being late to decide on the Senate race wouldn’t make the top 20.

Matt Whitaker seems poised to launch a Senate campaign soon. Other Republicans considering the race include State Senator Joni Ernst, Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Chuck Grassley’s chief of staff David Young, and former State Representative Rod Roberts.

UPDATE: Added more comments from Northey below.

I expect at least one former Republican state legislator to run for the open U.S. Senate seat next year. Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals Director Rod Roberts told The Iowa Republican’s Kevin Hall that he is seriously considering the race.

“A few months ago I didn’t anticipate that running for the U.S. Senate would be a real possibility,” Roberts said. “Like most folks, I assumed either Congressman Latham or Congressman King would run. But, as the odds have increased that neither congressman will run, more people have encouraged me to think about it. At this point, I’d say I’m certainly considering the opportunity, and I’m planning to continue talking with family, friends and supporters in the coming weeks.”

Roberts represented the Carroll area in the Iowa House for a decade before running for governor in 2010. He was an adequate campaigner, but his principal role in my opinion was as stalking horse for Terry Branstad during the Republican primary. On the other hand, Carroll-based journalist Douglas Burns believes Roberts would be the ideal Senate candidate for the GOP to run against Democrat Bruce Braley.

Any comments about the IA-Sen campaign are welcome in this thread. According to Hall’s latest post, State Senator Joni Ernst “has set a timeline of about 30 days to make a decision” about the Senate race. Bob Vander Plaats told the Sioux City Journal he believes Latham may change his mind about not seeking the Senate seat if Steve King decides to stay in IA-04, as expected.

UPDATE: In the unlikely event that Rod Roberts wins the Senate nomination, I think his move to reduce nursing home inspectors would become a general election campaign issue.