Status of the Major Appropriations Bills

As the last week scheduled week of session closes, here is thestatus of the major Appropriations bills, as of April 24:

Administration and Regulation – HF 874 - appropriates $94.3 million from the General Fund, or $8.3 million more than FY 07. Status: Passed House on March 28, passed Senate on April 16 with amendment, House concurred with the Senate amendment on April 19 (McCarthy put a motion to reconsider on the bill to hold onto it)

Agriculture and Natural Resources – SF 551 – appropriates $41.3 million from the General Fund, which is an increase of $1.7 million over FY 07. Also appropriates $40 million from the Environment First Fund, which is an increase of $5 million over FY 07. Status: Passed the Senate on April 9, passed the House with amendment on April 23

Economic Development – SF 562 – appropriates $40.1 million from the General Fund, or $3.2 million over FY 07. (Note: this does not include $25 million for the Power Fund or $4 million for targeted small business.) Status: Passed the Senate on April 5, passed the House without amendment on April 17

House Republican NewsletterApril 25, 2007

Appropriations

Inside This Issue:

Appropriations Bills Status 1Feral and Game Swine Measure 2Small Business Health Care 3Power Fund Moves On 4Student Loan Investigations 5Oversight Bills Emerge 7HAWK-I in Jeopardy 8Downward Trend in Litigation 8Prevailing Wage 10 Sunshine on 28E Agreements 11Free Camping Weekend 12Sex Offender Safe Zones Bill 12RIIF Bill Recap 13Time-21 Bill Released 14Vets Omnibus Bill Moves 16Property Tax Lite Approved by W&M 17House Republican Talking Points 18

Education – SF 588 – appropriates $961.6 million from the General Fund, or $69 million more than FY 07. (This does not include the $70 million increase for teacher compensation.) Status: Passed by the Senate on April 18. scheduled for debate on House floor on April 25

Health and Human Services – HF 909 – appropriates $1.144 billion from the General Fund, or $109 million more than FY 07. Status: Passed the House on April 20, passed Senate Appropriations Committee on April 24

Healthy Iowans Tobacco Trust (HITT) – HF 907 – appropriates $70 million from the HITT for substance abuse, Medicaid and drug courts. (This is the same level as FY 07.) Status: Passed the House on April 20, passed the Senate without amendments on April 24

Judicial Branch – SF 563 – appropriates $127.4 million from the General Fund, or $2.1 million more than FY 07. Status: Passed the Senate on March 26, passed the House with amendment on April 12, Senate concurred with the House amendment on April 17

Justice System – SF 575 – appropriates $499 million from the General Fund for corrections and public safety, an increase of $37 million over FY 07. Status: Passed the Senate on April 17, passed the House with amendment on April 23, Senate concurred with the House amendment on April 24

Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF) --- HF 911 – appropriates a total of $149.4 million for FY 08 from the RIIF and other funds for vertical infrastructure projects. Contains $30 million for the new Cloning Center at the University of Iowa and numerous pork barrel projects. Status: Passed by the House on April 23, currently in Senate Appropriations Committee Supplemental Part II (Power Fund) – HF 927 - contains the funding for the Power Fund ($25 million) as a supplemental appropriation for FY 07. (The policy for the Power Fund was in a separate bill.) Status : Passed the House on April 24, currently in Senate Appropriations Committee

Standings/Salary Bill – SF 601 -- contains funding for the property tax credits ($157.9 million from the ending balance, $2 million from the General Fund), $108.6 million for state employee salaries and numerous policy changes including bills that did not make the funnel deadline. Status: Passed the Senate on April 23, passed the House Appropriations Committee on April 24

Transportation – HF 752 – appropriates $316 million from the Road Use Tax Fund and Primary Road Fund for road construction. Status: Passed House on March 20, passed the Senate with amendment on April 16, House concurred with the Senate amendment on April 18

(Contact: Lon Anderson, 1-5184)

House Revenue Panel Okays Feral and Game Swine Regulatory Measure

On Friday, April 20, the House Ways and Means Committee passed House Study Bill 307, which became House File 929. It provides for the regulation of estray or game swine by a 23-0 vote. The bill amends existing Code Chapter 163, which deals with infectious and contagious animal diseases, to add three new definitions. These are “custody or control”; “estray”, which means an animal not in control of a person; and “game swine”, which is defined by reference to a new Code section (171.1) created later in the bill and which states that such swine are classified as part of the species sus scofa Linnaeus, commonly known as Russian boar or European boar of either sex.

Agriculture

2

The measure originally proposed to restrict the killing of estray swine to a person employed by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), or the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), or a person explicitly approved to do so by either department. However this provision was amended in committee to remove this restriction on killing estray hogs. HF 929 as passed by the committee retained the provision which prohibits the importation into Iowa of estray swine captured in another state. A person who moves estray swine into Iowa who is not authorized to do so is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor, punishable by confinement of no more than two years, and is subject to a fine of $625 to $6,250.

HF 929 creates new Code Chapter 171, which will provide for the regulation of swine classified as game swine. The measure provides that game swine must be identified within ten days of being born with either a metal ear tag or an electronic identification device inserted into the hide of the animal. A person must register each game swine with IDALS and remit a registration fee of no more than $5 per head (the committee adopted an amendment that increased the registration fee from $1 to $5) to the department to help pay the cost of the registration incurred by IDALS. The department is to regulate the movement of game swine in the same manner as it does domestic swine, including game swine that are part of a hunting preserve otherwise regulated by DNR. A person who violates swine movement regulations is subject to a civil penalty not more than $100 and a person who violates hunting preserve regulations is guilty of a simple misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days confinement, or subject to a fine of at least $65, but less than $625.

The bill was instigated because of rising reports of feral swine sightings across Iowa, and in response to a case in southeast Iowa where a person unfortunately contracted swine brucellosis from handling his domestic swine, which appear to have been infected by a feral swine boar that likely transmitted the disease to the farmer’s swine. That disease in humans can cause severe and life-long consequences and infected persons will never be completely healthy for the rest of their lives. Not only can feral swine carry swine brucellosis disease, but they can also carry other swine diseases that the state has spent millions of dollars in eradicating over the last 40 to 60 years, most recently Pseudorabies, which the state finally eradicated from its commercial herd just three years ago after a costly and extended twenty-year effort. In an alarming recent development, pseudorabies was detected in a feral swine in Wisconsin in recent weeks. In addition to the disease threat, feral swine cause serious environmental damage because of their rooting behavior and omnivorous dietary preferences, which can both devastate natural vegetation and sharply suppress ground-nesting bird populations - such as turkey, pheasant, quail and other non-game birds - because of nest predation. Despite the Ways and Means Committee’s approval of HF 929, the likelihood for its consideration and passage this session appear to be slim.

House Finance Panel Extends Differential Motor Fuel Excise Tax Matrix by One Year

On Thursday, April 19, the House Ways and Means Committee amended and passed House File 855 (which became House File 919) by a 25-0 vote. HF 919 proposes to extend by one additional year the current differential motor fuel excise tax matrix that varies the excise tax for ethanol blended fuels and conventional gasoline according to the proportion of each type of fuel. It was scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2007, but will not sunset on June 30, 2008.

The differential motor fuel excise tax matrix was created by legislation enacted in 2001 (House File 716) that was designed to promote ethanol-blended motor fuel use in Iowa. Prior to the 2001 legislation, the excise tax for unblended gasoline was 20 cents per gallon and 19 cents per gallon for 10% ethanol blended gasoline, tax rates that had existed since January 1, 1989. The original reason for having a different excise tax rate for conventional gasoline and ethanol-blended gasoline was to both provide an economic incentive for consumers to use ethanol-blended motor fuel and to roughly equalize the effective excise tax per mile traveled between the two fuels, because 10% ethanol blended motor fuel has 2% to 4% lower mileage. HF 919 is potentially controversial because the financial impact on the Road Use Tax Fund of extending the current motor fuel excise tax differential matrix is estimated to be a reduction in such revenues of $5.7 million for FY 2008. Conversely, proponents of HF 919 are concerned that if a higher excise tax rate is charged on ethanol-blended fuel, it might erode the proportion of ethanol-blended motor fuel that Iowa motorists purchase.

3

During committee consideration of HF 855, which would have extended the motor fuel excise tax matrix until June 30, 2012, the date was amended to reduce the timeframe to just one year. The amendment was adopted by a 14-11 vote. HF 855 was previously passed by the House Agriculture Committee as House Study Bill 245 on March 7, by a 20-0 vote.

(Contact: Lew Olson, 1-3096)

One Bright Spot for Business – Health Care Coverage for Iowa’s Small Businesses

It’s been a pretty bad year under the golden dome for Iowa businesses. Democrats continued to threaten Iowa businesses with bills on forced unionism, labor-friendly worker’s compensation changes, and prevailing wage.

One of the few bright spots has been efforts to help small business provide health care coverage to their employees.

On Tuesday, April 24, the House passed Senate File 346. While this is a small bill, it is a big help to Iowa small businesses. SF 346 requires the development of a uniform application for group health care coverage by the insurance commissioner. All insurance companies offering a small group insurance plan would be required to utilize the application. This will greatly reduce the administrative burden on employers as they seek coverage and should help the insurance companies as well.

Senate File 346 was the second piece of legislation adopted that is intended to help small businesses with health insurance. House File 790 allowed business organizations to establish association health plans within Iowa’s small group insurance framework. Small businesses will be able to band together to reduce risk and premium rates for health care coverage for their employees.

House File 790 also allows insurance companies to reward low-claim employers by moving them to a less-expensive class of business. The bill allows insurers to also pass on savings to employers for participation in wellness activities.

While these two pieces of legislation should help small businesses provide health care coverage to their employees, other legislation remains alive that will wipe out any potential savings. House Democrats still seem intent on forcing mandates to expand coverage for mental health and substance abuse, prosthetics, HPV vaccine, hearing aids, and certain metabolic disorders. Adoption of these mandates will keep health care costs rising for the employers who can least afford it.

(Contact: Brad Trow, 1-3471)

The Power Fund Powers On

This week the House passed HF 918 and HF 927, which establish the policy and appropriations for the Iowa Power Fund and the Office of Energy Independence.

Commerce

Economic Growth

4

The legislation for this program has progressed through many forms, but after many conversations, Republicans were generally pleased overall with the outcome. Originally the Office of Energy Independence was to be located in the Governor’s Office and had very little oversight for the administration of the funds. Republicans objected to this “blank check” policy and instead were able to develop two separate boards that would oversee the administration of the funds. Additionally, the Office of Energy Independence was removed from the Governor’s control and created as a separate entity.

The office will have a director appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, and will be directed to administer the Iowa Power Fund, coordinate grants and programs, develop an Iowa Energy Independence Plan and perform other administrative functions. The Iowa Energy Independence Plan shall provide cost-effective options for reducing the state’s consumption of energy, dependence, use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions to achieve energy independence by 2025.

The bill also establishes two boards: The Iowa Power Fund Board and the Due Diligence Board.

The Iowa Power Fund Board will consider and approve the grants, loans and investments made from the fund, will advise the director on policy and development and direct moneys from the fund to purchase private or public assistance. The board will be made up of representatives of state agencies, including the Utilities Board, the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Natural Resources, the Secretary of Agriculture, and seven members appointed by the governor based on their expertise in relevant fields. The board will also include ex-officio members including a representative from all four caucuses in the General Assembly, a member of the Board of Regents, a representative of the community colleges and a representative of the private and independent colleges.

The Due Diligence Board is created to review applications that will come before the board and the members will consist of representatives of the Office of Energy Independence, the Regents, the Department of Economic Development, the Iowa Energy Center, two members from the Power Fund Board and a member appointed by the director of the Department of Economic Development who has expertise in promotion and commercialization of biotechnology.

Most importantly, the Iowa Power Fund was established within the Office of Energy Independence. The fund shall receive $25 million for each fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2011. The fund will also receive $24,670,000 for FY 07 to get the program going. The appropriation skips FY 08. The fund is to further the goals of increasing production, development and use of biofuels and other sources of renewable energy, improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emission and shall encourage, support and provide for research, development, commercialization and the implementation of energy technologies and practices.

The bill also provides a research focus for the fund by directing financial incentives relating to products from biorefineries, federal biomass research and development programs, renewable energy products and energy efficiency projects.

Lastly, the bill requires the Iowa Utilities Board to work in cooperation in conducting a study of energy efficiency plans offered by all utilities to determine the status and effectiveness of energy efficiency programs in the state. It also requires that all electric and gas public utilities are to offer energy efficiency programs to their customers through efficient plans that are cost-effective.

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Education

5

Investigation of Student Loan Companies Goes Nationwide

In started in New York. State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo started looking into the relationships between the student loan companies and colleges in New York.

In New York, Cuomo found:

Financial arrangements between colleges and lenders, such as revenue sharing and referral fees. Lenders operating a “call center” for the college yet students believe they are speaking with a school

financial aid counselor when they are speaking with a representative of the lender. Preferred lender lists where the student loan company solicited to offer financial or other benefits to the

college in exchange for inclusion on the college’s list of preferred lenders. Denials or impediments to a borrower’s choice of lender if that lender is not on the preferred lender list. Lenders paying for trips for financial aid officers and their spouses. Lenders providing meals, gifts or entertainment of more than a nominal value to college employees. College employees being paid to server on the lender’s advisory board.

The New York experience is spreading nationwide. The attorney generals of California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois are also looking into practices in their state.

Student loan companies are loosely regulated by the U.S. Department of Education. All student loan lenders are guaranteed 9.5% return on their loans from the U.S. Department of Education. If a student takes out a loan at 6%, the loan company is still guaranteed a 9.5% interest rate.

Iowa has one non-profit student loan company – the Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corporation. The non-profit mission is to lower interest rates and provide greater access to loans.

The second issue that is surfacing nationwide is the high loan debt students carry when they graduate. Iowa has one of the highest student loan debts in the country.

Students are able to get a loan for more than their tuition, room, and board. In theory, the extra money is supposed to go to pay educational expenses. In reality, students are using the loan money to buy TV, iPods, furniture and other items. No wonder their loan debt is so high

The U.S. Department of Education is feeling the heat. Secretary Margaret Spellings is asking for emergency reforms to the end preferred lender lists and many of these practices.

(Contact: Ann McCarthy, 1-3015)

UST Measured Referred to Budget Committee Amended and Approved

On April 19, as the House was beginning to consider House File 792, Republican Leader Rants rose on a point of order requesting that Rule 32 be invoked, because the measure contained an appropriation. The Speaker ruled his point well-taken and the measure was referred to the House Appropriations Committee for its consideration. On Friday, April 20, that committee amended, and passed HF 792, which became HF 928, by a 24-0 vote. The amendment adopted by the committee on a voice vote incorporated both the change made by the Senate when it considered HF 928’s companion measure (Senate File 499), and also deleted language in the bill that prohibited property in which remediation claims

Environmental Protection

6

were reimbursed for permanent closure from having a new underground storage tank system installed for two years following the work.

The Senate change essentially struck language in section 7 of HF 792 that would allow the Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Board to consider compensating claims that exceed the $100,000 maximum amount currently in Code for corrective action. It would also allow for compensation with remedial moneys for permanent closure of a UST system that was in place when an eligible claim was made. In place of the stricken language of section 7 of HF 792, the new language in HF 928 specifies that allowable compensation may occur pursuant to an agreement between the CPUSTB and DNR involving a site previously issued a no further action, when DNR determines that an unreasonable risk to human health may still exist certificate. At a minimum, the agreement is to address eligible costs, contracting for services and condition under which the site may be reevaluated.

(Contact: Lew Olson, 1-3096)

Government Oversight Bills Emerge at 11 th Hour

With just days left in the 2007 session, a couple of bills have emerged from the House side of the joint Government Oversight Committee.

HSB 313 is in response to the controversy surrounding a recent settlement between the Iowa insurance commissioner and Conseco Life Insurance of Indiana, and the subsequent high-profile appearance by Commissioner Susan Voss before the legislative Commerce Committees. The dispute was over Conseco’s use of an actuarial tool called an R-factor, and the settlement resulted in a payment of $750,000 in civil penalties (“fines”) and reimbursement of costs to the state. Rather than enter into a costly legal battle with the insurer, the division dropped its investigation of Conseco; thus a final report of the of the specific allegations against the insurer was never filed. Voss claimed that one issue is her inability to directly order restitution to individual policyholders. As a result, the bill creates a new subsection in Code section 505.8, specifically giving the commissioner the power to assess fines or penalties, order restitution or take other corrective actions (e.g., banning the appointment of agents in a the state for a specified time, as Minnesota ordered in its final action against Conseco) to ensure that insurance transactions are in compliance with Iowa’s statutes.

Nothing in the bill amends Code section 505.8, subsection 6. The subsection notwithstands Chapter 22 (Open Records) to require the commissioner to keep confidential information gathered in the course of an investigation and adopt rules safeguarding the proprietary information held by an insurer or agent, but also allows the commissioner in certain circumstances to share information with other regulators and government agencies or to publish violations, rules or orders.

Government Oversight

7

The bill was amended in committee to add the provisions of SF 466, which was unanimously passed by the House Commerce Committee on March 19. The amendment allows an association of individuals that is a legal entity with the power to sue and be sued, whose individual members have more than 25 vehicles registered to their names, to qualify as a self-insurer under Code Chapter 321A (Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law). The association (e.g., the Iowa Mennonite community) must obtain a certificate of self-insurance from the DOT.

The committee passed the bill on Wednesday, April 25, by a vote of 5-0.

The office of Grant Enterprise Management (better known as GEM$), in the Department of Management, was established several years ago to help secure additional non-state funding, discourage duplication of competitive grant applications, and to provide policy makers and Iowa citizens with information on grant funds received and agency competitive grant applications. Last session, SF 2338 allowed up to $125,000 from indirect cost reimbursements to be used specifically for office expenses, and also provided for a codified appropriation in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 of $35,000 each year for grant identification and grant writing assistance for state agencies. HF 917 (formerly HSB 312) amends Code section 8A.505, subsection 2, by adding non-reversion language for this funding. The act is effective is upon enactment and is retroactive to July 1, 2006. HSB 312 was approved by the committee on Thursday, April 19, by a vote of 7-0.

(Contact: Bruce Brandt, 1-3440)

HAWK-I Coverage in Jeopardy for Thousands of Iowa Kids

When Congress created the States Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997, every state was given an allotment of funds per year. If a state did not use its annual allocation in the year received or the year after, it was returned to the federal government for redistribution to the states that had used up their allocation.

In the first years of the HAWK-I program, Iowa did not spend its total share and had to return funds to Washington. But as the program grew and more kids signed up for health insurance, Iowa became one the states utilizing the excess funds from other states. As more states are encountering the same situation, the amount of funds available for redistribution has gone down.

As early as last fall, the Department of Human Services was letting it be known that if Congress did not act and provide more funds for the SCHIP program, thousands of Iowa children would lose health care coverage. The response from the Democrat-controlled Congress has been to tie additional funds to the supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan.

In kicking off the “Covered the Uninsured” week on Monday, DHS Director Kevin Concannon said that if Congress does not act by July 13, 300 Iowa children enrolled in HAWK-I would lose their health care coverage. Concannon also called on Congress to deal with this problem regardless of the war. Concannon said “Legislation to cover the shortfall in children’s health insurance should be allowed to advance on its own.”

(Contact: Brad Trow, 1-3471)

Human Resources

8

Downward Trend Demonstrates Iowa Not a Litigious State

Each year the Iowa Bar Association checks with the Supreme Court to obtain the number of civil filings for the past year. They use this information to educate the legislature about the Iowa civil justice system.

Civil filings leveled off in 2006 and for the past five years there has been a 7.5 percent reduction in civil filings related to tort law. There has, however, been 25.4% increase in contract-debt collection cases and an increase of 45.3% in mortgage foreclosure actions.

The number of civil jury trials in Iowa continues a downward trend. There were a total of 262 civil jury trials in the entire state in 2006. Of those, 212 related to tort-type cases. Even more important, there has been a 44% decline in the total number of jury trials, both civil and criminal, from 1994 to 2006.

In 2006, 37 counties reported no civil jury trials, 21 counties had one, 18 counties had two and seven counties had three civil jury trials. Eighty three counties reported having three or fewer jury trials.

This type of information refutes allegations by tort reformers that Iowa is a litigious state. These statistics are also a probable explanation as to why Iowa has continually been ranked in the top four states for doing the best job of creating a fair and reasonable litigation environment by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce State Liability Systems Ranking Study.

(Information provided by the Iowa Bar Association)

Here is a list of civil cases by sub-district and county:

1AAllamakee – 2Delaware – 1Dubuque – 9Winneshiek – 2

5ADallas – 7Guthrie – 1Jasper – 2Marion - 1Warren – 1

1BBlack Hawk – 7Buchanan – 1Fayette – 2Howard – 1

5BClarke – 2Decatur – 2Lucas – 1

2ABremer – 2Butler – 1Cerro Gordo – 8Franklin – 1Winnebago – 3

2BBoone – 5

5CPolk -33

6ABenton – 3

Judiciary

9

Calhoun – 1Carroll – 2Greene – 2Hardin – 3Marshall – 3Story – 6Webster – 2

Iowa – 1Johnson – 19Linn – 27Tama – 3

3ABuena Vista- 2Cherokee – 1Clay – 3Osceola – 1

7ACedar – 2Clinton – 6Jackson – 1Muscatine – 1Scott – 23

3BCrawford – 1Plymouth – 1Sioux – 1Woodbury – 15

8ADavis – 1Jefferson – 2Mahaska – 3Poweshiek – 1Wapello – 3Washington – 2

4AFremont – 2Harrison – 2Montgomery – 2Page -1Pottawattamie – 12

8BDes Moines – 2Henry – 2Lee – 2

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Prevailing Wage

Federal LawThe federal Davis-Bacon Act requires that each contract over $2,000 to which the United States or the District of Columbia is a party for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works shall contain a clause setting forth the minimum wages to be paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics employed under the contract. Under the provisions of Davis-Bacon, contractors or their subcontractors are to pay workers employed directly upon the site of the work no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits paid on projects of a similar character. 

Under the federal law, the U.S. Secretary of Labor determines the local prevailing wage rates.

In addition to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, Congress has added prevailing wage provisions to approximately 60 statutes which assist construction projects through grants, loans, loan guarantees, and insurance.  These "related Acts" involve construction in such areas as transportation, housing, air and water pollution reduction, and health.  If a construction project is funded or assisted under more than one federal statute, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions may apply to the project if any of the applicable statutes requires payment of Davis-Bacon wage rates.

You can find the federal prevailing wage rate for your county for each trade online at:

Labor

10

http://www.gpo.gov/davisbacon/ia.html

State LawUnlike 32 other states, Iowa does not have a state prevailing wage. However, House Democrats are looking to change that with House File 810.

House File 810 requires a contractor to pay workers the same hourly wage plus fringe benefits for a public improvement costing more than $25,000 as the contractor would pay workers for a private construction or improvement project.

This bill requires the wage rates that the workers must be paid shall also include benefits such as medical care, life insurance, overtime pay, and vacation and holiday pay.

House File 810 applies to any public improvement that receives money from a public body and includes most types of public improvements from construction to road maintenance to painting to hauling. Additionally, the bill includes other public improvement projects including:

Cleaning of grounds or structures Erection of scaffolding Maintenance, repair, assembly, or disassembly of equipment Testing of materials Hauling of refuse from a site to an outside disposal location

Virtually all prevailing rates are set for the job classification system found in collective bargaining agreements that characterize the construction work force by union trade jurisdiction and further subdivide employees by job classification. The effective impact, therefore, is to force non-union firms to use union job classifications, regardless of how inefficient they might be.

Under House File 810, the established wage rates must cover all construction work performed by all the public owners and/or their employees, including repair and maintenance, renovation and new construction.  This requirement includes all in-house services and on-site functions performed by the employees of the public owner.

The result of enacting a state prevailing wage would negatively impact the ability of many small businesses to qualify to bid on these projects and property taxes would likely increase to cover increased construction

Additionally, administrative costs could become burdensome because local governments would take on the responsibility to monitor contractors and subcontractors to ensure that the prevailing wage rate is paid

(Contact: Mary Earnhardt, 1-3298)

Sunshine on 28E Agreements

CIETC started it. The 2006 Legislature responded by putting the spotlight on 28E agreements. Over the interim, everyone argued about what the 2006 law meant. House File 808 ends the confusion. Your local officials and constituents might be interested in the changes.

Local Government

11

Iowa law contains two types of 28E agreements. The first is under Code section 28E.12 and consists of a contractual relationship between two parties to provide services. An example is a county and city enter into a 28E agreement such that the county provides the snow removal and, in exchange, the city buys an end loader for the city and county use. A cash purchase of service may fall under this “Section 12” agreement.

The second type of 28E agreement is that where section 28E.5 allows the creation of a separate entity, such as the CIETC board. This bill requires joint boards established pursuant to 28E.5 having expenditures over $100,000 to provide and publish a summary of the proceedings of each regular, adjourned and special joint board entity. The bill does away with a single administrator.

The summary of the proceedings must include the date, time and place where the meeting was held, the members present and the actions taken at the meeting. The 2006 legislation requires the publication of bills allowed, including salaries. This bill clarifies that the summary may be in consolidated amounts if paid to the same person. This is the current law for other political subdivisions.

28E.5 joint boards that spend under $100,000 are required to electronically provide the summary of proceedings to their county auditor, who will put the information on their web site.

Another new feature is that the Secretary of State’s on-line listing of 28E agreements will including a biennial declaration that the 28E agreement is either organized under 28E.12 or 28E.5. This mirrors reporting for nonprofit corporations.

(Contact: Ann McCarthy, 1-3015)

Free Camping Weekend

Just as a reminder, May 4-6 is Free Camping Weekend, when all camping fees are waived at all state parks for Iowa residents. No reservations accepted, however anyone registered for a site on May 3 will be allowed to stay through Free Camping Weekend.

Myth: Lightning Never Strikes the Same Place Twice

With the upcoming spring storm season, debunking this favorite metaphor seemed appropriate while sitting through the last “official” week of session. In all seriousness, a lightning bolt causes no permanent electrical changes to its target, nothing that could prevent a second strike. It’s theoretically possible, in other words, for a storm to smite the same plot of earth repeatedly. This actually happens to tall buildings, which absorb multiples strikes every year, sometimes during a single storm.

Mother Nature can also target people, of course, and so flashes on the horizon should send you indoors. If you can see lightning, you are close enough to be struck. Bolts can travel 10 miles, so even when blue skies prevail overhead, thunderheads in the distances could smite you. Proper shelter means an reinforced concrete building, one whose metal skeleton will absorb current. Something like a wooden picnic shelter, on the other hand, could simply collapse after a strike, making it potentially more dangerous than open space. Automobiles can also offer protection, since their metal frames absorb current. When indoors, avoid telephone lines and water pipes. People generally underestimate their

Natural Resources

12

chances of being struck by lightning, according to the Natural Weather Service. Annually, the bolts cause more deaths than tornadoes and hurricanes combined.

(Contact: Kristin Gray, 1-3026)

Senate Tries to Tackle Sex Offender Safe Zones Bill

On April 24 the Senate began debate on Senate File 455, the sex offender safe zones bill.

SF 455 is similar to HF 756, creating safe zones. The bill restricts the presence of registered sex offenders from being on the premises of a school or child care center.

There are a few exceptions to the law. A registered sex offender may be at a school or child care center if transporting the offender’s child to or from the facility, if the offender is attending a parent-teacher conference, if the sex offender is summoned to discuss the academic or social progress of the offender’s child, or if the offender is voting at the facility during designated voting hours.

In addition to being in compliance with the above exceptions, the sex offender must also have written permission from the administration of the school or child care facility prior to entering the property.

During debate on the bill, Sen. Kreiman filed an amendment that would strengthen some laws pertaining to sex offenders who attempt to lure or force youths into sex. The measure would make it a felony to solicit minors over the Internet and an aggravated misdemeanor to transmit electronically sexual images to someone believed to be a child. The amendment would also clarify that the 2,000-foot rule applies only to people on Iowa's Sex Offender Registry who are convicted of crimes involving a child.

After objections to the amendment, debate on the bill was postponed.

Senators said they widely support the safe zone and Internet crime enhancements, as well as another amendment that would expand the role of a state sex offender treatment and supervision task force.

However, there was concern about the proposal to allow probation and parole officers to use assessments of offenders to determine when leniency or more stringent requirements should be placed on their residency, safe zone or electronic monitoring requirements. Some senators said they believed more discretion was needed in determining who required the closest tracking, but they wondered whether enough was known about the cost, criteria and which offenders would be eligible.

House Republicans will be monitoring this issue closely to try to make sure that the Senate does not rush into anything that weakens the law or is not well thought out.

(Contact: Lon Anderson, 1-5184)

What You Voted For and Against in the Infrastructure Bill

Public SafetyState Government

13

The Infrastructure budget bill passed the House by a vote of 65-31 on Monday, April 23. The bill, after amendments, appropriated a total of $149,417,442 from five different funds.

There were several votes on amendments that were close to or strictly along party lines. Those amendments are described below.

If you voted for the following amendments you voted to: H-1899 - This amendment strikes all amendments that do not meet the definition of vertical infrastructure and

appropriates General Fund dollars for those projects. This amendment lost on a 43-52 rules suspension vote. H-1888 - This amendment strikes the appropriation for the West Capitol planters and increases the

appropriation to the West Capitol Terrace by an equal amount. This amendment lost on a 45-49 vote. H-1895 - This amendment appropriates $9.7 million from the ending balance to community colleges. This

amendment lost on a 44 -50 vote. H-1875 - This amendment strikes the appropriations for the Biomedical Discovery Center at the University of

Iowa and appropriates $30 million over three years for the establishment of Iowa Institute for Biomedical Discovery for the study and research of certain health-related diseases and issues, including interdisciplinary research, cancer, heart disease and stroke, brain disease, and vision and age-related disease fragility, but not including the study and research of issues relating to somatic cell nuclear transfer at the state university. This amendment lost on a 46-50 vote.

H-1880 - This amendment eliminates the requirements that the new state office building attempt to meet the LEAD requirements. This amendment lost on a 37-56 vote.

H-1902 - The amendment is similar but not identical to the Public Expressions of Religion Act passed at the federal level. It requires activist groups that sue to prevent a local or state government from displaying a religious image to pay for their own legal bills.

Notable appropriations in the bill include: County Fair increase from $10,000 per fair to $15,000 per fair ACE (Accelerated Career Education) Program: $5,500,000 Nursing Home Facility Assistance: $1,000,000 State Fair Horse Barn: $3,000,000 Gold Star Museum: $5,000,000 Department of Public Defense projects: $5,950,000 Regional Emergency Response Training Centers: $1,900,000 Recreational Trails: $2,000,000 Biorenewables Building: $32,000,000

Troubling appropriations in the bill include: Biomedical Discovery Building which will include cloning: $30,000,000 Decorative Planters (flower pots) for West Capitol Terrace: $120,000 Worker’s Monument: $200,000 (private dollars are also being raised for this project) The appropriations notwithstanding the definition of vertical infrastructure 17 times, which include:

o Employee Relocation Expenses/Leaseso Routine Maintenanceo Enterprise Resource Planning Projectso West Terrace Decorative Planterso Property Acquisitiono Tunnel Feasibility Studyo Workforce Development Bldg. Feasibly Studyo Disabled Veterans Memorialo Corrections Construction Planningo Battle Flagso Targeted Industrieso Enrich Iowa Libraries

14

o Lake and Watershed Improvementso Lake Delhi Dredgingo Voting Machine Reimbursement Fundo Tuition Replacemento Railroad Revolving Loan & Grant Fund

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Time-21 Policy Bill Released

HSB 321/SSB 1359, the TIME-21 policy bill, passed out of the Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday evening, April 24. This bill does not increase fees, taxes, fines or appropriate any money. It simply establishes the policy for the fund. Below is a section by section description of the bill.

Section 1 establishes the definitions for the fund. This section defines “department” and “fund, or TIME-21 fund”. As a reminder, TIME-21 stands for the Transportation Investment Moves the Economy in the Twenty-First Century.

Section 2 of the bill actually establishes the fund. The fund is under the control of the DOT. The fund shall consist of any money appropriated by the General Assembly and any money credited to the fund. The money shall not revert at the end of the fiscal year and all interest or earnings on money deposited in the fund shall be credited to the fund.

Section 3 of the bill allocates the funds to the state, counties and cities. 60% of the funding shall go to the state and be deposited into the Primary Road Fund to be used exclusively

for highway maintenance and construction, including purchase of right-of-way, but not including project planning and design. The following projects are eligible for funding under this subsection.

o Commercial and Industrial Highway Network (CIN) projects that are included in the department’s five-year plan. Priority shall be given to projects in areas of the state that have existing biodiesel, ethanol, or other biorefinery plants.

o Completion of the Access Iowa Highwayso Projects on Interstate highways

20% shall be for deposit in the Secondary Road Fund. The moneys will be distributed under the current formula. The money is to be used for construction and maintenance projects on secondary road bridges and on highways in the farm-to-market road system. At least 10% of the moneys allocated to a county shall be used for bridge repair and maintenance, with priority given to projects that aid and support economic development and job creation.

20% is for deposit in the Street Construction Fund. The money is be distributed as based on current law and the money is to be spent to improve the system.

Section 4 of the bill repeals the fund on June 30, 2028.

Section 5 of the bill requires periodic reviews of revenues and evaluations of alternative funding sources. Specifically the DOT is required to review revenue levels of the RUTF and the sufficiency of those revenues for the projected construction and maintenance needs of city, county and state governments in the future. The first report is due December 31, 2011, with subsequent reports due every five years after that date. The report shall evaluate alternative funding sources for road maintenance and construction and

Transportation

15

Section 6 of the bill increases the amount of money going to the county RISE (Revitalize Iowa’s Sound Economy) fund. The increase in the county RISE funding comes from the Secondary Road Fund.

Section 7 RISE fund allocations are amended to reflect the increased revenue. The following restrictions were put on primary road project RISE dollars and county RISE dollars

Primary Road Projects – The bill states that 50% must be used for highways that support the production or transport of renewable fuels, including primary highways that connect biofuel facilities to highways in the CIN. Fifty percent must be spent for highways that have been designated by the state Transportation Commission as Access Iowa Highways.

Secondary Road Projects – The bill includes language that clarifies secondary roads that connect biofuel facilities to highways in the CIN.

Section 8 of the bill establishes a TIME-21 Revenue Committee. The bill directs the Legislative Council to establish an interim committee to address the TIME-21 fund. The membership of the committee shall be made up of eight members. Four of the members are from the House (two appointed by the Majority Leader/two appointed by the Minority Leader) and four of the members are from the Senate (two appointed by the Majority Leader/two appointed by the Minority Leader). The committee may consider the revenue options proposed by the 2006 RUTF report as well as any other revenue options and related issues. The committee is required to report its findings and recommendations, including a proposal for funding the TIME-21 fund, to the General Assembly by January 15, 2008.

In committee, an amendment was adopted that gives funding priority in the following order: Access Iowa Highways, CIN highways, and interstate highways.

A second amendment will be offered on the floor. It will allow the county bridge money to be spent on construction of new bridges.

The Senate has passed the bill out of subcommittee as amended and it will be taken up in Ways and Means as soon as possible.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

Veterans Omnibus Bill Moves Forward

The Veterans Omnibus bill has received a substantial amount of discussion within the veterans community both inside and outside of this building. As you may recall, HF 817 transfers certain duties of the Commission on Veterans Affairs to the Department of Veterans Affairs, establishes a veteran counseling program, and studies regional veterans’ offices. This bill also deals with the desecration of the American flag.

The Senate has proposed a compromise amendment which primarily deals with rules. The Commission on Veterans Affairs is required to review proposed rules. The rule shall move forward unless two-thirds of the commission disapproves of a proposed rule. The vote shall take place either at the commission’s next regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting of the commission called by the commission within thirty days of the date the proposed rule is submitted, whichever is earlier. There are a couple of other nonsubstantive changes made.

Many members have been contacted by local veterans groups, county veterans directors or veteran activists regarding the bill the below document may be helpful when responding to those constituents concerns. Below is a copy of a

Veterans Affairs

16

memo from Steve Mulchay, chair of the Iowa Veterans Affairs Commission and Pat Palmersheim, director of the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs, that was sent to Governor Culver, members of the Legislature, all veterans service organizations, and the county veterans affairs directors.

Memorandum To: Governor Culver

Members of the Iowa Legislature

All Veterans Service Organizations

County Veterans Affairs Directors

From: Steve Mulcahy, Chair, Iowa Veterans Affairs Commission

Pat Palmersheim, Director, Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs

Date: 5/23/2023

Re: HF 817

We fully support HF 817, a bill to streamline services to Iowa’s veterans, increase accountability, and make improvement in veterans services our focus. We ask you to join us in support of this legislation.

We share a desire to provide the best service possible to all Iowa’s veterans. To this end, we are participating in a new design for the relationship between the department and the commission. The bill clarifies and delineates the duties of both entities.

The commission will provide overall vision and goal setting. The department will perform day-to-day operations consistent with the commission’s vision but without interference from the commission. The department will respond to the commission’s requests for information concerning the management and operations of the department. The director will serve as an ex-officio member of the commission.

We have agreed to work together to improve communications between the commission and the department. Of particular importance is the rule making process. The department will now be responsible for writing program rules and the commission will approve them. Through fostering this new relationship we expect to be able to respond more quickly to new programming as it is offered by the Iowa Legislature, thereby providing services sooner than is now possible.

Both the commission and the department will work with the Governor’s office. The Governor will act impartially to provide oversight of both entities. He alone has authority to remove the director. The director’s duties are proscribed in Iowa law and the director is directly responsible to the Governor.

HF 817 offers provisions to improve services to veterans and expand services where needed. The department will administer a new counseling program. This program will connect counselors who deal with veterans issues such as PTSD with local first responders. The responders will increase their understanding of appropriate response in a crisis involving a veteran. This will improve outcomes for veterans in crisis. The administrator will also connect veterans with counseling services in the veteran’s area.

Some of Iowa’s counties do not have a county veterans affairs director. The bill provides for a study to be conducted to determine the best way to locate veterans representatives in regional Workforce Development offices located in areas of underserved veterans. One of the representative’s duties is to foster the development of county offices.

We are working together to implement the legislative intent of HF 817 and its very important goal: the ongoing improvement of services to Iowa veterans. This goal can be accomplished if we join forces with all service providers. Please join us in the implementation of this progressive legislation and keep the positive momentum going.

(Contact: Kelly Ryan, 2-5290)

17

Scaled Back Property Tax Bill Clears Ways and Means Committee on Party-Line Vote

On April 24, the House Ways and Means Committee considered House File 905. When House File 905 was originally introduced, it would have completely abolished the property taxes that are levied by cities, counties, schools and community colleges – with no replacement system in place.

After two subcommittees, that version appeared dead. In response, House Democrats gave 11 th hour consideration to a much more pared back version, which is now House File 931.

Division I of House File 931 provides for a $320 individual or corporate income tax credit for commercial property taxes paid on “improved commercial property”. This income tax credit is only available if the taxpayer owns less than $300,000 of improved commercial property in the aggregate statewide. In the bill, “improved commercial property” is defined as “land containing one or more structures that are being put to productive use”.

Division II applies a 3% assessment limitation to commercial and industrial property for assessment years beginning January 1, 2008. Beginning January 1, 2009, a 2% assessment limitation to commercial and industrial property is applied. And, for all assessment years after January 1, 2010, a 1% assessment limitation is applied for commercial and industrial property. Reducing the assessment limitation would essentially give commercial property an immediate rollback. This would also apply a rollback to industrial property, however the rollback on industrial property would not happen as rapidly as that on commercial.

Division III creates a legislative Property Tax Study Committee. The committee would be charged with conducting a comprehensive review of property taxation in Iowa including:

Continued use of property taxes as a major funding source for local governments and for local school districts in Iowa

The classification and assessment of property for property tax purposes and the impact of the tie between residential and agricultural property assessments

The level of consistency employed in classifying and assessing property for property tax purposes The various exemptions and credits currently available to property taxpayers

The bill requires that in the study, the committee must address the goals of property tax simplification and equity.

The committee shall be comprised of the ten voting members: Five Senate members -- three appointed by the Majority Leader and two appointed by the Minority Leader. Five House members -- three appointed by the Speaker of the House and two appointed by the Minority

Leader.

The committee shall be comprised of the following nonvoting members appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House in consultation with the Senate and House Minority Leaders:

One member from an association representing Iowa counties. One member from an association representing Iowa cities. One member from an association representing Iowa school boards. One member from an association representing agricultural property taxpayers. One member from an association representing Iowa commercial property taxpayers. One member from an association representing Iowa industrial taxpayers. One member representing residential taxpayers. One member from an association representing Iowa telecommunications property taxpayers.

Ways and Means

18

Representatives of other interests as designated by the Legislative Council.

The committee shall be comprised of the following nonvoting members appointed by the Governor: A representative employed by the Department of Management. A representative employed by the Department of Revenue. A representative employed by the Department of Economic Development.

(Contact: Mary Earnhardt, 1-3298)

House Republican Talking Points

The Big Picture

From FY 96 ($3.84 billion) to FY 07 ($5.30 billion) -- which is 12 fiscal years -- the budget grew by $1.46  billion, or an average of $122 million per year.

If the budget grows by $528 million this year and $743 million next year, that is $1.27 billion in two years.

In addition, the Ds are adding 558 new state employees.  That's 558 new AFSCME members to pay unions dues.

Building a Tax Increase

The budget Democrats are about to pass in the next two weeks will be 10% larger than the budget that Republicans passed the year before. Don’t take our word for it.  Look at the balance sheet that was prepared by the non-partisan Legislative Service Agency. Here is the link: <http://rants.us/CMDocs/Rants/balancesheet_march.pdf>  If you are unfamiliar with reading a balance sheet – pay attention to the areas highlighted.  The budget from last year is $5,301.5 (5 Billion, 301 Million).  Your proposal is $5,830.2 (5 Billion, 830 Million) for FY 2008.   House Democratic leaders aren’t even aware of how much they are spending. The chair of the House Appropriations Committee said publicly on the House floor she believed is was maybe  $400 Million. That’s wrong.  Thus far Democrats are committed to a $656.2 million spending increase in FY 09.  Another 10% + increase. If you want to see the 10% increase in next year’s budget, click here: <http://rants.us/CMDocs/Rants/FY2009_Built-ins_Summary.pdf> . That’s 20% in two years.  Democrats had to raise taxes over $150 Million to make this years budget work.  Whose taxes do they plan on to raising next year? This course of action will lead to huge tax increases. Without an infusion of new revenue to maintain this reckless level of spending, Democrats will have to make across the board budget cuts. Tax increases or budget cuts – that is the future facing Iowans if Democrats continue this rate of spending.

19

That isn’t political spin – it is fact according to the latest Revenue Estimating Conference report. According to the REC, revenues are not keeping pace with the Democrats appetite for spending. It is available here:<http://www.legis.state.ia.us/lsadocs/QRE/2007/QRJWR001.PDF> report?   Here is an example of why the numbers simply don’t work for the Democrats budget. They are only leaving an ending balance of only $77.8M (bottom right hand corner of the balance sheet).  The House Democrat budget plan calls for paying the property tax credits out of the ending balance.  The Homestead Credit alone costs over $134 M.  If you only have $77M, how are you going to pay for it next year? 

Teacher Quality Bill

Both Republicans and Democrats campaigned on raising teacher salaries. The difference is that while Democrats want to pay teachers more, Republicans want to pay our best teachers more. The Democrat’s plan dumps $145 million into teacher salaries without any accountability surrounding the money. Republicans don’t believe that higher pay equals better teachers or high student achievement. This bill isn’t about teacher quality, it is about payback to the powerful teacher’s union. The fact of the matter is that this bill represents genuine difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to education policy. The largest of those differences are the following:

1- Democrats are shifting power away from locally elected school boards to the teacher’s union.

2- Democrats continue to pass legislation that will raise property taxes.

3- Nothing in the Democrat’s plan increases student achievement.

Shifting Power Away From School Boards and to the Teachers Union

Under the Democrat’s plan, the teacher’s union will negotiate terms of evaluation and how the teacher quality money is dispersed. We seriously doubt the teacher’s union will negotiate a plan that makes it harder for teachers to get pay raises. The union is going to make it as easy as possible for its members to make more money.

The Democrats also make it harder to terminate bad teachers and makes it easier to give bad teachers a raise. Most Iowans don’t agree with that. Where is the incentive for poor performing teachers to improve? If the Legislature is going let the teacher’s union, instead of administrators and school boards, dictate the terms of teacher evaluation and make it easier for the poorest performing teachers to get raises, why improve?

Raising Property Taxes

This bill is just the latest example of a shift in policy that is leading down the path of increases taxes – especially property taxes. The preschool bill we did last week allowed school districts to take funding currently allocated to K-12 needs and spend them on preschool instead. Any kind of shift will open a funding gap that will need to be filled.

The two PPEL bills that are currently on the debate calendar allows school districts to spend cash currently restricted to infrastructure needs on non-infrastructure items. Any kind of shift will open a funding gap that will need to be filled.

Now we have this, the teacher’s union payback bill. The bill plows $145 million into teacher salaries without tying the increase to improved teacher performance to higher student achievement. The Democrat’s plan removes a restriction that prevents property taxes from being used to pay for salaries. As salaries increase, what do we think will happen to property taxes.

Student Achievement Ignored

20

Research proves that paying teachers more does not appear to be associated with higher student achievement. Which means that this bill has nothing to do with helping our children become better students but has everything to do with paying back the teacher’s union for hundreds of thousands of dollars it poured into Democratic campaigns.

There needs to be accountability built into the system. This bill does just the opposite. It provides a disincentive for teachers to improve, it empowers the teacher’s union to set evaluation standards, it takes power from our locally elected school boards and finally it is yet another example of an agenda that will lead to higher taxes.

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.

Democrats are more than happy to tell constituents they have raised the minimum wage, however they failed to provide a pay hike to those Iowans who serve our youngest citizens. In FY 2006 and FY 2007, House Republicans made sure that state childcare assistance payments were increased. House Study Bill 301 does not include any funding to implement the 2006 childcare rate survey. 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

21

education dollars AND provide some property tax relief LIKE THEY PROMISED THE VOTERS LAST FALL, Democrats rejected the ideas.

Repealed 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.

An early childhood bill that has nothing to do with children but everything to do with ISEA recruiting. The Democrats have managed to pass 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 raises local property taxes to pay for it

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.

Pulled a fast one on the tobacco tax increase…After approving SF 128, Democrats insisted the first $127.6 million of increased tax revenue flowed into the new Health Care Trust Fund ostensibly to fund health care priorities. If the Democrats own balance sheet is truthful, 100 percent of the new revenue is deposited into the general fund NOT into the Health Care Trust Fund.

The bottom line is that all cigarette tax revenue is going to the general fund for new spending NOT for health care.

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)

22

“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.

Killed Castle Doctrine…Castle Doctrine allows reasonable use of force to defend yourself and your home.

Shifting Power to the Teacher’s Union and Away From School Boards…Under the Democrat’s teacher pay plan, the teacher’s union will negotiate terms of evaluation and how the teacher quality money is distributed. We seriously doubt the teacher’s union will negotiate a plan that makes it harder for teachers to get pay raises. The union is going to make it as easy as possible for its members to make more money.

The Democrats also make it harder to terminate bad teachers and makes it easier to give bad teachers a raise. Most Iowans don’t agree with that. Where is the incentive for poor performing teachers to improve? If the Legislature is going let the teacher’s union, instead of administrators and school boards, dictate the terms of teacher evaluation and make it easier for the poorest performing teachers to get raises, why improve?

Raising Taxes…This bill is just the latest example of a shift in policy that is leading down the path of increases taxes – especially property taxes. The preschool bill we did last week allowed school districts to take funding currently allocated to K-12 needs and spend them on preschool instead. Any kind of shift will open a funding gap that will need to be filled.

The two PPEL bills that are currently on the debate calendar allows school districts to spend cash currently restricted to infrastructure needs on non-infrastructure items. Any kind of shift will open a funding gap that will need to be filled.

Now we have this, the teacher’s union payback bill. The bill plows $70 million into teacher salaries without tying the increase to improved teacher performance to higher student achievement. The Democrat’s plan removes a restriction that prevents property taxes from being used to pay for salaries. As salaries increase, what do we think will happen to property taxes.

Refused to allow debate on veteran’s assistance bills…Republicans offered two amendments which would have provided free tuition to Iowa veterans who received harzardous duty pay and to the families (children and spouses) who were severely disabled or killed in action.

23

Expanded gambling…A bill that originally was supposed to allow veterans engage in recreational poker nights was hijacked by Democrats and turned into a bill that allowed other “qualified” organization to hold casino nights.

The bill allows certain organizations to award cash prize for participation in any game of skill, game of chance or card game conducted during an annual game night. The cash prize in total shall not exceed $10,000 and no one individual shall be awarded more than $5,000. Under current law cash prizes are not allowed.

Flower Pots, gardeners and personal securitySo far Democrats have carved out cash in the state budget for flower pots at the Capitol Building, full-time gardeners for Culver family at Terrance and extra troopers for the personal security of the Governor and his family.

ACLU ProtectionThe ACLU is getting rich at the expense of taxpayers. For example, the ACLU sued Los Angeles County to remove a small cross visible on a Spanish Mission in the county’s official seal, the county chose to remove the cross rather than face the risk of losing the case and paying the ACLU’s legal bills. Several groups won a case in Alabama to remove a Ten Commandments display from a courthouse, taxpayers were forced to pay the ACLU and others nearly $550,000.A Pennsylvania judge awarded $2 million to the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The two groups sued the school board in Dover, Pa., for requiring science teachers to teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution. It is right for activist groups to exercise their right to sue a local or state government for a perceived violation of the First Amendment. But it is wrong for these well-funded activists to bring suit and demand their legal costs are paid by taxpayers.

If an activist group wants to sue to prevent a local or state government from displaying a religious image, it should pay the bill itself.

Just over the horizon…

Runaway Spending and Big Tax IncreasesThe Democrat’s General Fund balance sheet details all tax and spending increases. It amounts to a 10 percent increase in spending and $144 million in tax increases.

The total increase in the FY 08 general fund budget is $528 million, or 10 percent above the budget enacted last session.

Even when the $62 million in supplemental appropriations are factored into the FY 07 budget, the increase for FY 08 is $467 million, or 8.7 percent compared to last year.

Now comes even more bad news for taxpayers. According to figures recently released Fiscal Services, the built-in expenditures for FY 2009 approach $700 million.

The Democrats still plan to raise taxes by $150 million this session. It remains to be seen how high taxes will have to be raised to fill the revenue shortfall they are building into the FY 09 budget.

Big Fines to Businesses…Free Ride to Tax Cheats

24

So let’s get this right – the Democrats are hiring more OSHA inspectors to fine legitimate Iowa businesses thousands of dollars over OSHA violations. But they are going to pass a tax amnesty bill that lets people who don't pay their taxes off the hook without paying any fines.

Iowans who have been working hard, playing by rules and paying their taxes get socked with $144 million in tax increases this year and even more next year, while Iowans who have been breaking the rules and cheating the system, get a free ride.

Top spending priority is union salariesDemocrats plan to spend $107 million on union salary increases.

The $107 million represents the largest increase in the budget this year. That means the top spending priority for the new Democrat majority is not for teachers, health care or economic development. It is to pay back the state employees union.

Raiding the Senior Living Trust FundThe Democrats have a balance of $142 million in the Senior Living Trust Fund (SLTF) in FY 08. This is $55 million less than the Governor’s recommendation. Also, they did not reveal how much they are taking back out of the SLTF to fund the Medicaid budget in FY 08. It is likely they will use at least $74.8 million (the Governor’s recommendation), meaning that if the revenue does not continue to exceed the REC expectations, the SLTF could be completely drained in FY 09.

Between raising taxes, approving an unsustainable rate of spending growth and raiding trust funds, the budget blueprint put forth by the Democrats is fiscally reckless.

New tax on satellite TV subscribersDemocrats have a plan to tax the air through satellite signals travel because satellite TV subscribers are getting away without paying their fair share to local governments. Currently cable TV subscribers pay a tax to local governments because the cable companies use the right-of-ways to place their cable lines.

More Gun Control?Gov. Culver has already public stated to the AP last week that the tragedy at Virginia Tech is a reason to revisit gun control legislation.

Fair ShareSF 413 forces non-union public employees - like teachers- to pay union dues. The only way for public employees to avoid paying union dues is to quit their jobs.

The effect of SF 413 is the same as a direct repeal of the Right to Work law.

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.

There are amendments to SF 413 which, among other things, would do the following: Relieve public employee unions of the burden of representing non-union employees and allow them to simply

represent their members. Require an annual audit and public reporting requirements to disclose how the unions are spending the cash

raised from fair share fees. Allow a religious exemption for public employees who have a religious objection to joining employee

organizations. Other states, like Ohio for example, have this in Code. Make the bullying and harassment of public employees who do not want to join the union illegal.

25

Prevents fair share fees from being used for any political effort or lobbying effort germane or not germane to collective bargaining.

Makes it illegal for unions to recruit and/or sign up illegal aliens. Requires that any union making political contributions to Iowa political campaigns certify that all individuals

paying dues aer American citizens. Allows non-union employees who are forced to pay fair share fees the right to view and examine union

finances related to the fair share fees. Replaces all references to “fair share” in the bill to “forced union”. Allows teachers to be represented by an organization other than ISEA. Amends the scope of negotiations section of the code to allow employers and unions to collective bargain

diversity policies, harassment policies, discipline policies, promotion procedures. Requires the union to set the fair share fee based on actual historical data instead of the whims of union

leadership.

26