Latest news with #KimReynolds'
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Governor's unemployment insurance tax bill passes Legislature
Iowa lawmakers gave final approval to legislation cutting the taxes employers pay into the state's unemployment insurance fund. (Photo by Getty Images) Both chambers of the Iowa Legislature passed changes to Iowa's unemployment insurance taxes Wednesday, sending Gov. Kim Reynolds' proposal to her for final approval. Senate File 607, brought forward by Reynolds early in the 2025 legislative session, would cut the taxable wage base used to calculate unemployment insurance taxes in half from 66.7% to 33.4%. It includes other changes, like reducing Iowa's unemployment tax tables, and excludes wages paid from employers to employees working in other states from the definition of 'taxable wages' if the other state extends reciprocity to Iowa. The bill passed the Senate 32-16 and the House 59-27. In the House, Rep. David Young, R-Van Meter, said Iowa is in a good position when looking at the amount of money in the state's Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund — $1.95 billion — but said there have been questions 'legitimately' raised about what would happen to the fund in the case of a recession or economic downturn. Though the bill contains decreases to the taxes going to this fund by decreasing the taxable wage base, Young said changes to the tax rate are triggered under current law — and retained in the bill –if the balance of the fund falls below $941 million. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'Our state's unemployment rate is 3.4%, and with an unemployment insurance trust fund at almost $2 billion, the sound argument is being made that we've been over-collecting — especially compared to other states,' Young said. 'The proposal before us saves employers and businesses approximately $975 million over five years, injecting that back into the private sector.' Democrats proposed multiple amendments in both chambers, including measures to reverse Iowa's cuts to unemployment in recent years, each of which failed. One Senate amendment would have waived work search requirements for people with seasonal employment. In the Senate, lawmakers opposing the legislation said it does not help workers but benefits the companies that lay them off, causing residents to find work in another state rather than try to figure out a complicated, burdensome system that won't provide aid for as long as they need. 'Our unemployment system is rigged for the employers, particularly with this bill,' Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Marion, said. 'It is the workers who hold those businesses up, and we need to do better by those workers, not give more breaks to the employers who are laying them off.' Sen. Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, said he was 'ashamed' of Senate Republicans for how they're treating workers with the legislation by not allowing more time to take advantage of benefits and helping businesses more than employees. Providing unemployment insurance to Iowans doesn't mean they're just being handed a check, Dotzler said, it means they have the time to better themselves for employment while they seek it and won't have to worry as much about finances in the process. One of the House Democrats' amendments proposed requiring savings for employers through the bill be used to increase employee salaries or benefits — a suggestion, not requirement, under the current legislation. Democrats argued during debate on the bill in the House the unemployment funds need to be available for Iowans in need, and that businesses should not necessarily be trusted to use tax savings on better compensation for workers. Rep. Lindsay James, D-Dubuque, said 'the reason the fund is full in the first place is because this body, the majority party, voted to strip workers' benefits.' 'The money in this fund was never meant to go back to the big corporations,' James said. 'It was meant to go to workers, and that's where it should be going. … This isn't policy. It is corporate theft.' Young said most of the claims made by Democrats were factually inaccurate, saying the measure does not provide an 'corporate income tax break,' and does not cut any unemployment benefits. Sen. Adrian Dickey, R-Packwood, called concerns brought up by Democrats 'old, tired talking points,' and said the problems they worried about with previous unemployment legislation have not come to fruition. Iowa's population grew between 2023-2024, he said, countering statements that Iowa is losing workers in favor of going to other states with better pay, benefits and unemployment programs. For the lawmakers who said the process to apply for unemployment is too complicated, harming those who need aid, Dickey said they'd be happy to know that Iowa Workforce Development will launch updated websites and materials this summer. Dickey acknowledged there are flaws in the current system, including the state's unemployment fund, and said the Legislature should take time next year to take a hard look at how unemployment works in the state. However, Iowa is third in the nation for average weekly rate of benefits at just over nine weeks. He asked why Iowa would want to be like its neighbors, which have longer averages. 'The Republican Party has been the party to stand up for Iowa workers,' Dickey said. 'We are the party that wants our workers to aspire more than desiring an unemployment check.' Reynolds released a statement celebrating both chambers passing the measure. 'Passing this bill means nearly $1 billion in savings over five years for Iowa businesses of all sizes,' the governor said in a statement. 'Thank you to our legislators and key stakeholders for their support to help attract new business to Iowa and place existing businesses on a level playing field with our neighboring states.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Pharmacy Benefit Managers reform bill heads to the Governor
DES MOINES, Iowa — The bill making changes to policies by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) is headed to Governor Kim Reynolds' desk. Over the last three years, pharmacies across the state have advocated for a bill that would reform PBM practices. However, the bills have been unsuccessful at passing the Iowa legislature until Monday. PBMs are the middlemen between pharmacies and insurance companies. They determine the total drug costs for insurers, shape patients' access to medications, and determine how much pharmacies are paid. Over the last decade, 200 pharmacies in the state have closed, according to the Iowa Pharmacy Association (IPA). 2024 was a historic year for pharmacy closures, with more than 30. An estimated 955,000 Iowans have been affected by last year's closures. Pharmacists across the state have been voicing concern over corrupt PBM policies. They say these closures are largely the result of PBM practices, including not being reimbursed at fair rates. PBMs often pay pharmacies less money than it costs for the pharmacy to purchase drugs and distribute prescriptions. This was the case for pharmacies in Oskaloosa, Minden, Colfax, and Eagle Grove. The legislation proposed this session would require PBMs to reimburse pharmacies their cost and enable patients to choose the pharmacy they want to receive care from. Critics of the bill say it will cause premiums to increase. However, similar legislation has been passed in several other states across the country, and data collected in these states does not suggest an increase in the cost of premiums. The bill was on the Iowa House's debate schedule on Monday, and was likely the legislation's last chance to pass this session. As a result, over 100 pharmacists and community members went to the Capitol Monday morning to show their support for the bill. Many were optimistic at first, but an amendment filed early Monday morning worried pharmacists in the Capitol's rotunda. The amendment was proposed by State Representative Bill Gustoff of District 40. He provided this statement to WHO 13 News on his proposal: 'The purpose of my amendment was to direct the dispensing fees of SF 383 to those pharmacies that advocates of the bill say they want to help—small, independent pharmacies and those serving so-called 'pharmacy deserts.' The amendment would generously define small and independent pharmacies as having annual revenue below $250 million without regard to its location, and identify those serving rural areas as being at least 10 miles from any other pharmacy without regard to the pharmacy's size. It would do all of that while also retaining the essential PBM reform elements of SF 383. This amendment would have ensured support for true small businesses without saddling all Iowans with higher costs.' State Representative Bill Gustoff, (R) District 40, Polk County State Representative Brett Barker of District 51 is also a pharmacist. He opposed the amendment and said it's detrimental to pharmacies in Iowa. 'It guts the bill. It strikes the core provisions. It actually is a reimbursement [decrease] on your smallest pharmacies, so it's something that absolutely does not help small pharmacies. It would be a step backwards from current law and I'm absolutely advocating against it,' he said. Pharmacists in attendance, like Heidi Van Buren, also voiced concern. She said PBM reform is necessary to keep her pharmacy open. 'I feel like I'm carrying a rock going into a sword fight,' she said. 'If I sign the current contract that [a PBM] has sent to us, my pharmacy will be closed within months.' Ultimately, Gustoff withdrew his amendment later in the day, and the House voted in favor of the PBM reform bill with 75 votes to 15. Barker provided WHO 13 News with this updated statement after the bill passed: 'The abusive, anti-competitive practices of PBMs have created an epidemic of pharmacy closures and rising prescription drug prices nationwide. With the passage of SF383, Iowa will take a large step to catch back up with states across the country who have taken a leading role in reforming a broken system. This bill provides transparency in an opaque system, empowers patients to choose their healthcare provider, requires that the dollars in the system benefit patients and employers, and ensures that pharmacies can keep their doors open by reimbursing what it costs to dispense prescriptions to Iowans.' -State Representative Brett Barker, (R) District 51, Neveda, Maxwell, Huxley The Iowa Pharmacy Association praised the Iowa House for passing the bill. 'Leadership in the House to champion Senate File 383 across the finish line is so impactful to not only pharmacists across the state but ultimately the patients that pharmacists serve. This is a historic moment in Iowa to join other states that have passed meaningful PBM reform,' said IPA CEO Kate Gainer. Gainer announced she will be stepping down as CEO later this year. More information on that can be found here. Iowa Congressman Randy Feenstra confirms bid for Iowa governor Pharmacy Benefit Managers reform bill heads to the Governor Iowa Pharmacy Association CEO to step down after 'historic' reform bill was passed The Caitlin Clark Effect: About 3 in 10 US adults follow women's sports, new poll finds Iowa Senate advances carbon pipeline eminent domain legislation Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
13-05-2025
- Business
Carbon dioxide pipeline regulations pass in testy Iowa Senate but still need governor's signature
DES MOINES, Iowa -- The Iowa Senate advanced a bill that could further complicate a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states after a long-winded and testy debate that exposed a clear rift among Republicans over property rights and the future of the state's agricultural dominance. The legislation that narrowly passed late Monday would prohibit the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limit the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increase the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely make it less financially feasible for a company to build the pipeline. Already passed by the House, the measure now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk. A spokesperson for the governor said Tuesday that the governor's office is reviewing the bill. The legislation could force adjustments to Summit Carbon Solutions' plans for the estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project, which are already strained after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. The project received permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, but it does face various court challenges, and its application was rejected in South Dakota. The Iowa Senate, already operating in overtime as legislative session drags on, came to a halt after a dozen Republican state senators insisted that their leaders bring a pipeline bill to the floor. In response, Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor this month outlined the company's investment to date, saying that the company remained committed to building the project and to Iowa. 'Summit Carbon Solutions has invested four years and nearly $175 million on voluntary agreements in Iowa, signing agreements with more than 1,300 landowners and securing 75% of the Phase One route,' Zenor said in a May 1 statement. Zenor declined to comment Tuesday. Dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable. They told lawmakers that the project is essential for the future of Iowa's ethanol industry, for farmers and for construction jobs. The pipeline would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. A majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture tonight,' Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a statement. 'For 25 years, Iowa has benefited greatly from being the most profitable place in the world to convert corn kernels into ethanol,' said Shaw, who predicts that there will be severe economic consequences if the legislation is signed into law. 'Iowa is poised to be left behind.' The pipeline's critics accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. Tensions flared among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Thirteen Republican senators joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill. Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. The Republicans who opposed it stressed that they, too, respect private property rights. But they said the bill has holes that will threaten any infrastructure development in Iowa, not just carbon-capture pipelines. They criticized the bill for drawing out the permitting process by muddying up the standards of public use, allowing anyone, anywhere to intervene, and creating unnecessary insurance disputes between the company and landowners that may be miles away. The bill's backers said those criticisms are overblown interpretations of the legislation and distractions from the issue at hand. Republican state Sen. Jeff Taylor, who supports the bill, said it would fundamentally ensure that companies respect the constitutional requirement for eminent domain. 'Both the Iowa Constitution and the federal Constitution specify what the requirement is for eminent domain: It's public use,' Taylor said. 'It's not anything else. It's not a positive business climate, it's not helping the agribusiness in the state, it's not the price of corn or helping the ethanol plants. It's public use.'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Carbon dioxide pipeline regulations pass in testy Iowa Senate but still need governor's signature
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Senate advanced a bill that could further complicate a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states after a long-winded and testy debate that exposed a clear rift among Republicans over property rights and the future of the state's agricultural dominance. The legislation that narrowly passed late Monday would prohibit the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limit the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increase the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely make it less financially feasible for a company to build the pipeline. Already passed by the House, the measure now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk. A spokesperson for the governor said Tuesday that the governor's office is reviewing the bill. The legislation could force adjustments to Summit Carbon Solutions' plans for the estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project, which are already strained after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. The project received permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, but it does face various court challenges, and its application was rejected in South Dakota. The Iowa Senate, already operating in overtime as legislative session drags on, came to a halt after a dozen Republican state senators insisted that their leaders bring a pipeline bill to the floor. In response, Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor this month outlined the company's investment to date, saying that the company remained committed to building the project and to Iowa. 'Summit Carbon Solutions has invested four years and nearly $175 million on voluntary agreements in Iowa, signing agreements with more than 1,300 landowners and securing 75% of the Phase One route,' Zenor said in a May 1 statement. Zenor declined to comment Tuesday. Dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable. They told lawmakers that the project is essential for the future of Iowa's ethanol industry, for farmers and for construction jobs. The pipeline would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. A majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture tonight,' Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a statement. 'For 25 years, Iowa has benefited greatly from being the most profitable place in the world to convert corn kernels into ethanol,' said Shaw, who predicts that there will be severe economic consequences if the legislation is signed into law. 'Iowa is poised to be left behind.' The pipeline's critics accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. Tensions flared among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Thirteen Republican senators joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill. Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. The Republicans who opposed it stressed that they, too, respect private property rights. But they said the bill has holes that will threaten any infrastructure development in Iowa, not just carbon-capture pipelines. They criticized the bill for drawing out the permitting process by muddying up the standards of public use, allowing anyone, anywhere to intervene, and creating unnecessary insurance disputes between the company and landowners that may be miles away. The bill's backers said those criticisms are overblown interpretations of the legislation and distractions from the issue at hand. Republican state Sen. Jeff Taylor, who supports the bill, said it would fundamentally ensure that companies respect the constitutional requirement for eminent domain. 'Both the Iowa Constitution and the federal Constitution specify what the requirement is for eminent domain: It's public use,' Taylor said. 'It's not anything else. It's not a positive business climate, it's not helping the agribusiness in the state, it's not the price of corn or helping the ethanol plants. It's public use.'
Winnipeg Free Press
13-05-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Carbon dioxide pipeline regulations pass in testy Iowa Senate but still need governor's signature
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Senate advanced a bill that could further complicate a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states after a long-winded and testy debate that exposed a clear rift among Republicans over property rights and the future of the state's agricultural dominance. The legislation that narrowly passed late Monday would prohibit the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limit the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increase the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely make it less financially feasible for a company to build the pipeline. Already passed by the House, the measure now goes to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk. A spokesperson for the governor said Tuesday that the governor's office is reviewing the bill. The legislation could force adjustments to Summit Carbon Solutions' plans for the estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project, which are already strained after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. The project received permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, but it does face various court challenges, and its application was rejected in South Dakota. The Iowa Senate, already operating in overtime as legislative session drags on, came to a halt after a dozen Republican state senators insisted that their leaders bring a pipeline bill to the floor. In response, Summit spokesperson Sabrina Zenor this month outlined the company's investment to date, saying that the company remained committed to building the project and to Iowa. 'Summit Carbon Solutions has invested four years and nearly $175 million on voluntary agreements in Iowa, signing agreements with more than 1,300 landowners and securing 75% of the Phase One route,' Zenor said in a May 1 statement. Zenor declined to comment Tuesday. Dozens of Summit employees and leaders and members of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and labor unions made a big showing as debate in the state Senate seemed inevitable. They told lawmakers that the project is essential for the future of Iowa's ethanol industry, for farmers and for construction jobs. The pipeline would carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. A majority of the Iowa Senate 'turned their back on Iowa agriculture tonight,' Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in a statement. 'For 25 years, Iowa has benefited greatly from being the most profitable place in the world to convert corn kernels into ethanol,' said Shaw, who predicts that there will be severe economic consequences if the legislation is signed into law. 'Iowa is poised to be left behind.' The pipeline's critics accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. Tensions flared among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Thirteen Republican senators joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill. Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. Winnipeg Jets Game Days On Winnipeg Jets game days, hockey writers Mike McIntyre and Ken Wiebe send news, notes and quotes from the morning skate, as well as injury updates and lineup decisions. Arrives a few hours prior to puck drop. The Republicans who opposed it stressed that they, too, respect private property rights. But they said the bill has holes that will threaten any infrastructure development in Iowa, not just carbon-capture pipelines. They criticized the bill for drawing out the permitting process by muddying up the standards of public use, allowing anyone, anywhere to intervene, and creating unnecessary insurance disputes between the company and landowners that may be miles away. The bill's backers said those criticisms are overblown interpretations of the legislation and distractions from the issue at hand. Republican state Sen. Jeff Taylor, who supports the bill, said it would fundamentally ensure that companies respect the constitutional requirement for eminent domain. 'Both the Iowa Constitution and the federal Constitution specify what the requirement is for eminent domain: It's public use,' Taylor said. 'It's not anything else. It's not a positive business climate, it's not helping the agribusiness in the state, it's not the price of corn or helping the ethanol plants. It's public use.'
