Iowa Senate committee moves budget bills as negotiations continue
The sky above the Iowa Capitol was crossed by contrails on March 11, 2025. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capitol Dispatch)
Though an agreement is yet to be reached on state spending for the upcoming fiscal year, the Senate Appropriations Committee moved four bills forward in a Tuesday meeting.
Senators passed four budget bills through the appropriations committee Tuesday, making them available for floor debate in the chamber. This does not mean the issues causing budget bills to stall – disagreements in spending between the two chambers and calls by some senators to pass legislation related to eminent domain – have been resolved.
The four bills all passed 13-9, with all Democrats and two Republicans, Sens. Sandy Salmon and David Sires, voted against. Other GOP members of the appropriations committee, including Sens. Dave Rowley and Dennis Guth, had signed onto the letter sent to Senate leadership saying they would oppose the passage of budget bills unless pipeline legislation was brought to the floor for debate, but they did not oppose the measures in the committee meeting.
Though the bills did not receive full support from the majority party, the Senate spending bills on the state's education, health and human services, judicial, and Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF) budgets all passed the committee.
The education and HHS appropriations bills — Senate Study Bill 1231 and Senate Study Bill 1237 respectively — are both measures where House Republicans have put forward a different budget target than Senate Republicans. Much of the focus in budget disagreements has been centered on House Republicans' ask for $14 million to continue pay supplements for education support staff, primarily paraeducators, a provision in the House standings bill.
Neither the House nor Senate appropriations committees have moved on the standings appropriations bill yet. But there are other areas of disagreement. The House education appropriations bill, House Study Bill 337, includes an $8 million increase for community colleges that is not in the Senate bill.
The committee advanced the Senate version of this bill without comments on the funding difference between the two chambers. However, Democrats did criticize the overall lack of funding increases going to the state's higher education system — including community colleges — in the budget bill, saying the spending proposal will lead to cost increases for Iowa families sending students to Iowa colleges and universities.
Sen. Cindy Winckler, D-Davenport, said she 'can't think of a time in the history of funding education' that no new funding has gone to the state's regent universities, community colleges and Iowa tuition grants. She said she found the proposal to keep funding for higher education at the same level as the current fiscal year 'disturbing,' as the state's higher education system is critical for meeting the state's workforce needs and improving personal income growth.
'At a time when we have, by your definition, 'plenty of money,' it disturbs me that this particular budget comes with very little increase,' Winckler said. '… It's historic, and you need to be aware of when you vote for this budget, if you do, that you are underfunding the future of Iowans and the workforce.
Sen. Jesse Green, R-Boone, said the budget keeps 'steady funding towards higher education.' He also said he was shocked after being elected to the Legislature to learn 'we subsidize college education to the amount that we actually do,' and said the current budget better aligns with Iowa voters' expectations for state spending.
'This year, I'll admit, when I was on the campaign trail, I had a lot of constituents ask to shrink government, literally asked us to shrink government, and here we have a status quo budget,' Green said. 'So … I think this aligns with our targets. I think this aligns with what Iowans are expecting of us at this point in time, they expect us to put more money into their hands than in the government.'
Differences over nursing homes, Medicaid
The Senate health and human services budget bill also has differences when compared to its House companion, House Study Bill 342. The House version has $9 million more, a total of $25 million, for nursing facility provider reimbursement rate adjustments while the Senate allocated $16 million. Another difference is the inclusion of language stating Iowa's Medicaid program funding 'shall not be used for sex reassignment surgery or treatment related to an individual's gender dysphoria diagnosis.'
Blocking Medicaid coverage for transgender Iowans is something the Republican-controlled Legislature has attempted to enact before, but similar measures were struck down in courts. Supporters said this year's provision would be legal as Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a measure that removed gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act, one of the legal protections cited in court decisions.
But Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Marion, said the provision would still be found unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, pointing to the 2021 district court ruling that found a similar law prohibiting Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care violated state civil rights laws and the Iowa constitution.
'It restricts (Medicaid coverage) based on someone's identity as transgender or non-gender conforming, and that is wrong and unconstitutional under Equal Protection,' Donahue said.
The Senate language goes further than previous Iowa laws, as it applies to all medical treatment related to a person's gender dysphoria diagnosis. Keenan Crow, policy and advocacy director at One Iowa, said this provision could prevent transgender Iowans on Medicaid from accessing mental health care or other medical services not related to medically transitioning.
Rep. Ann Meyer, R-Fort Dodge, said last week House Republicans support a restriction on Medicaid coverage for sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, but would take up language that would not affect mental health care access for individuals with gender dysphoria.
The Senate Appropriations Committee did not make or recommend any amendments to the bills passed Tuesday, meaning changes would come on the Senate floor during debate on these or other areas of contention.
Sen. Tim Kraayenbrink, R-Fort Dodge, the appropriations committee chair, asked for committee members to be prepared for another meeting to discuss the standings bill and any other remaining legislation as soon as compromises are reached. He said that could be as early as Thursday, but that negotiations could take longer.
'This is always kind of a time we have to be ready and able just to meet when we can meet if we want to try to get out of here as soon as we can,' Kraayenbrink said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' has passed in the House and is now awaiting Senate approval. If passed, Trump's signature bill would extend the tax cuts granted by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and add additional tax cuts. While this might be welcome news to many, the bill also includes changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could threaten seniors' access to these programs. Find Out: Read Next: 'The 'one big beautiful bill' passed by the House of Representatives, if it were passed into law today, would cut Medicaid and SNAP by a combined $1 trillion,' said Chris Orestis, president of Retirement Genius. 'In addition, because of the increase to federal debt of as much as $5 trillion, the bill would trigger an automatic reduction in Medicare funding of $500 billion,' he continued. 'This would represent the largest cut to social services and health insurance for the poor, disabled, children and the elderly in U.S. history.' Here's a look at the changes retirees can make now to secure care and avoid benefit disruptions if the bill were to pass. Before changes go into effect, check with your healthcare providers to ensure there won't be any interruption to your care if there are cuts to Medicaid. 'Check with your healthcare provider to see if they might cut back on services or cease accepting Medicaid-funded patients, and contact any nursing home where you or a loved one may reside to find out if they will be reducing the number of patients they can support — or even [if they are] possibly planning to close,' Orestis said. Knowing this ahead of time will allow you to find alternative care providers before it's too late. Learn More: If you are reliant on SNAP, start searching for alternatives that may be able to provide food assistance in the event your benefits are reduced or cut. 'Make sure you know where there are local support services through community or faith-based organizations to replace lost access through SNAP,' Orestis said. Many retirees plan to 'spend down' their savings so that they qualify for Medicaid to pay for their long-term care. However, this may no longer be a viable option. 'If you are considering going onto Medicaid for long-term care and are preparing to engage the 'spend down' process to impoverish yourself and get below the poverty level to qualify, you may want to reconsider that strategy, and instead look to leverage private pay resources to pay for your care,' Orestis said. 'If you are on Medicaid, you will primarily be reliant on nursing homes for your care, and their ability to withstand these cuts will be very challenging and up in the air,' he continued. 'If you are private pay, you are in control and can decide where and when you will receive care, such as at home or an assisted living community not funded by Medicaid.' Strategies to stay private pay for long-term care would include long-term care insurance, annuities, a life insurance settlement, a reverse mortgage or VA benefits. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now

Wall Street Journal
38 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
GOP Senators' Competing Demands Risk Pulling Trump Megabill Apart
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.) is trying to release this week a revised version of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' But as he races to pass the legislation ahead of Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline, he has got about as many problems as there are GOP senators, with lawmakers battling over the additional borrowing and spending cuts that will be used to finance tax relief, plus spending on the border and military.


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Tensions Flare Between Protesters and Law Enforcement in L.A.
News Analysis National Guard troops in Los Angeles on Sunday. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has formally asked the Trump administration to remove them. It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda. In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration's efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain. Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city. As more demonstrators took to the streets, the president wrote on social media that Los Angeles was being 'invaded and occupied' by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs,' and directed three of his top cabinet officials to take any actions necessary to 'liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.' 'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Mr. Trump told reporters as he headed to Camp David on Sunday, although it was unclear whether any such incidents had occurred. 'That happens, they get hit very hard.' The president declined to say whether he planned to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows for the use of federal troops on domestic soil to quell a rebellion. But either way, he added, 'we're going to have troops everywhere.' Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.' Mr. Trump's decision to deploy at least 2,000 members of the California National Guard is the latest example of his willingness and, at times, an eagerness to shatter norms to pursue his political goals and bypass limits on presidential power. The last president to send in the National Guard for a domestic operation without a request from the state's governor, Lyndon B. Johnson, did so in 1965, to protect civil rights demonstrators in Alabama. Image President Donald Trump in New Jersey on Sunday. On social media, he, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times But aides and allies of the president say the events unfolding in Los Angeles provide an almost perfect distillation of why Mr. Trump was elected in November. 'It could not be clearer,' said Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker and ally of the president who noted that Mr. Trump had been focused on immigration enforcement since 2015. 'One side is for enforcing the law and protecting Americans, and the other side is for defending illegals and being on the side of the people who break the law.' Sporadic protests have occurred across the country in recent days as federal agents have descended on Los Angeles and other cities searching workplaces for undocumented immigrants, part of an expanded effort by the administration to ramp up the number of daily deportations. On social media, Mr. Trump, his aides and allies have sought to frame the demonstrations against immigration officials on their own terms. They have shared images and videos of the most violent episodes — focusing particularly on examples of protesters lashing out at federal agents — even as many remained peaceful. Officials also zeroed in on demonstrators waving flags of other countries, including Mexico and El Salvador, as evidence of a foreign invasion. 'Illegal criminal aliens and violent mobs have been committing arson, throwing rocks at vehicles, and attacking federal law enforcement for days,' wrote Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. Mr. Newsom, whom the president refers to as 'Newscum,' has long been a foil for Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly targeted California and its leader as emblematic of failures of the Democratic Party. 'We expected this, we prepared for this,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement to The New York Times. 'This is not surprising — for them to succeed, California must fail, and so they're going to try everything in their tired playbook despite the evidence against them.' Image Law enforcement officers and members of the California National Guard engaged protesters in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday. Credit... Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times On Sunday, the governor sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formally requesting that Mr. Trump rescind the call-up of the National Guard, saying federal actions were inflaming the situation. He was echoed by other Democratic officials, who said the mounting demonstrations were the result of Mr. Trump's own actions. The president and his aides 'are masters of misinformation and disinformation,' Senator Alex Padilla of California, a Democrat, said in an interview. 'They create a crisis of their own making and come in with all the theatrics and cruelty of immigration enforcement. They should not be surprised in a community like Los Angeles they will be met by demonstrators who are very passionate about standing up for fundamental rights and due process.' Republicans defended Mr. Trump's moves, saying he was rightfully exercising his power to protect public safety. 'The president is extremely concerned about the safety of federal officials in L.A. right now who have been subject to acts of violence and harassment and obstruction,' Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, said in an interview. He added: 'We are in this moment because of a series of reckless decisions by California's political leaders, the aiding and abetting the open-border policies of President Biden.' Trump officials said on Sunday that they were ready to escalate their response even more, if necessary. Tom Homan, the president's border czar, suggested in an interview with NBC News that the administration would arrest anyone, including public officials, who interfered with immigration enforcement activities, which he said would continue in California and across the country. Image Protesters in Pasadena, Calif., on Sunday. Credit... Alex Welsh for The New York Times Mr. Trump appears to be deploying against California a similar playbook that he has used to punish universities, law firms and other institutions and individuals that he views as political adversaries. Last month, he threatened to strip 'large scale' federal funding from California 'maybe permanently' over the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. And in recent days, his administration said it would pull roughly $4 billion in federal funding for California's high-speed train, which would further delay a project that has long been plagued by delays and funding shortages. 'Everything he's done to attack California or anybody he fears isn't supportive of him is going to continue to be an obsession of his,' Mr. Padilla said. 'He may think it plays smart for his base, but it's actually been bad for the country.' White House officials said there was a different common denominator that explains Mr. Trump's actions both against institutions like Harvard and immigration protests in Los Angeles. 'For years Democrat-run cities and institutions have failed the American people, by both choice and incompetence,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement. 'In each instance,' she added, 'the president took necessary action to protect Americans when Democrats refused.'