Lawmakers approve budget for agriculture, natural resources
The Iowa Capitol on May 8, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capitol Dispatch)
State representatives approved a budget from the Senate on Tuesday that would increase funding for agriculture and natural resources departments by $682,000 compared to the current fiscal year.
The budget for the upcoming 2025-26 fiscal year prioritizes funding to prevent the spread of foreign animal disease, supports state park maintenance and continues the Choose Iowa program, along with operations for the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Senate File 646 would appropriate $46.6 million from the general fund and appropriate an additional $99.4 million from other funds for fiscal year 2026.
The bill would put $1.8 million into the Choose Iowa fund for use on promotion, dairy innovation and value-added grants for Choose Iowa participants, which is on par with 2025 expected figures for the program.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Choose Iowa is a network of producers selling Iowa-grown goods and has nearly 300 members across the state.
The bill also ends the Choose Iowa pilot purchasing program and creates the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Program, with an appropriation of $200,000 to help food banks purchase locally produced foods.
The pilot program previously had two divisions, one that helped local food banks and another that helped Iowa schools purchase from local growers.
Local farmers and food-security advocates hoped the program would have substantial funding this year following the cancellation of funding from a similar federal program. Rep. J.D. Scholten, D-Sioux City, proposed an amendment to expand the purchasing program to include schools, but the House did not adopt the amendment.
Scholten said the amendment would have made 'sure that (Iowa) kids are properly fed.'
The appropriations bill would also eliminate the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Fund in favor of creating an Iowa Animal Disease Prevention fund, which fulfills requests from Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig and other stakeholders for increased funds to protect against the threat of foreign animal diseases.
Those funds would go toward animal disease equipment, vaccine research and updates to state technology to track an outbreak.
Rep. Norlin Mommsen, R-DeWitt, tied the need for funding to the ongoing impact of the highly pathogenic avian influenza, which since 2022 has killed more than 169 million birds in the United States.
The bill also appropriates $200,000 to the Iowa Geological Survey to research and map the state's aquifers.
The bill allocates $12 million from the Environment First Fund, in lieu of a standing $20 million appropriation from the general fund, to extend the Resources Enhancement and Protection, or REAP, program through 2028. This program funds county conservation, city parks and open spaces, historic preservation, conservation education, soil and water enhancement, and other projects related to natural resources.
Rep. Monica Kurth, D-Davenport, proposed an amendment, which failed, to fund the project at the full $20 million. 'It's a long time program that has never received the full amount of money for which it was authorized,' Kurth said.
The bill also has a special general fund appropriation for state park maintenance, floodplain management and forestry health management.
The budget bill faced some pushback from Democrats in both the House and Senate who said it did not adequately prioritize local food, water quality and conservation efforts.
The bill advanced from both chambers, and with no adopted amendments in the House it now goes to the governor for final approval.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
30 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
Los Angeles Times
31 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump budget bill would kill subsidies that made home solar mainstream
By Nichola Groom (Reuters) -A last-minute tweak to the Republican budget bill passed by Congress last month would immediately end subsidies for solar leasing companies that help make rooftop systems affordable to homeowners, likely leading to a massive drop in the pace of installations, according to industry representatives. President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," now being taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate, would eliminate a 30% tax credit for solar leasing companies that charge homeowners a monthly fee for panels - one of numerous cuts directed at clean energy subsidies passed by former President Joe Biden. That provision, inserted shortly before the bill passed the House of Representatives on May 22, risks stifling a sector that buys American-made equipment, employs thousands of people and relieves strain on the grid, according to industry backers. "That's one of the harsher components of the one big, beautiful bill currently," said Gabe Rubio, a principal in the business incentives and tax credits practice at professional services firm BDO. Tax credits for homeowners who own their own rooftop systems would also be eliminated. The changes could result in as much as 40% less residential solar capacity being installed over the next five years, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Solar companies are lobbying the Senate to make changes to the bill before it becomes law. "America's home solar and storage industry is a powerful economic growth engine," Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said in a statement. "Senate Republicans now have an opportunity to advance the administration's energy independence agenda by amending this bill to keep American energy prices low and create well-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs." Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal the clean energy tax credits in Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, arguing they are expensive, unnecessary and harmful to business. Republican backers of the bill say the subsidy cuts would free up billions of dollars for other priorities. More than 5 million U.S. homes have solar panels, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. LAST MINUTE CHANGE An earlier version of the bill had protected the credit for leased solar systems, but fiscal hawks including Representative Chip Roy of Texas have said publicly that they pressed for deeper cuts to clean energy credits at the eleventh hour. Roy's office did not respond to a request for comment. Solar leasing was pioneered two decades ago by companies including Sunrun and SolarCity, which is now owned by Elon Musk's company Tesla, and quickly became the primary way home solar panels were financed. Under the model, solar installers partner with financiers that own the rooftop panels and offset their federal tax bills by claiming the credit. Homeowners either pay a monthly fixed fee to lease the equipment or pay for the electricity the system generates under a power purchase agreement (PPA). In what some analysts have said could be a loophole, the House bill directly references leased systems but does not mention PPAs. About 44% of residential systems sold today are under such arrangements, according to EnergySage, an online solar marketplace. Solar installers say undermining the subsidies could have a ripple effect on U.S. manufacturers that supply them. Freedom Forever, a top privately-held installer based in Temecula, California, said in two years it has gone from using no U.S.-made equipment to now sourcing 85% of it from American facilities. That is thanks to another IRA subsidy that provides bonus 10% tax credits for using American-made equipment. "The administration wants to bring manufacturing back to the United States, and that's what our industry has been doing for the last two to three years," Freedom Forever CEO Brett Bouchy said. Sign in to access your portfolio
