IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



House

Republican

Newsletter

February 28, 2007

[pic]

Appropriations

Auditor Critical of Governor’s Budget,

Democrats Release Partial Joint Targets That

Spend Even More

On Thursday, February 22, the State Auditor released his review of the Governor’s budget recommendations. Also on that day, the House and Senate Democrats released partial joint budget targets. The Auditor was highly critical of the Governor’s spending levels and the Democrats propose to spend even more.

According to the Auditor, “Under Governor Culver’s Fiscal Year 08 budget proposal ‘true total expenditures’ grow at the rate of almost 10 percent above Fiscal Year 07 levels. Even with the proposed cigarette tax increase, the growth in spending outpaces the growth in revenues by a significant margin.”

“The key to responsible budgeting is to keep expenditures in line with revenues,” the Auditor said. “Governor Culver has pledged, ‘Simply put, we can’t spend more than we take in.’ Yet, even with the Governor’s proposed tax and revenue increases of almost $180 million, this budget proposal will result in spending nearly $300 million more than we take in. The proposed budget accomplishes this by shifting over $400 million of Fiscal Year 08 General Fund costs to other funds and special accounts.”

On the Senior Living Trust Fund, the Auditor said “Governor Culver stated increasing the cigarette and tobacco tax will enable Iowa to ‘Keep our commitment to fund the SLTF, which allows more Iowans to remain in an independent living setting for a longer period of time.’ By law, the SLTF is to be repaid $300 million for a portion of the General Fund costs that have been shifted to the SLTF over the last several years. The Governor’s proposed budget reflects that $197 million of cumulative repayments will have been made to the SLTF as of the beginning of FY 08, leaving a balance due of $103 million.”

“The rest of the story is $260 million of General Fund costs were shifted to the SLTF during that same period the repayments were being made, and that money does not have to be repaid under current law. It’s hard to replenish the SLTF when the amount being taken out is more than the amount being repaid.”

Auditor David Vaudt did note that Governor Culver’s FY 08 budget proposal takes some positive steps by funding a portion of the FY 08 property tax credits from FY 08 estimated revenues, applying the proper (95 percent) expenditure limitation to the proposed cigarette and tobacco tax increase, and moving all Governor’s staff costs into the Governor’s office budget (ending, at least for the time being, a notorious past practice of Governor Vilsack).

Also on Thursday, the House and Senate Democrats released joint budget targets. However, unlike in the past, when House Republicans released budget targets, they only released the targets for the budget subcommittees. They did not release a balance sheet, revenue adjustments (tax increases) or the target for the unassigned standings, which includes K-12 school aid, state employee salary increases, commercial property tax relief, and the funding for the property tax credits.

Here are the joint budget targets for the appropriations subcommittees:

|General Fund | | Joint Target - 08 |Joint Difference from 07 |Governor - 08 |Difference from Gov. |

|Administration and Reg. | | $ 94,261,443 | $ 8,239,951 |$ 93,911,443 |$ 350,000 |

|Ag/Natural Resources | $ 41,276,167 | $ 1,661,903 |$ 40,076,167 |$ 1,200,000 |

|Economic Development | | $ 40,051,337 | $ 3,171,029 |$ 38,823,337 |$ 1,228,000 |

|Education | | $ 1,141,564,400 | $ 140,081,914 |$1,140,349,000 |$ 1,215,400 |

|Health and Hum. Services | $ 1,271,641,865 | $ 109,639,776 |$1,264,641,865 |$ 7,000,000 |

|Justice Systems | | $ 626,403,292 | $ 38,258,298 |$ 629,774,560 |$ -3,371,268 |

|Trans., Infra., Capitals | | $ | $ - |$ 1,000,000 |$ -1,000,000 |

| | |- | | | |

|Grand Total | | $ 3,215,198,504 | $ 301,052,871 |$3,208,576,372 |$6,622,132 |

The Democrats’ targets are slightly above the Governor in all areas except for Justice System and Transportation.  They will not fund the Courts at the Governor’s level - the target is $2.1 million above FY 07, the Courts’ request was $8.4 million above FY 07. Therefore, excluding the Courts, the Justice Systems target is actually $3 million above the Governor’s recommended level. The targets also did not fund the Governor's request of $1 million from the General Fund for a mobile production unit at IPTV.

The Democrats claim that it is a fiscally responsible budget but that is an easy claim to make when they only release one-half of it.  The real indicator is the fact that they are above the Governor's already outlandish spending increases by $6.6 million.  That is a clear signal that they intend to approve an overall budget that spends more than the Governor.  Remember, when the salary funding is included, the Governor's budget spends over 10 percent more than last year.

 

The "family budget" analogy to make is that this is similar to having enough money to cover the mortgage payment and claiming that you are being fiscally responsible while avoiding how you are going to cover the car payment, insurance, power bill, groceries and other living expenses.

(Contact: Lon Anderson, 1-5184)

Agriculture

Budget Panel Okays Fiscal Year 2008 IDALS & DNR Appropriations

On Wednesday, February 28, the joint Agriculture and Natural Resources appropriations subcommittee approved a measure that would fund the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and appropriates IDALS/DNR Environment First funds for FY 2008.

The measure proposes General Fund appropriations of $41,276,16,7, which is $1.2 million above the level recommended by the Governor, and $5 million above the Governor’s mark for other funds. This is principally because the bill increases the amount appropriated from the Environment First Fund (EFF) by an additional $5 million for a total EFF allocation of $40 million. The measure passed by a unanimous vote of 14-0. The bill essentially funds the Governor’s General Fund recommendations. It also provides for an additional $1.2 million, which was split by the panel to provide an additional $1 million for further expansion of funding for the Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory; $50,000 for Emerald Ash Borer detection program, split evenly between IDALS & DNR; $100,000 to DNR for Honey Creek Rangers; and $54,671 for an Organic Certification specialist, with a small offset being an elimination of funding for the Missouri River Authority state dues.

The major difference between the budget subcommittee’s Environment First allocation and the Governor’s recommendation is not only does the proposed budget expand the allocation from its statutory level of $35 million to $40 million, but it also scales back a number of existing allocations from the EFF below the Governor’s recommendations. Most notably, the measure reduces the increase to Soil Conservation Cost-Share $850,000 below the Governor’s recommendation level of $7.85 million to $7 million. The measure does increase the EFF appropriation for REAP by $4.5 million to a total of $15.5 million. The bill also reduces the EFF appropriation for Watershed Protection by $150,000, and reduces Conservation Reserve Program incentives by $500,000. The bill increases the EFF appropriation for Ag Drainage Well closure by $1 million above current year funding and the Governor’s recommendation, for a total of $1.5 million. Another reduction made to EFF funding is zeroing-out funding for lake dredging (previously funded at $975,000).

The budget also proposes to move the funding of several DNR operations to the EFF, by including new appropriations out of the EFF of $400,000 for enhanced livestock regulations, $50,000 for DNR livestock database expenses, and providing continued funding for livestock air monitoring to complete a three-year study at $235,000. Finally, the measure shifts funding for Resource Conservation and Development from federal funds to the EFF at the $300,000 level, and shifts funding for water withdrawal and use from user fees and the General Fund and funds it with $500,000 of EFF monies. The measure will now move forward to either the House or the Senate full Appropriations Committee.

(Contact: Lew Olson, 1-3096)

Commerce

Energy Bill on the Fast Track, No Matter How Bad it is for Iowa Consumers, Utilities

One of the issues on which the House Democrats campaigned most vigorously last fall was expanding alternative energy. Since the beginning of the legislative session, a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee has held bi-weekly meetings discussing a number of energy issues facing Iowa. With this fervent commitment to changing Iowa’s energy fortunes, one would think that the alternative energy bill put forward by House Democrats would be an organized and well thought out endeavor. One would also be greatly disappointed.

House File 498 was finally introduced last Thursday. The bill has four major parts.

First, it creates the Office of Energy Independence. The director of this office would be the Governor’s point person on energy, and would have control over most state programs having any connection to energy. The director is advised by the Iowa Energy Independence Advisory Council. This group is totally composed of state department heads. There is no public representation for various producers of energy in this state.

Second, the bill’s stated intent is to make Iowa independent of foreign energy sources by 2025. How that is accomplished would be set out in the Iowa Energy Independence Plan, a five-year guide developed by the director. This plan would set many new standards for all parts of Iowa’s economy, including “balancing the interests of crop, biomass, livestock producers, biofuel, and other bioproduct manufacturers, consistent with sustainable land use, clean air and clean water practices”. The plan would also lay out regulatory changes, including renewable power standards for utilities, greenhouse gas emission standards and building code standards.

The third major component of the Democrat plan is the vaunted Iowa Power Fund. The purpose of the fund is to provide assistance to startup enterprises dealing with alternative and renewable energy. Essentially, the Iowa Power Fund would be a replica of the Grow Iowa Values Fund.

The fourth major component is expanding the state’s regulatory reach. All gas and electric utilities would be subject to regulation by the Iowa Utilities Board for Energy Efficiency Plans. This would bring municipal utilities and RECs under the board’s control.

Financing the state’s energy efficiency program would come from the utilities as well. The bill doubles the amount utilities are required to pay to the state for these efforts. Initial estimates from MidAmerican Energy show that this will be an increase of $1.7 million for just their customers. The vast majority of the funds would go to the Iowa Energy Center, with a large portion of the funds to be used for research on biofuel production.

The first subcommittee meeting on the bill was Tuesday night, and it brought out a number of questions from various parties. One topic that seemed to evade Democrats in assembling their bill was affordability. A number of interested parties noted that the bill had no consideration for how the bill’s actions would impact consumers. Since the utilities are rate regulated, any increase in cost would be transferred to the consumer. Making that link seems to be a challenge for those leading this bill.

Another contentious issue at the first subcommittee meeting was how the new Office of Energy Independence director would interact with the Iowa Utilities Board. A number of interested parties noted that they had interpreted the language of the bill to give the director significant authority over the state’s energy policy, including the Iowa Utilities Board. While Democrats said that was not the intent, they did not express much willingness to change this.

(Contact: Brad Trow, 1-3471)

Economic Growth

Economic Growth Committee Activity

The following bills passed out of the Economic Growth Committee this week:

HF 280 –Enterprise zones

This bill added a situation in which an area could take advantage of the Enterprise Zone legislation by adding “permanent layoffs” to the already existing business closure provision. Currently, a city or county may designate an enterprise zone at any time prior to July 1, 2010, when a business closure occurs involving the loss of full-time employees at one place of business totaling at least 1,000 employees, or 4% or more of the county’s resident labor force, based on the most recent labor force statistics from the Department of Workforce Development, whichever is lower.

HF 388 – Creating a Generation Iowa Commission

HF 388 creates a Generation Iowa Commission within the Department of Economic Development for purposes of advising and assisting in the retention and attraction of the young adult populations in the state concerning both urban and rural areas. The commission would consist of 15 voting members, and four members of the General Assembly as ex-officio members. The commission would be required to file reports with the Governor and the General Assembly regarding the status of the efforts to attract and retain the young adult population in the state, career opportunities and education needs of young adults, and the movement of the young adult population between both rural and urban areas but in and out of the state as well.

HSB 149 – Designation of Iowa Great Places

This bill would remove the limit of six locations on the Great Places program and makes the program available to any “place” that can demonstrate a level of “readiness” for the program. It also provides that in situations where it is notwithstanding any restriction, a place that has been named a “great place” shall be given additional consideration or additional points when applying for grants, loan or other financial or technical assistance.

HF 235 – Money appropriated to the Department of Economic Development for regional tourism marketing purposes

This bill allows the Department of Economic Development to receive currently established revenues from gambling on a quarterly allotment.

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Education

Bullying Bill Recap

Governor Culver is set to sign Senate File 61, the Civil Rights Commission’s bullying bill.

As you talk to your constituents, remember to mention these facts:

• House Republican Message:  “Bullying of any student at any time under any circumstance is wrong.”

• This is a Civil Rights Commission bill, not a bill requested by education stakeholders. The floor manager admitted during House debate that education stakeholders were not involved in writing the bill.

• Regarding the “The List” of characteristics…..House Republicans want all children to feel equally safe, not some children to “feel safer” (remember, this the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s list).

• Every Iowa school district and accredited nonpublic school already has a harassment policy. They are required to have the policy in order to be state accredited.

• There is NO money in this bill for districts to implement this policy. The bill “encourages” districts to implement a program designed to eliminate harassment and bullying in schools.

• Nonpublic schools are NOT protected in this bill. The Senate and House Democrats stripped out language saying that the bullying policy should not inhibit teachings or consideration of doctrinal matters.

• The bill did NOT receive unanimous support. Final House passage: 56-42. Final Senate passage: 36-14.

A summary of Senate File 61 is as follows:

• Each school district and accredited nonpublic school is required to adopt a bullying policy by September 1, 2007. The policy is included in the Comprehensive School Improvement plan. This links the policy to state accreditation.

• “Bullying” is defined as “any conduct toward a student which is based on any actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student which creates an objectively hostile school environment”

• “Trait or characteristic of the student” includes but is not limited to:

Age

Color

Creed

National origin

Race

Religion

Marital status

Sex

Sexual orientation

Gender identity

Physical attributes

Physical or mental ability or disability

Ancestry

Political party preference

Political belief

Socioeconomic status

Familial status.

• Violation of the policy occurs if the action does one or more of the following:

o Places the student in reasonable fear of harm to the student’s person or property

o Has a substantially detrimental effect on the student’s physical or mental health

o Has the effect of substantially interfering with the student’s academic performance

o Has the effect of substantially interfering with the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by the school

• The policy must include the following:

o Behaviors expected from school employees, volunteers, parents and students relative to prevention measures, reporting and investigation of harassment or bullying.

o The consequences and appropriate remedial action of persons who violate the policy.

o A procedure for the prompt investigation of complaints

• Encourages but does not require programs designed to eliminate harassment and bullying in schools.

• Gives school employees, volunteers, students or a student’s parents immunity from civil and criminal liability for reporting and participating in any administrative or judicial proceeding resulting from relating the report.

• A victim may also seek other administrative or legal remedies.

• Requires data collection by school districts and the state

Education Bills on the Move

House Study Bill 87 Human Growth and Development - The Committee adopted a significant strike everything amendment that toned down the bill. As originally drafted HSB 87, contained explicit curricula for teaching sex education to Iowa’s public school students.

The strike-everything amendment which became the bill requires current human growth and development curriculum to be age-appropriate and research-based. The amendment also requires instruction in HIV and the HPV (human papilloma virus) virus in junior high school. These topics are currently required for high school.

The amendment allows organizations to come into the school district and review the sex education curriculum and to request data. Finally, the amendment requires the Department of Education to make research-based studies available to school districts.

House File 6 - This bill raises the compulsory age for education from 16 to 18 years of age. This provision applies to school districts, accredited nonpublic schools, and students receiving competent private instruction (home schooling). The bill delays implementation until July 1, 2008.

All stakeholders recognize that the students the bill is aimed at have not been successful in the traditional or alternative high school settings currently offered by Iowa school districts. As such, the Department of Education requested an amendment requiring it to study and report by January 1, 2008, the necessary services and funding that will be required to serve these students.

Note that the bill does contain state mandate language. The department estimates that this will impact 826 dropouts. The Legislative Services Agency (LSA) cites a 1991 study that says only 25% of those students will actually enroll.

Questions to ask:

1. Are districts not doing everything they can to keep these students enrolled? What more will they be expected to do?

2. Will 16 and 17 year-olds who don’t enroll be truant? (Answer: Yes. The bill does not change the truancy law. Any student who is not enrolled and who is of compulsory age is truant.)

3. If, per LSA’s estimate, 75% of the 16 and 17 year-olds do not enroll, will there be a greater burden on the juvenile justice system? What will be the cost?

4. Why are some states only raising their compulsory age to 17?

a. 2006 - Colorado raises the age from 16 to 17.

b. 2007 - Maryland, after a study, proposes raising the age from 16 to 17.

5. How will Iowa handle the issue of a student reaching majority age, yet holding a parent responsible for having the student in school?

(Contact: Ann McCarthy, 1-3015)

Government Oversight

ICN and GEM$ Provide Updates to the Committee

On February 20, the state’s chief information officer told the Government Oversight Committee that restrictions on the authorized users of the Iowa Communications Network hamper the ability of the network to meet the rapidly growing demand for broadband Internet services, but conceded that any expansion of the user base would be highly controversial.

John Gillispie, Chief Operating Officer of the Information Technology Enterprise in the Department of Administrative Services, said the ICN’s customer base is “extremely limited”, saying only educational institutions, state and federal agencies, telemedicine facilities and public libraries may currently use the network. He said the ICN is contacted regularly by private sector firms interested in connecting to the network for services, and the definition of authorized user restricts the support the ICN could provide to local governments, Iowa businesses and other members of the telecommunications industry. Gillispie said there is an ongoing, active debate over the idea of access to high-speed Internet as a “public good” and noted that many rural and urban neighborhoods struggle to get competitive services equal to what their neighbors receive. But he also acknowledged the controversy involved in allowing the state-owned network to compete with the private sector telecommunications companies., and described the network’s relationships with the private sector as “a stand-off”. Gillispie identified several other funding and statutory restraints limiting the services the ICN can provide so that affordable broadband “last mile” connections can be delivered:

• Current videoconferencing services offered by the network have limited access points either because of the limitations of Part III requirements for educational institutions, technical problems, or lack of funding to acquire the necessary connectivity by schools. Businesses are not authorized to use the ICN.

• A spending limitation of $1 million (without prior authorization from the Legislature) related to telecommunications services impedes the ability to make necessary capital investments. Gillispie said this level of spending oversight may have been necessary when the ICN received General Fund appropriations and during the early days of the network, but is an impediment in today’s inflation adjusted environment. SSB 1176, assigned to the Senate Commerce Committee, would raise this limitation to $2 million.

• Funding disincentives between classes that are shared physically versus those that are shared using ICN

video services. HSB 69, in the House Education Committee (SSB 1083 is the Senate companion), would treat virtual shared classes like other types of shared classes and provides that both the school district providing the class and teacher and the district receiving the class through the ICN would receive supplemental funding.

On February 22, the committee received an update on the Grants Enterprise Management System (GEM$) from Kathy Mabie, the program’s coordinator in the Department of Management. Mabie discussed the activities of her program, which was established to help state agencies and local governments become more proactive in securing additional non-state funding (federal and community foundation grants) and discourage duplication in competitive grant applications. The office has included numerous local government officials in its training sessions, and is also trying to include officers of non-profit entities in its grant information network, since 501(c)(3) organizations can apply for grants for which state agencies are ineligible. GEM$ maintains a database to collect information on competitive grants applied for by state agencies, and Mabie said an upgrade to the database later this year will include reports from the state’s Councils of Government. GEM$ is appropriated $125,000 for office expenses annually from indirect cost reimbursements received by the state; under legislation passed in 2006, the office is receiving an additional appropriation (again, from indirect cost reimbursements) in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 of $35,000 each year for grant identification and grant writing assistance for state agencies.

Mabie requested that the committee consider legislation this year to allow any of the additional $35,000 not spent in FY 07 to be carried over to FY 08, rather than reverting to the General Fund. In addition, Mabie said that while agencies are required by administrative rule and by herself (as the state’s single point of contact) to report the competitive grants they are awarded by entering them into the GEM$ database, she would like to see a codified requirement for such reporting. However, could her proposal be leading to a turf battle with the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board? ECDB Executive Director Charlie Smithson sent an e-mail to members of the committee after the meeting, stating that the Ethics Board has concerns about how the information on grants received is filed. Under current law (Code section 8.7), state agencies are required to file reports with the ECDB (and the Government Oversight Committee) disclosing any grants, gifts and bequests they receive. Smithson said the Ethics Board has agreed that a grant disclosed as part of the GEM$ system is “acceptable as a report filed with the Ethics Board” and is then posted on the board’s website. However, Smithson said the board has worked hard to educate various agencies about the reporting requirement, and noted that the GEM$ system is does not capture gifts, bequests and non-competitive grants received by state agencies.

(Contact: Bruce Brandt, 1-3440)

Human Resources

Government Gone Wild! Democrats Now Pushing Mandatory Child Care Registration

The House Human Resources Committee will likely be considering a bill next week that will force child care providers in the state to register with the Department of Human Services and open up their homes to state inspection. House File 416 would apply to virtually all child care providers; only relatives providing care would be exempt from the bill. While the proponents of this draconian approach to regulating child care view it as a step forward toward improved quality, they refuse to acknowledge that the change in policy could have a dramatic impact of the children and families served.

The bill’s sponsor – Rep. Mascher – said her intent is to have every child care provider registered and inspected on an annual basis. Currently, DHS conducts inspections for licensed child care facilities and registered child care home every five years.

How many providers would this affect? That number is unknown, since DHS only keeps track of the providers who receive state child care assistance payments. Of the nearly 14,000 providers receiving these payments, 7,000 are not registered. There is a larger number of providers who do not serve kids receiving state support.

By implementing mandatory registration, the cost of child care assistance will increase for the state. Since 1999, the state has not given unregistered providers a rate increase as an incentive to register. By mandating registration, reimbursement for these providers would have to catch up to the current level for registered homes, which is the 2004 rate survey. The initial cost estimate from DHS is $4.5 million.

DHS does not have any idea on how many staffers would have to be hired to conduct the annual inspections. They have said that the inspection takes about two hours. Since the department’s child care staff was slashed by former director Jessie Rasmussen, there are few available to conduct the current inspection regime.

Rep. Mascher kept emphasizing that the bill’s focus is improving quality for all. But what happens if a provider says they’d rather quit than let a state inspector in their home? For nearly a decade, the state has thrown out a number of incentives for providers to register and still thousands have chosen not to. What guarantee is there that these Iowans won’t just choose another profession? There is none, and Iowa families should be seriously concerned about keeping their child care because House File 416 provides no mechanism to help them.

(Contact: Brad Trow, 1-3471)

Judiciary

Judiciary Committee Action

The following bills were passed out of the Judiciary Committee this week:

HSB 76 – Business Corporations, filings with the Secretary of State, and shareholder voting

In 2003, the Iowa General Assembly adopted various amendments to the Iowa Business Corporation Act that allowed the Act to be up to date with the American Bar Association’s Model Business Corporation Act. This bill addresses the amendments to the Model Business Corporation Act that were finalized after the 2003 Iowa amendments.

HSB 140 – Revising the Uniform Commercial Code

This bill updates Article 7 of the Iowa Uniform Commercial Code (Code Chapter 554) governing warehouse receipts, bills of lading, and other documents’ titles.

HSB 117 – Judicial Branch practices and procedures

This bill allows the expansion of the definition of a seal, in which a visible electronic image upon an electronic document would be included. It eliminates the requirement that the clerk of the Supreme Court mail a copy of any ruling or opinion issued by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals to the attorneys arguing, so that the clerk may be allowed to use electronic methods to notify attorneys. It also allows a peace officer issuing a citation through a computerized device to electronically sign and date the citation or complaint.

The following bills were passed from the House to the Senate

HF 491 – Adding hallucinogenic substances to the list of Scheduled I controlled substances

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Labor

Two Workers’ Compensation Bills Clear Labor Committee on Party-Line Vote

On Tuesday, February 27, the House Labor Committee approved the first two measures to assault Iowa’s current workers’ compensation laws, House Study Bill 70 and House Study Bill 98.

House Study Bill 70 provides that a person who is hired by a temporary employment agency is not an employee or worker of the business where the person is assigned but is considered an employee of the temporary employment agency for purposes of Iowa's workers' compensation laws.

House Study Bill 70 was approved by the Labor Committee on a 10-6 party-line vote, and will be redrafted as a Labor Committee bill.

House Study Bill 98 allows for the reopening of a settled workers’ compensation award if a factor that could have been considered in assessing the extent of the reduction in the employee's earning capacity and that factor existed or was known about by the parties at the time of a prior award or agreement for settlement.

Furthermore, HSB 98 lists the factors as “included but not limited to a change in the claimant's underlying medical condition, cessation of accommodation by the claimant's employer, a change in economic factors, or a change in other factors considered in assessing the extent of the reduction in the employee's earning capacity”.

House Study Bill 98 was approved by the Labor Committee on a 9-6 party-line vote and is also being redrafted as a Labor Committee bill.

These workers’ compensation changes are minor in comparison to the three bills that are likely to come before the Labor Committee on Thursday, March 1.

The following three bills would overturn Iowa’s workers’ compensation laws:

▪ House Study Bill 99 – Repeals the current apportionment language on successive disabilities.

▪ House Study Bill 100 – Requires additional workers’ compensation payments for scheduled injuries that result in a reduction in the injured employee’s earning capacity.

▪ House Study Bill 192 – Eliminates employer-directed medical care.

(Contact: Mary Earnhardt, 1-3298)

Local Government

Local Government Bills on the Move

HF 52 - This bill requires township trustees to provide 48 hours notice prior to meeting. The meeting notice is posted on the building if such building is normally open to the public. The notice shall also be posted by the county auditor. The trustees are compensated only if the notice is appropriately posted.

HF 201 - This bill gives a municipality providing fire or EMS service to another municipality the full and final authority over a proposed budget. Current law allows an advisory board appointed by the municipality providing the service to submit the budget. This is interpreted as negating the municipality’s ability to amend or alter the advisory committee’s proposed budget.

HF 343 - Under current law, a township trustee must get at least 10 signatures on his/her nomination petition. This bill strikes the requirement of signatures in lieu of the trustee candidate simply filing an affidavit of candidacy with the county election commissioner.

HSB 209 - This bill codifies an October, 2006, Iowa Supreme Court decision which said that a county has immunity from the statute of limitations when collecting delinquent taxes. The bill involves a Scott County collection of delinquent taxes.

HF 380 - This bill targets the city of Clinton, which does not have a local building code. The bills says that if a city with more than 15,000 people does NOT have a locally adopted building code, that city is required to apply and enforce the state building code. The bill takes effect on July 1, 2008. The bill contains state mandate language requiring the city to absorb the costs of implementing HF 380.

HF 417 - Current Iowa law allows a city with a mayor/council form of government and fewer than 500 people to go from five to three city council members. Iowa law does NOT, however, allow that city to reverse itself and go from three back to five city council members. This bill allows the city to move back to five city council members.

(Contact: Ann McCarthy, 1-3015)

Natural Resources

Natural Resources Committee Action

The following bills passed out of the Natural Resources Committee this week:

HSB 45 – Civil damages payable for unlawful taking of fish

This bill increases fines for the illegal taking of furbearing animals and fish. It adds bobcats to the category in which the damages for taking an animal is $200. It also raises the damages for taking a fish with an established daily limit of 25 or less to $50 with these exceptions: paddlefish, set at $500; and muskellunge, $500 for 50” or less, plus $100 for each inch over 50”. The bill establishes damages of $50 for illegally taking largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike, channel and flathead catfish, rainbow, brown and brook trout, plus $50 for each inch over designated size.

The current value assessed for illegally taking fish is not representative of the value Iowa anglers place upon fish species.

HF 152 – Providing for A Low Head Dam Public Hazard program and making an appropriation

Establishes a Low Head Dam Public Hazard program to reduce the incidents of drowning due to dangers associated with coming within the proximity of a traditionally designed low head dam. The program will be administered by the Department of Natural Resources. The money will be appropriated to support grants to local communities on a matching basis and is to be used for placing notices near low head dams and other preventative measure. The bill will go to the Appropriations Committee.

Memorial Day Weekend Campsites Filling Quickly

Don't let that 10 inches of new snow and below freezing temperatures fool you - camping season is here. The Memorial Day weekend is less than three months away and campers are snapping up state park campsites through the Iowa Department of Natural Resources campsite reservation system.

Each state park with a campground has equal numbers of electric and non-electric campsites available through the reservation system, which are available on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors to can search the state based on the campground criteria they select. Each site has a description, a photo and indicates whether a site can be reserved or not.

Source:

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Public Safety

House Nears Debate on HF 365, Reserve Peace Officer Training

The House will soon debate House File 365, which changes the training and instruction requirements for reserve peace officers.

The bill itself is not controversial. The first section changes the definition of “minimum training course” to mean a curriculum of basic training requirements developed by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), not including weapons training. Currently, in the Iowa Code, “minimum training course” is defined as “a curriculum of 150 hours of training and instruction, including weapons training”.

The second section strikes the training standards listed in the Code and replaces them with yet-to-be-decided rules to be promulgated by the ILEA. The third section clarifies that the ILEA can provide instruction to reserve peace officers. It does not change the Code in regard to the training and instruction being provided by the community colleges and other entities.

The final section of the bill gives the director of the ILEA the ability to promulgate the rules for this chapter of the Code. The first draft of the rules by ILEA is what made this bill controversial. It was originally thought the rules would not be controversial. Hopefully the debate on the bill will cause the ILEA to revisit the rules before they submit them to the Administrative Rules Review Committee.

(Contact: Lon Anderson, 1-5184)

State Government

The Way Elections Are Conducted Changes

Recently, the State Government Committee (or its subcommittee) considered legislation that changed the way elections are conducted.

The bills that are expected to move forward include:

HF 155 – This bill was recommended by the County Auditors. It has been one of their long time priorities; however House Republicans chose not to move this bill forward. It allows members not affiliated with a political party to serve on election boards. After amendments were made to the bill and conversation occurred regarding the current situation, this bill moved through committee smoothly. The State Government Committee HF 155 by a vote of 20-0.

HF 350 – This bill was recommended by the county auditors. It includes language that was approved by House Republicans in previous years. This bill is now considered non-controversial and should move the process smoothly. It is expected to be considered by the full committee next week.

HSB 34 – This bill allows elections to take place by mail in certain situations. There has been a subcommittee meeting on the bill where some concerns were raised. However, House Democrats have brought this bill forward in the past.

HSB 152 – This bill allows high school students to serve on election boards. Democrats have brought this bill forward for a number of years. This bill did pass the State Government Committee on a party line vote; however, Rep. Todd Taylor indicated he would be willing to amend the bill on the floor to improve it and address the concerns House Republicans brought up.

HSB 153 – The Secretary of State recommended this bill. Most of the language is clean-up to meet the requirements of HAVA and should be considered technical and non-controversial. The State Government Committee passed this bill 20-0.

HSB 178 – This bill amends current code relating to DRE voting machines by requiring them to be equipped with a VVPAT (voter verified paper audit trail) option. There have been a couple of subcommittee meetings on this bill. During the meetings, election officials described the equipment as difficult to manage and said it caused not only an initial increase in costs, but also raised ongoing costs. Even though the issue regarding who is going to pay for the new equipment needed - estimated to cost between $1.5 million and $8.0 million - has not been addressed, the bill is likely to move forward. HF 71, a similar bill, will not move forward.

HSB 204 – This bill allows for same day voter registration. However, if a person registers nine or less days prior to a general election and ten or less days prior to all other elections, the individual is required to show a photo ID and proof of residency or have a registered voter attest to an individual’s identity and residence. This bill is controversial and deserves a good deal of study prior to floor debate. HF 339, a similar bill, will not move forward.

Bills that don’t appear to be moving forward include:

HF 248 – This bill changes the registration deadline for primary elections. This bill is not likely to see further action due to the same day voter registration bill moving forward.

HF 279 – A bill filed by Rep. Gipp that would allow voters to vote for the option of “none of the above” rather than a candidate does not appear to be moving forward.

HSB 147 – This bill would require Iowa to enter into a compact that would effectively elect the president by popular vote.

Bill Action

The committee took action on seven bills this week.

HF 155 allows individuals not affiliated with a party to serve on the election board in certain elections. It passed 20-0.

HSB 154 requires the disclosure of certain electioneering communication and provides for penalties. It passed 20-0.

HSB 204 allows for same day voter registration. It passed 12-8.

HF 56 requires ID tags be placed on all kegs sold throughout the state. It passed 20-0.

HSB 152 allows high school students to serve on election boards. It passed 12-8.

HSB 153, recommended by the Secretary of State’s office, makes technical updates. It passed 19-0.

SF 41 provides for a definition of unclaimed property concerning minerals. It passed 19-0.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Transportation

How Will the Money Be Spent?

Earlier this session, there was a lot of talk of the RUTF report and the Time-21 fund. At this time, no one in either chamber has offered a bill but there is still time left due to the fact the bill will likely have to go through the Ways and Means Committee. There have been a lot of conversations about how to generate the revenue. Some of the suggestions include a gas tax increase, pick-up registration fee increase, or an increase in driver’s license fees. In contrast, there has not been a lot of talk about how to spend the money.

The RUTF report recommends the Time-21 Fund be divided between the state, counties, and cities on a 60%-40%-40% split. Below is a more complete explanation:

State Money – The report recommends the state money, an estimated $120 million per year, be spent on the state interstate system or on the Commercial and Industrial Network (CIN).

The CIN network was established by Code (section 313.2A). However, the roads in the CIN network were determined by the Transportation Commission. Some of the roads in the CIN include U.S. 20, U.S. 30, U.S. 61, and U.S. 169.

The state money that would go to interstate projects would be spent on maintaining the current system and speeding up major interstate projects currently in the system, like those in Council Bluffs and in Sioux City.

The interstate and CIN roads are highlighted below.

[pic]

County Money – The report recommends the Legislature direct the county money, an estimated $80 million per year, to the county Secondary Road Fund for maintenance and construction on the farm-to-market road system or any bridge under the county’s jurisdiction. The reason the report recommended dedicating the money to all bridges is because there are a significant number of issues with county bridges around the state that need improvements or replacement. The farm-to-market roads do not include gravel roads. The report recommends the money be distributed through the Secondary Road Fund formula.

City Money – The report is the least restrictive with city money. It recommends the city money, an estimated $80 million per year, be divided between the cities on a per capita basis, via the Street Construction Fund. The cities will then be expected to sustain and improve their road system. The reason the cities have been provided this broad flexibility is because there are wide-ranging needs in the state, ranging from the needs of large cities like Des Moines or Davenport to smaller towns like Delaware or Kingsley.

Bill Action

The committee took action on four bills this week.

HSB 155 requires used car dealers to go through training. It passed 20-1.

HF 81 weakens the penalties on individuals convicted of an OWI. It passed 12-9.

HF 222 directs the additional fees paid for veterans’ license plates to go to a special fund under the control of the Veterans Commission and makes other changes to veterans’ license plates. It directs the additional fees paid for the EMS license plates to an EMS fund within the Department of Public Health. It passed 22-0

HF 278 provides for the Midwest Passenger Rail Compact. It passed 19-2.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Veterans Affairs

Rules Committee to Consider Rules for Programs Approved Last Year

After much anticipation, the rules for the county grant program for veterans and the Grant Program for the Children of Veterans that Passed On in the Line of Duty were filed emergency and became effective January 29, 2007. This means counties and children of deceased veterans can apply for the grant dollars at any time. The rules appear to follow the intent of the legislation. A summary of these rules are below:

County Grant Program for Veterans

Purpose – The legislature appropriated $1.0 million to improve the delivery of services by the various county commissions of veterans affairs to veterans in their respective counties.

Grant Amounts – The Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) shall award grants in amounts up to $10,00 per county. In order to qualify for a grant, the county must agree to expend an equal amount.

Application Procedure – Counties that want a grant are required to submit an application to DVA. The application shall include a summary of who the money will be spent on. The description must address the assessment factors. Any factors that are not addressed in the application may result in a reduced opportunity for funding the project. The application shall also include a budget and the letters of intent on how to fund the project.

Assessment of Application – When the DVA makes decisions to assess the applications, they shall consider: needs, goals, results, innovation, and accountability and project monitoring.

Application Decisions – The director of the DVA shall notify the each county that submits an application of the decision. If the application is denied, the DVA response shall also include an explanation of the reasons for rejection and suggestions for improvements.

Grant Agreement – Each county that is awarded a grant shall be required to enter into agreements with the DVA and provide a written report to the DVA by August 15, 2007.

Appeals – This rules also provide for an option to appeal the results of the grant program. A written appeal may be filed with the department The Iowa Commission of Veterans Affairs shall review the appeal at its next regularly scheduled meeting and shall issue a final decision.

War Orphans Education Assistance Program

War Orphans Educational Assistance Fund – The amount of the educational assistance allowed for eligible war orphans is based upon an appropriation made by the Legislature.

Programs for those Children of Veterans Who Died Before September 11, 2001 – This section rewrites current rules.

Program for Children of Veterans Who Died On or After September 11, 2001 – This new section provides criteria for those who are eligible for the program, including residency requirements. It also states the grants may only issued to Iowa community colleges or Regents’ universities. The amount of payment shall not exceed $5,500 per year or $27,500 in a lifetime.

General Requirements – These general requirements are the same, whether the veteran died prior to or after September 11, 2001. It also assess the method of payment, how the assistance may be used, scholastic and financial standing, and unrestricted factors.

Application Process – Finally, the rules provide for an application process and verification.

Bill Action

The committee took action on one bill this week.

HF 300, as amended, allows certain veterans groups to hold weekly card game tournaments where cash prizes are awarded. It passed 13-0.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Ways and Means

Internal Revenue Code Update Bill Approved by House

Iowa income tax provisions are rooted in federal tax law.  When determining Iowa taxable income under the individual income tax, the starting point is federal adjusted gross income.  Any change to federal tax law therefore has the potential to impact Iowa law. 

In general, the Iowa Legislature will adopt changes made at the federal level, i.e., it “couples” with the federal law.  On occasion, the Legislature has chosen to “uncouple” from federal law, and go our own direction.     

Annually, the Iowa Department of Revenue introduces the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Update, which includes in Iowa income tax law the federal income tax changes enacted by Congress since the previous session.  House File 319 is the 2007 IRC Update.

House File 319 was approved by the House on February 28 by a 97-0 vote. Some of the provisions that will affect Iowa taxpayers are a result of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-280) that was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bush in December, 2006.

P.L. 109-280 retroactively restores some popular expired tax cuts to the beginning of 2006, as well as enhancing some important tax incentives, bolsters health savings accounts, revises deadlines for certain excise taxes, extends some expiring energy credits, makes critical “technical corrections” to existing tax laws, and includes an impressive list of “miscellaneous” tax relief.

▪ Sales Tax Deduction

In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act allowed taxpayers to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local general sales taxes as an itemized deduction.  This deduction expired on December 31, 2005.  However, because of the popularity of the deduction, the new law extends it through 2007.

▪ Higher Education Tuition Deduction

P.L. 109-280 also extends the popular above-the-line higher education tuition deduction through 2007. 

▪ Teacher’s Classroom Expense Deduction

Teachers and other education workers can deduct, above the line, up to $250 of certain out-of-pocket classroom expenses.  This deduction recognizes that many education professionals purchase classroom supplies with their own money.  This popular deduction, which in 2005 was claimed by more than 3,000,000 taxpayers, expired at the end of 2005.  The new law extends it through 2007.

▪ Research Tax Credit

The new law extends the research tax credit to amounts paid or incurred in 2006 and 2007.  For 2007, the new law also makes two enhancements that could make the credit more valuable for many businesses.

▪ Health Savings Account Enhancements

The new federal law enhances the use of health savings accounts (HSAs). Unlike the extenders, the HSA enhancements are permanent and most take effect for tax years beginning after 2006.

▪ FSA Rollovers

Employees with a health flexible spending account (FSA) or a health reimbursement account (HRA) will be allowed to make a one-time transfer of the balance in their FSA or HRA to an HSA. The maximum transfer amount is the lesser of the balance as of the date of transfer or on September 21, 2006. The transfer must be made before January 1, 2012.

▪ Energy Extenders

The new law renews several temporary energy incentives. These were enacted as part of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 (2005 Energy Act).

▪ Deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings

Qualifying taxpayers may deduct costs associated with energy-efficient commercial building property. The property had to be placed in service after December 31, 2005, and before January 1, 2008. The new law extends this deduction through 2008.

▪ Business credit for energy efficient new homes

Eligible contractors may claim a tax credit for qualified new energy-efficient homes that they construct and that an individual acquires from the contractor in 2006 and 2007. The credit is generally $2,000 for a new energy-efficient home and $1,000 for a new energy-efficient manufactured home. The new law extends the credit through 2008.

(Contact: Mary Earnhardt, 1-3298)

House Republican Talking Points

Democrat’s Agenda So Far

Raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour by 1-1-08. During the fall elections, House Democrats promised to raise the minimum wage in Iowa from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour by 2009. While that’s good for low wage earners, it is bad for small employers.

Rejected Health Insurance Pooling by voting against amendment H-1002 on 1-23-07 by a virtually party line vote of 54-44.

Stagnation on commercial property tax relief after promising Iowa’s business communities they’d see action on property tax relief, the Democrats have fumbled along for two months without any progress.

Approved a symbolic bullying bill by requiring all school district to have bullying policy in place by September 1. The Democrats conveniently ignored the fact that all public and non-public schools are already required to have a student discipline policy in place addressing harassment in order to be accredited. In their rush to pass a bill they forgot to include cyber-bullying on their list. Thanks to Republicans it is now included. Below is the list of student traits or characteristics that the Democrats included on their “list”.

• Age

• Color

• Creed

• National origin

• Race

• Religion

• Marital status

• Sex

• Sexual orientation

• Gender identity

• Physical attributes

• Physical or mental ability or disability

• Ancestry

• Political party preference

• Political belief

• Socioeconomic status

• Familial status.

Republican amendments to include a parent involvement policy and nonpublic school language clarifying that the bullying policy should not inhibit teachings or consideration of doctrinal matters were eliminated from the final version of the bill.

Allowable growth funding levels that are suspiciously similar to the levels adopted by Republicans. Democrats adopted a 4% allowable growth rate and rejected an opportunity to approve 6% allowable growth. They also rejected a plan to have the state take the burden off local property taxpayers. Despite the opportunity to approve additional education dollars AND provide some property tax relief LIKE THEY PROMISED THE VOTERS LAST FALL, Democrats rejected the ideas.

Repealing Iowa’s ban on human cloning…

Essentially the Democrats repealed the code section which bans human cloning and are replacing it with a new “ban” which isn’t a ban.

Chapter 707B prohibits human cloning for any purpose, whether it be for Reproductive or therapeutic cloning. A person performing or participating in cloning would be guilty of a class C felony, while transporting cloned embryos is a aggravated misdemeanor. The prohibition does not impact in vitro fertilization.

HF 287, the Democrat’s cloning bill, repeals Iowa Code Chapter 707B. It says so right on page 2, line 19 – “Chapter 707B, Code 2007, is repealed.”

What is the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning?

Reproductive cloning, sometimes called human cloning, is done utilizing a process called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” (SNT). SNT involves the removal of the nucleus of an adult somatic cell (any cell other than a sperm or egg). The nucleus from the cell is then transferred to an egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed. Through proper stimulation, the cell develops into an embryo that can then be implanted into the uterus. A real life example of this is Dolly the sheep.

Therapeutic cloning or nuclear transplantation utilizes similar procedures to reproductive cloning, with the difference being the end result. The embryo created for therapeutic cloning has the stem cells extracted from it. This is embryonic stem cell research.

Just over the horizon…

An early childhood bill that has nothing to do with children but everything to do with ISEA recruiting. The Democrats have managed to construct a bill that:

• does nothing to help the most at risk children receive quality pre-K instruction

• raises costs to parents of preschool children

• increases the red tape and regulations for private preschools

• specifically excludes private preschools from employing any of the teachers hired under the bill

The payoff for children and their parents? A public school teacher visiting every preschool for 10 hours a week. If one were cynical, one could argue quite convincingly that ISEA is in favor of this bill because the most tangible result is more union members for ISEA.

Raising the tobacco tax…

Speaker Murphy on the tobacco tax:

“Last week House Minority Leader Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said a cigarette tax hike isn’t needed because they state now has a budget surplus fueled by healthy tax revenues. That sounded a lot like the argument made last spring by GOP House Speaker Christopher Rants, who was criticized by Murphy for refusing to allow a vote on raising the tax.” (Sioux City Journal, 10-12-06)

“The Iowa House is unlikely to go along with incoming Gov. Chet Culver’s proposal for a dollar increase in the cigarette tax, incoming House Speaker Pat Murphy said Friday. “I don’t think we’ll go that high,” said Murphy…Instead, he looks for a tax increase in the range of 40 cents to 60 cents a pack.” (Des Moines Register, 1-6-07)

"’Governor Culver has given some compelling arguments to go to a dollar," Murphy said during a taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program, which will air this weekend.” (Associated Press, 2-10-07)

The House Democrats claim that all of the new money generated by the cigarette tax hike will be spent on health care. However, when the joint budget targets are released, it will become evident that the bulk of the increase goes to fund increases for other areas of the budget including the Regents, teacher salaries and state employee salaries.

You may have also heard about what the Governor is calling the "smoking gap":

Governor Culver has been talking about the dramatic $187 million Medicaid gap between what the current tobacco tax brings in and what is paid out for smoking-related illnesses. Today, Iowa has the 9th lowest tobacco tax in the nation and currently brings in $90.5 million per year in revenue. Meanwhile, the annual Medicaid expenses for smoking-related illnesses amounts to $277 million per year. This leaves a $187 million gap funded mostly by non-smoking Iowans.

What he doesn't want you to know is that for every $1 the state spends on Medicaid, the federal government spends $2. Therefore, if the $90.5 million is spent on Medicaid, it will be matched with $181 million from the federal government, almost completely eliminating this so-called gap.

Local smoking bans…

HSB 89 lets your city, county or local board of health enforce a smoking ordinance or rule more stringent than current Iowa law. The ordinance or rule could include, but is not limited to, any of the following:

1. Eliminating or limiting smoking in factories, warehouses and similar places of work not usually frequented by the general public, and rooms or halls used for social function.

2. Prohibiting the designation of a smoking area.

3. Eliminating or limiting smoking in a “public place consisting of a single room or a bar”

This seems to fit restaurants as well as bars.

Repeal of English law…

Democrats in the House State Government Committee have filed a bill, House Study Bill 108, that repeals Iowa’s English law. Like the so-called “fair share” bill, Democrats DID NOT campaign on repealing English not did they include it in the campaign plan.

Weaken Penalties on Drug Dealers…

HF 244 repeals mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses.

The bill repeals Code section 124.401A, which provides for an additional sentence of five years if a person is convicted of a drug-related offense within 1,000 feet of a school, public park, public swimming pool, public recreation center, or marked school bus.

Secondly, the bill also repeals Code section 124.401C, which provides for an additional sentence of five years if a person manufactures methamphetamines in the presence of a minor.

Next, the bill repeals Code section 124.413, requiring a person convicted of a controlled substance-related offense under section 124.401, subsection 1, to serve a minimum sentence equal to one-third of the maximum sentence.

Fourth, the bill repeals Code section 902.8A, requiring a person convicted of an amphetamine or methamphetamine-related offense under section 124.401D, to serve a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Fair Share…

HF 324 forces non-union public employees - like teachers- to pay union dues. It also states that “as a condition of continued employment” private sector non-union employees who work in union shops will either have to join the union, pay union dues or be fired.

The effect of HF 324 is the same as a direct repeal of the Right to Work law.

Groups opposed to Right to Work Repeal/Fair Share bill HF 324:

o Iowa Association of Business and Industry

o National Federation of Independent Businesses – Iowa

o Associated Builders and Contractors of Iowa

o Professional Educators of Iowa

o Iowa Association of School Boards

o Iowa Bankers Association

o Iowa Hospital Association

o Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives

o Professional Developers of Iowa

o Home Builders Association of Iowa

o Iowa Motor Truck Association

o Iowans for Right to Work

o Iowa Independent Bankers Association

o Iowa Chamber Alliance

o Siouxland Chamber of Commerce

o Cedar Rapids Chamber of Commerce

o Dubuque Chamber of Commerce

o Iowa Propane Gas Association

o Iowa Lumber Association

o Iowa Wholesale Distributors Association

o Iowa Retail Assocation

On Sunday Feb. 4 the Sioux City Journal nailed what the Democrat’s plan is about: “Although the legislation technically would not repeal Iowa’s Right to Work law, its essential effect would be the same – forced unionism of workers.”

On Tuesday Jan. 30 the Wall Street Journal called the Democrat’s effort to gut Right to Work the “Iowa Emigration Act”.

The Journal stated “If the Iowa Legislature wanted to chase jobs and employers out of the state, they couldn’t come up with a better plan than undermining right to work.”

Also according to the Journal:

“Right to work laws are strongly correlated with faster growth in jobs and personal income.”

“A recent survey by the National Right to Work Institute found that, between 1986 and 2006, 11 right-to-work states have added 104,000 auto manufacturing jobs, a 63% increase. The non right-to-work states lost 130,000 auto jobs, or 15% over the same period.”

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register noted in his column on Jan. 30 that,:

“…lawyers and others trying to craft the legislation to enact it are discovering that they can't do it without gutting part of the right-to-work law. (That law also says it's illegal to collect "dues, charges, fees, contributions, fines or assessments to any labor union, labor association or labor organization" as a condition of employment.)

Labor is saying, "You promised fair share." Democratic legislators are saying, "You didn't tell us we'd have to gut the right-to-work law to do it." Labor replies: "So what's wrong with that?"

On February 13th the Clinton Herald wrote: “Perhaps the words Fair Share don’t scare you yet – but they should.”

On February 13th, the Cedar Rapids Gazette wrote: “The “fair” aspect of the legislation seems to be more about “fare,” inasmuch as the measure has the potential to dump millions of dollars into unions, which have seen their ranks decline in recent years.”

The Gazette summarized it’s position: “As much as proponents would like to position the debate about winning one for the little guy, it is not. This issue is more fundamental than a classic labor-business clash. It is about the importance of individuals to make choices about where they work, and whether they want to be represented by a union. Being forced to do so is an infringement on the basic rights Iowans cherish.”

On February 10th the Mason City Globe-Gazette wrote: “To some it looks like a classic quid pro quo. Unions have been the most fervent backs of the Democratic Party and are licking their chops thinking now the Democrats control both house of the Legislature and the governor’s office in Iowa, it’s time for some payback that would boost union membership rates, which have been declining.”

The Globe-Gazette went on to write: “We’d like to see the issue go away. Fair share could be a real detriment to the state’s ability to attract new businesses. Various reports show some businesses won’t even consider locating in non-right to work states. But beyond that, fair share simply isn’t fair.”

On Febuary 13 the Burlington Hawkeye wrote: “In addition to bargaining contracts, unions are very politically and socially active. It’s simply wrong for them to compel someone to financially support an organization in which they have philosophical differences.

Unions sruggling to retain and grow membership should look inside themselves and create a marketing strategy to swell their ranks. They have something to sell to a new employee, and should put their expertise at that endeavor.”

On February 18th, the Des Moines Register wrote, “It is not exactly a repeal of Iowa’s right to work law, but it would have the same effect on businesses looking at Iowa.

The so-called “Fair Share” legislation is not fair. It is forced unionism.

There is nothing fair about forcing individuals to pay dues to a union or an organization they do not choose to belong.

The Evolution of Speaker Murphy and the Cigarette Tax

2003

Yepsen: “Your predecessor, Richard Myers of Iowa City, once suggested an idea that I wonder if it isn’t on the table: raise the cigarette tax and take the revenues from that and use it for the Medicaid program. Do Democrats want to raise taxes in the coming session of the legislature, specifically the cigarette tax?”

Murphy: “Well, I wouldn’t -- I can’t speak for our whole caucus at this point. . . . Under the circumstances, especially making sure that we make our obligations to the Medicaid budget and guaranteeing services to seniors and to poor people, I would support a form of a cigarette tax.” (Iowa Public TV, Transcript, Iowa Press, September 26, 2003)

2005

GOP leaders expressed frustration that the governor’s 42-minute speech was filled with lofty goals but sketchy on details. . . .Vilsack said that higher cigarette taxes were justified, but that he wasn’t ready to propose a specific increase. . . . “I am not sure what he means with his cigarette tax increase,” said Rants, the House speaker. “To me, it sounds like it could be $3 a pack. I can’t believe that’s the case, but it’s an awful long list of things to do”. . . . [Murphy] scoffed at Rants’ comment. “I don’t know how they run the numbers, but they must have been students who only had two years of math in school,” he said. . . . [Murphy] credited the governor with outlining “an aggressive and progressive agenda that can only be completed if the Legislature puts egos and partisanship aside and works together.” (Des Moines Register, January 12, 2005)

[Murphy] pushed Gov. Vilsack’s proposed $4.97 billion budget, with its controversial cigarette tax. The proposed 80-cent increase, to $1.16 per pack, would generate an estimated $129 million annually. Murphy and others see the tax as a way to rescue the state’s Medicaid program. . . . Murphy charges that failing to act would put funding for several social programs at risk. (Telegraph-Herald, February 6, 2005)

[Murphy] said his party is unhappy with what he argues is GOP indifference to calls for large, new investments in early childhood and K-12 education programs. Democrats also want a cigarette tax hike to help pay for health care programs. “That’s got to be resolved before we’d have members of our caucus support (a speed limit bill),” Murphy said. “I wish I knew the end of the soap opera.” (Sioux City Journal, March 31, 2005)

Key leaders say Democrats will not agree to raise speeding fines unless Republicans agree to raise the cigarette tax. The hike in speeding fines is included in a bill that raises the speed limit, as well as some court fines. . . . Murphy says Democrats shouldn’t give Republicans a “get out of jail free” card on finding a way to finance the court system when in other areas of the budget Republicans are proposing less spending than Democrats want. Murphy says Democrats just want to see the big picture before they’ll commit. (Radio Iowa, March 28, 2005)

[Murphy] in his own weekly opinion piece, said raising the cigarette tax would bring in $69 million in additional revenue. He hoped the bill would move quickly. “Reaching that elusive agreement can take weeks if either side locks into a nonnegotiable position,” he wrote. “Here’s hoping for a responsible and timely conclusion.” (AP, April 15, 2005)

The Senate spending plan would double the state’s 36 cents-per-pack cigarette tax, and Rants, under pressure from both the Senate and health advocates, said Republicans in the House won’t accept a tax increase. . . . [Murphy] said he surveyed Democrats and issued an endorsement for the spending plan developed in the Senate. “It’s taken four months of work to get to this point and now it’s time fro the 2005 session to end,” said Murphy. “If they can’t agree to this compromise, House Republicans risk creating gridlock that could mire this Legislature for weeks.” (AP, May 4, 2005)

2006

Murphy: “I would agree that it [cigarette tax hike] probably is [dead], although House Democrats have had a position for the last three years that if they want to bring it up, we’ll help them—we’ll work to help get it passed.” (Iowa Public Television, Iowa Press, March 30, 2006)

[L]eaders from both parties said Friday that a proposal to raise the cigarette tax is probably dead. . . . [Lamberti] said Republicans are sticking to their long-standing argument that there is enough money to meet the state’s priorities without raising taxes. . . . [Murphy] said opposition from Republicans has virtually snuffed out the possibility of raising the cigarette tax. “I would agree that it probably is” dead, he said. (Quad City Times, April 1, 2006)

Late 2006 Switcheroo

Murphy said House Democrats would not pursue a cigarette tax hike next year because the state’s budget surplus of $330 million would mean additional revenue is available for their priorities. (Quad City Times, October 5, 2006)

[Murphy] said last week that he does not believe an increase in the cigarette tax is necessary to fund Democratic objectives. At the same time, Democratic senators are floating plans to spend a $1-per-pack cigarette tax hike on education and health-care initiatives. . . . Murphy said he believes he can hold his members together. (Quad City Times, October 16, 2006)

Last week House Minority Leader Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said a cigarette tax hike isn’t needed because the state now has a budget surplus fueled by healthy tax revenues. That sounded a lot like the argument made last spring by GOP House Speaker Christopher Rants, who was criticized by Murphy for refusing to allow a vote on raising the smoke tax. (Sioux City Journal, October 12, 2006)

[Murphy] also said that House Democrats did not campaign to raise the state’s cigarette tax, but if the issue is included in Culver’s budget proposal, then it likely will be discussed. However, he said there is bipartisan support on both sides of that issue, so “it’s a question of whether or not there’s enough votes to pass it.” (Cedar Rapids Gazette, November 17, 2006)

Early 2007 Switchback

The Iowa House is unlikely to go along with incoming Gov. Chet Culver’s proposal for a dollar increase in the cigarette tax, incoming House Speaker Pat Murphy said Friday. “I don’t think we’ll go that high,” said Murphy. . . . Instead, he looks for a tax increase in the range of 40 cents to 60 cents a pack. . . . Murphy said a cigarette tax increase doesn’t need to be as large as Culver has proposed to have the desired effect on young people. He said he is also concerned about the competitiveness of businesses in border communities if Iowa’s cigarette tax gets out of line with the tobacco taxes of neighboring states. (Des Moines Register, January 6, 2007)

"’Governor Culver has given some compelling arguments to go to a dollar," Murphy said during a taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program, which will air this weekend.” (Associated Press, 2-10-07)

-----------------------

Inside This Issue:

Big Spending Plans from Dems 1

IDALS & DNR Budget 2

Energy Bill Means Higher Rates 3

Economic Growth Update 4

Bullying Bill Recap 5

ICN and GEM$ Update 7

Mandatory Childcare Registration 8

Judiciary Update 9

Anti-Business Bills on the Move 10

Local Government Update 10 Natural Resources Update 11

Reserve Peace Officer Training Bill 12

Election Law Changes 12

RUTF Changes 14

IRC Update Includes Tax Benefits 17

House Republican Talking Points 18

The Evolution of Speaker Murphy 20

on the Cigarette Tax Hike

House Republican Talking Points 21

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download