D.C. Dispatch: Iowa's U.S. representatives support bills that cut Medicaid and SNAP
The U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
Some health care workers and other Iowans opposed to proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP being discussed by U.S. House Republicans criticized Iowa's federal delegation as they work on the committees tasked with moving those proposals forward.
U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks is a member of the House Energy and Commerce committee, the body that voted 30-24 Wednesday along party lines to approve the bill making billions in cuts to federal spending that could include work requirements and other restrictions on Medicaid. According to analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the changes in the bill would cut $625 billion in federal spending over the next 10 years.
Physicians in the Committee to Protect Health Care urged House members from their districts, including Miller-Meeks, to oppose the House GOP's budget bill and criticized them for supporting the measure. Dr. Brian Lindsay, an internal medicine physician from Cedar Rapids, said in a statement that Miller-Meeks, who is also a physician, 'must be familiar with the tragic stories doctors witness every day when people aren't able to access or afford health care.'
'As physicians, we challenge politicians like Congresswoman Miller-Meeks to explain how taking away her own constituents' health care makes their lives better or our community stronger,' Lindsay said in a statement. 'When people can't see a doctor or afford to get the treatment they need, people suffer, some go bankrupt because of huge medical bills and unfortunately, some people die. Every Iowan must stand up and speak out against this reckless Republican plan to take away people's ability to get medical care so politicians can give huge handouts to billionaires.'
Eric Kusiak, a nurse manager in Iowa's 1st congressional district, said the cuts could put rural Iowa hospitals at risk of closing in a statement with Fairness for Iowa, a liberal coalition that supports unseating Miller-Meeks and U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn, Iowa Republicans in potentially vulnerable seats heading into the 2026 election.
'With these cuts, patients would get sicker, have fewer places to go, and have fewer healthcare workers to care for them,' Kusiak said. 'House Republicans and Miller-Meeks voted to take health care from millions of people including seniors, kids, and veterans to pay for more tax giveaways to the wealthy and corporations.'
Miller-Meeks said in a post on social media Wednesday that Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden 'made the rules, then broke' Medicaid, and the House GOP plan will 'fix' the health coverage program. 'Medicaid is for the most vulnerable low-income families, pregnant women, kids, seniors and the disabled — not illegal immigrants or able-bodied men who choose not to work,' Miller-Meeks wrote.
Nunn and U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa are on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, that was similarly tasked with finding spending cuts to make to federal programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Approved 29-25 Wednesday, the bill moved forward by the committee will shift some portions of SNAP funding to states for the first time.
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Nunn defended his support of the measure, saying voters have 'heard a lot of spin about what's happening with SNAP.' He pointed to the resolution he proposed earlier in May, the 'Defending Medicaid and SNAP Resolution,' as a step he has taken to ensure SNAP benefits are not cut for seniors, pregnant women, children and people with disabilities.
'Now, here's what I'm also going to do: I'm going to make sure these systems are successful now and into the future, fighting getting rid of the fraud, waste and abuse,' Nunn said. 'And that means making sure that able-bodied individuals are working at least part-time jobs, and states that have had massive error rates are held accountable so they can correct that for the future.'
He said these changes will provide more money for the program in the future to allow 'vulnerable Iowans get the assistance they need' through SNAP in the future.
However, Democrats and others involved in food assistance programs said the cuts will hurt Iowans who rely on SNAP to purchase food for their families. Iowa House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst, who is running as a Democratic candidate in the 3rd District, said Thursday Nunn was 'screwing over farmers and families' with his support for the bill.
'I wanted to rest up a little bit this morning, but I can't, because I'm so angry,' Konfrst said, referring to the overnight debate leading to the end of the 2025 legislative session at the Iowa Capitol. 'Zach Nunn has the opportunity to do the right thing and do what's best for families, farmers, and veterans back here in Iowa. But instead, he did what he always does, which is fall in line with his party bosses and vote to devastate his own district. '
Feenstra, who also serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, said he supported the bill because it lowers taxes for Iowa families, farmers, workers and businesses 'while supporting investments in domestic manufacturing, business growth, Iowa agriculture, and U.S. energy production.'
'I'm also glad that provisions that I led are included like death tax relief, paid family and medical leave for employees of small businesses, affordable crop insurance policies for young and beginning farmers, investments in foreign animal disease prevention, and expansion of our export markets,' Feenstra said in a statement. 'Working with President Trump, we are delivering on our promise to the American people to cut taxes, grow our economy, secure our border, and unleash American energy production.'
Feenstra announced he was launching an exploratory committee for a gubernatorial run Tuesday after filing paperwork for a run the day earlier. Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said Feenstra's decision to support the budget bill making cuts to SNAP is a sign that Iowans should not support him to become the state's next governor.
'Iowans need a governor that works for them,' Hart said in a statement. 'While many Iowans are struggling to afford groceries and Iowa is ranked 49th in the nation in economic growth and 48th in personal income, Randy Feenstra voted today to gut SNAP – which is a program that more than 260,000 Iowans rely on and generates economic activity that impacts our farmers, grocers, truck drivers and more. … Randy Feenstra also voted to approve tax cuts for billionaires and the nation's top 1 percent. Feenstra put requests from greedy billionaires over the needs of Iowans today and showed his priorities are not the same as the Iowa folks he seeks to govern.'
While Iowa's federal delegation voted in support of these measures, the House budget committee voted 16-21 Friday to reject the spending package that includes the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Alongside Democrats, four Republicans, US. Reps. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania, voted against the measure while calling for steeper budget cuts to be included.
Though the measure has stalled, budget negotiations are continuing as House Republicans aim to approve a measure next week before the end of next week, when U.S. representatives are set to leave Washington, D.C. for a week-long recess.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
Washington reality check hits Sacramento
Presented by KEEPING SCORE: California Democrats are working to hammer out their moving target of a budget while keeping their eye on the storm clouds from Washington. As we reported this morning, Democrats are weighing potential revenue options to offset the state's $12 billion spending gap and are keenly aware that deep cuts in federal health care spending being negotiated in Congress would upend their plans. That tension became clear today as the Congressional Budget Office estimated the House budget plan would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion within a decade — even after booting 7.8 million people off Medicaid nationwide. 'They can't throw enough people off health care to pay for this tax cut,' Senate Budget Chair Scott Wiener told Playbook. If Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel's caffeine stack of coffee and Coke Zero is any indication, weary state lawmakers still face a fiscal climb as they oscillate between spending negotiations and hitting the Friday deadline to move their bills from one house to the other. 'The more we learn about the details of this awful bill the more concerned we become,' Gabriel said in a statement to Playbook. 'It is an absolute horror show that would have disastrous consequences for our state.' While lawmakers are busy circulating vote cards and feverishly pushing their colleagues to vote for their bills, budget drama is unfolding in the background. Gabriel has spent much of the marathon floor sessions off the green carpet in meetings with budget leaders in both houses that at least once stretched into the evening, necessitating an emergency pizza delivery. California was struggling to afford its health care programs even before the threat of federal cuts intensified. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed capping Medi-Cal enrollment for the state's undocumented population following a years-long expansion that became far more costly than initially thought. Progressive Democrats are pushing hard for their colleagues to consider corporate tax hikes to help pay for those Medi-Cal benefits. Those involved in the efforts insist lawmakers in both the Senate and the Assembly are taking proposals to make wealthy individuals and corporations pay up seriously. In the Assembly, Democrats have circulated a revenue survey obtained by Playbook. It asks members their opinion on how the body should 'approach potential new revenue/taxes.' Lawmakers could select from three options: Playbook was still awaiting the results at the time of publication, if any friendly parties are interested in sharing them (wink wink, nudge nudge).IT'S WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY HIGH-SPEED SNAG: President Donald Trump's administration today announced that it's moving to terminate two grants totaling roughly $4 billion that were previously awarded to California's beleaguered high-speed rail project, our Sam Ogozalek reports for POLITICO Pro subscribers. In a letter to Ian Choudri, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Federal Railroad Administration blasted the state, saying the agency 'has no confidence CHSRA will ever deliver an operating high-speed rail system,' wrote Drew Feeley, acting FRA administrator. The grant cancellations would affect a planned portion of the line from Merced to Bakersfield. A spokesperson for the rail authority in a statement said CHSRA disagrees with the federal government's conclusions, calling them 'misguided' and not reflective of the 'substantial progress' made on the project. The spokesperson added that the majority of funding has come from the state, not the FRA, and that Newsom's latest budget proposal would provide enough money over the next 20 years to complete the project's initial operating segment. 'The Authority will fully address and correct the record in our formal response to the FRA's notice,' the statement read. IN OTHER NEWS SOLAR STANDOFF: The Assembly left solar advocates fuming last night when it suspended a procedural waiting period to advance a proposal that would reduce subsidies to legacy rooftop solar customers, our Camille von Kaenel reports for Pro subscribers. The procedural rule in question requires the chamber to wait a 'full calendar day' after any amendments in order to vote on a bill. But lawmakers suspended that rule to approve Assemblymember Lisa Calderon's AB 942, which she had amended Monday to exempt schools and farms. The bill is now in the state Senate. ANTI-RTO CAUCUS: Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover, Democratic Assemblymember Robert Garcia and 15 other lawmakers signed a letter urging Newsom to delay his mandate that state workers return to the office four days per week, which is set to start on July 1. Hoover and Garcia pushed the governor to delay the executive order until the state auditor can complete a study the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved after the governor ordered state workers back to the office two days per week last spring. They noted the potential for the mandate to 'exacerbate our budget shortfall and hamper our ability to protect important programs from devastating cuts.' 'Given the significant implications of the return to work order, we believe it is critical to fully understand the impacts of telework on our state budget and workforce prior to making a decision to reduce its use,' the letter said. WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — The FBI arrested Daniel Park, a 32-year-old from Washington, for charges related to the bombing of a fertility clinic in Palm Springs. (The Associated Press) — Yucca Valley resident Thomas Eugene Streval pleaded not guilty to three felony counts of making threats online to shoot President Donald Trump shortly after the 2024 election. (Los Angeles Times) — The San Jose City Council settled a civil-rights lawsuit on Tuesday with a $620,000 payout to seven people who say they were targeted and injured by police during protests related to the death of George Floyd. (Mercury News) AROUND THE STATE — The San Diego City Council approved an 18 percent fee hike for ambulance rides over the next three years, but they say those increases will mostly be paid by insurance companies. (San Diego Union-Tribune) — The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ratified a new contract with their workers' union and awaits approval from their board of directors. (Mercury News) — San Francisco budget officials considered and then quietly discarded a plan to charge property owners $100 a year for their driveways. (San Francisco Chronicle) — compiled by Nicole Norman
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate weighs Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' as policy group backs CBO, projects $3 trillion debt increase
President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" is projected to increase the debt by $3 trillion, with interest, or $5 trillion if made permanent, according to estimates. An estimate of the House-passed bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects it would add more than $2.4 trillion to primary deficits before interest over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonprofit public policy organization. As of Wednesday, the national debt, which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors, was $36.2 trillion, and the national deficit, which occurs when the federal government's spending exceeds its revenues, was $1 trillion, according to the Treasury Department. The massive spending package being considered by a Republican-controlled Congress aims to address a number of issues, including tax policy, border security and immigration, defense, energy production, the debt limit, and adjustments to SNAP and Medicaid. "Based on CBO's estimate, the House-passed bill includes roughly $5.3 trillion of tax cuts and spending partially offset by $2.9 trillion of revenue increases and spending cuts," a CRFB statement said. "Most significantly, the policies put forward by the Ways & Means Committee would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion, on net, while the policies in the Energy & Commerce title would reduce deficits by $1.1 trillion. With interest, the bill would add nearly $3.0 trillion to the debt through 2034 – or $5.0 trillion if various temporary provisions are made permanent." "OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Bill Act) would add far too much to the debt as written and could lead to far more fiscal damage than reported if temporary provisions are extended as intended," the group said. It noted that the bill would boost near-term inflation, increase interest rates, add unnecessary complexity to the tax code as well as weaken market confidence and slow long-term economic growth. It urged the Senate to make the bill "more responsible." Despite the bill passing in the House, some lawmakers have voiced opposition to the legislation, most notably Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "We have never raised the debt ceiling without actually meeting that target," Paul told reporters this week. "So you can say it doesn't directly add to the debt, but if you increase the ceiling $5 trillion, you'll meet that. And what it does is it puts it off the back burner. And then we won't discuss it for a year or two." Top Democrats recently said the bill would cause the deaths of an estimated 51,000 Americans due to changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation legislation. Also against the bill is Elon Musk, Trump's former head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief. Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate. 'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.' He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place. 'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said. 'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.' 'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate. 'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.' Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.' The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate. While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California. The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson. 'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson. 'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.' This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing. 'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.' While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite. 'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.' 'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.' House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing. 'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.' Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.' Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence. 'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.' 'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added. Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added. When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
