Latest news with #RobinOpsahl
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Iowa ACLU sends letters to cities calling for removal of drag restrictions
Students got signatures and pictures with drag queens who spoke at Iowa Safe Schools' Annual Governor's Conference on LGBTQ Youth April 28, 2023 at Prairie Meadows in Altoona. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa sent letters Wednesday to five Iowa city councils calling for a change to local statutes that classify 'female impersonators' and 'male impersonators' as adult entertainment, saying such measures are unconstitutional. The letters were sent to the city councils of Carroll, Harlan, Mt. Pleasant, Polk City and Webster City. The five Iowa municipalities have restrictions on performances — typically referring to drag shows — as adult entertainment. In the letters to the city councils, ACLU Staff Attorney Shefali Aurora wrote that the prohibitions on drag performances violate the state and U.S. constitutions, as they conflict with the First Amendment by restricting a form of expression that's protected under free speech rights. Aurora also argued the ordinances violate constitutional equal protection rights, as the measures target the LGBTQ community on the basis of sex and gender expression. Aurora said in a news conference Wednesday the ordinances are restricting performances that are neither obscene or sexual. 'Not all drag is obscenity,' Aurora said. 'A lot of drag performances are, in fact, family friendly. Too often, drag is equated with sexualized performances. But drag is not, by definition, adult entertainment. It can simply be someone wearing clothing and accessories conventionally worn by a person of a different gender.' Other performances that entail stories involving a person dressed in a manner that does not traditionally correspond with their gender at birth — such as movies like 'Mulan' or 'Mrs. Doubtfire' — could be restricted from being shown under such local ordinances. A statewide measure to ban minors' attendance at drag performances was discussed during the 2025 legislative session but ultimately did not advance. This proposed legislation contained similar language that defined drag as performances where the main aspect is 'a performer who exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth through the use of clothing, makeup, accessories, or other gender signifiers.' The bill, which was amended, received heavy criticism not just for limiting family-friendly drag shows but potentially impacting transgender people's ability to be in non-drag public performances and preventing local theaters from performing classic art such as Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night,' as it contains a character that dresses as the opposite gender. Aurora said this is not the first time the ACLU has sent letters to local governments about similar anti-drag ordinances. In the past, the organization has contacted Eagle Grove, Knoxville, Newton, Dyersville, Pella, Waukee and Grinnell — communities that agreed to amend their ordinances after receiving communications from the ACLU on the issue. In 2021, Doña Martha's Office in Eagle Grove had canceled a drag show after receiving a letter from the city attorney that called for the performances to cease, claiming they violated municipal code. Aurora said Eagle Grove later agreed to amend the restriction on 'female impersonators' as part of the city's definition of adult entertainment. While the ACLU is encouraging all cities to review their ordinances and remove language related to drag performances as inherently obscene, Aurora said the latest letters were sent as many Iowa communities are celebrating Pride month, holding events that sometimes host drag performances. 'We thought it was particularly important to raise this issue again this month, with it being Pride, which is why we're sending out the letters this week, just to bring that to the forefront,' Aurora said.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa Legislature adjourns 2025 session with many GOP priorities checked off
A portion of Iowa Capitol rotunda as seen May 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The Iowa Legislature adjourned Thursday at 6:01 a.m. in the Senate and 6:31 a.m. in the House, finishing the 2025 legislative session with many priorities from the majority party met — but with several major goals, including property taxes, not making the cut. While leaders reflected on successfully moving forward on many of their top objectives, the final few days of the 2025 legislative session were tense between some members of the majority party. Twelve Republican senators had announced they would not vote in support of any budget bills until the Senate voted on House File 639, a bill containing multiple measures related to the use of eminent domain in carbon sequestration pipeline projects. On Monday, the bill passed the Senate 27-22 following hours of heated debate and days of closed-door meetings discussing the measure, which included many barbed comments traded between Republicans. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, told reporters he believed the eminent domain legislation was the most pivotal bill to move during the 2025 session. 'The fact that it was finally taken up in the Senate certainly sticks out to me,' Holt said. 'But unfortunately, it also sticks out to me … as a Republican, the unfortunate debate that occurred in the Senate, in terms of Republicans sort of going after one another. It's something that we don't normally see, and I hope we never see again.' Holt said he was 'confident' that Gov. Kim Reynolds will sign the bill into law, though other lawmakers have expressed doubts that she will grant the measure final approval. While the pipeline bill was brought up for debate, another high-profile measure from the session was not — the Republicans' property tax proposal. The Senate Ways and Means Committee approved Senate File 651, the most recent version of the proposal eliminating Iowa's 'rollback' system of calculating local property taxes, in a meeting earlier in May, but the measure was not brought for floor debate in either chamber. Here's what Iowa lawmakers did on marathon final day of session House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said her biggest takeaway from the 2025 legislative session was that lawmakers did nothing to lower costs for Iowa families. 'If anything, all they did was raise costs, especially when it comes to property taxes, that now could go up and count the districts across the state because they didn't fund public education enough,' Konfrst said, referring to the K-12 funding package that Democrats said will trigger property tax increases in many Iowa public schools. 'They did nothing, nothing for housing … They did nothing to fix health care costs, except put 182,000 people, their health insurance at risk. They did absolutely nothing to help the economy.' Reynolds said in a statement early Thursday property taxes would be a top issue in the 2026 session, alongside further government efficiency efforts. 'I look forward to continuing this work next session — especially when it comes to reducing Iowans' property tax burden,' Reynolds said in the statement. 'And to make sure tax cuts remain sustainable, even as we continue to make smart investments, we'll keep streamlining government. Our alignment efforts, so far, have already saved taxpayers more than $250 million, and we're just getting started.' Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver said the Legislature did take action to lower costs for Iowans as the the state's economy 'is under a lot of pressure from outside issues,' pointing to the bill passed Thursday to reduce unemployment insurance taxes, a priority of Reynolds. 'At the start of this legislative session, we told Iowans, 'We hear you,'' Whitver said in a statement on his closing remarks for the session. 'We hear your concerns about the high costs in our everyday lives, the concerns about costs and access to health care, and concerns about safe communities.' In the final days of session, the Legislature approved some of the top proposals laid out by Reynolds for the 2025 legislative session, including the unemployment insurance taxes, as well as the bill on paid parental leave for government employees and another aiding rural health care and expanding medical residency slots. Several of the goals she laid out in her January Condition of the State address — like the two bills restricting cellphone use during class time and behind the wheel of a car, and her bill providing natural disaster aid for communities impacted by 2024 floods and tornadoes, were all signed into law earlier this session. But there were some bills that did not make it to her desk. The House did not take up Senate File 445, the governor's child care infrastructure bill to shift funding from Early Childhood Iowa (ECI) and some federal funds to establish a new grant program for preschool and child care centers providing full-day care for children, though it was passed by the Senate. Her energy proposal that would have given existing utility companies the right of first refusal to new transmission projects — which received pushback from the U.S. Department of Justice — also did not advance. The first measure signed into law in 2025 was the repeal of gender identity protections under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The law came up in budget discussions in the days before session ended, as the health and human services spending bill included a restriction on Medicaid coverage for sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy for transgender individuals. Some GOP lawmakers said this limit is now legal because of 'gender identity' was removed as a protected class under state civil rights law, but Democrats argued the measure remains unconstitutional — as ruled previously in courts — under the Equal Protections Clause. Republican legislative leaders did not mention the gender identity law in their closing comments, but did praise the passage of a bill setting Medicaid work requirements on Iowa's expanded Medicaid program. The bill sent to Reynolds Wednesday would set an 80-hour work requirement per month for people on the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan, or IHAWP, to retain eligibility for health coverage. IHAWP provides Medicaid coverage for low-income, able-bodied adults between ages 19 to 64. The bill passed includes certain exceptions to the work requirements. It also includes 'trigger' language that would end the program if the federal government first allows Iowa to enact work requirements and then later revokes approval. The governor and Iowa Department of Health and Human Services have independently pursued IHAWP work requirements, submitting a federal waiver for similar requirements at 100 hours per month to keep health coverage with exceptions. Senate President Amy Sinclair said in her closing comments for the session work requirements are 'common sense.' 'There is dignity in work, and the vast majority of Iowans know this,' Sinclair said in the written comments. 'Having a sense of purpose and accomplishment is not only good for one's well-being, but it is good for our state. Enacting policies that help put people back to work, like work requirements for able-bodied Iowans on assistance programs, provides opportunities for Iowans to earn a living, find a sense of purpose, and contribute to the growth of our economy.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Iowa Senate sends expanded Medicaid work requirements bill back to the House
Sen. Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, spoke May 13, 2025 on the legislation to implement work requirements for Iowa's expanded Medicaid program. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The Iowa Senate on Tuesday sent back to the House a bill to implement work requirements for the Medicaid program, although the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services has already requested a waiver from the federal government to implement similar requirements. There are some differences between Senate File 615 and the waiver request announced by Gov. Kim Reynolds in April. The legislative proposal would require people who receive health coverage through Iowa Health and Wellness Plan (IHAWP), the Medicaid coverage available for low-income, able-bodied adults from ages 19 to 64, to work at least 80 hours each month to stay in the program. The HHS proposal sets a higher work requirement of 100 hours per month, and includes other means to retain IHAWP coverage, such as being enrolled in education or job skills programs, or earning the equivalent in wages to working 100 hours a month at $7.25 per hour. Both versions of the proposal contain exceptions for certain groups, including people with disabilities, individuals who are in a substance abuse treatment program for up to six months, and those with children under age 6. While the legislative proposal has a lower monthly work requirement, it also contains a provision that would end the IHAWP program entirely if work requirements are ever approved by the federal government and later revoked. Iowa HHS would be directed to discontinue the expanded Medicaid program if federal law or regulations are changed to exclude work requirements in the future — contingent on the federal government having previously approved Iowa's implementation of these restrictions. Ending IHAWP would be subject to federal approval. If ending the program is not allowed, the state department would be directed to implement an alternative plan. Both the Senate and House have approved this measure, but the House had sent the legislation back to the Senate with an amendment clarifying the language calling for the discontinuation of IHAWP if the federal government revokes work requirement approval, in addition to adding a requirement for HHS to conduct and submit a report to lawmakers on the Medicaid for Employed People with Disabilities (MEPD) program by Dec. 15, 2025 — before the 2026 legislative session. The Senate amended the House's change to remove the language calling for a MEPD report. Sen. Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, said the report was unnecessary as conversations on this topic will occur 'on a voluntary basis' before the legislature reconvenes in 2026. Democrats criticized the measure, which they said will remove, due to reporting requirements, low-income people who are working and are in need of health coverage. Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, D-West Des Moines, compared the feedback lawmakers received at the subcommittee meetings discussing IHAWP work requirements to the subcommittee held on the 'Work Without Worry' legislation that proposed removing Medicaid income and asset limits for Iowans with disabilities. While advocates and Iowans who attended at the 'Work Without Worry' bill subcommittee praised the measure for allowing them to return to the workforce without risking the loss of health coverage, people at the subcommittee meeting for the bill setting Medicaid work requirements overwhelmingly spoke against the proposal. 'Everyone who was a local Iowan showing up on behalf of folks with disabilities, children, pregnant mothers, just folks in the population who are low income and struggling — trying so hard to make ends meet — they said this bill will hurt Iowans,' Trone Garriott said. 'It will push people off of their health care. In other states where it's been implemented, legislation like this has just made it harder for people who do qualify to actually get the paperwork done and stay on.' While supporters have said work requirements will help reduce the costs of Medicaid, Trone Garriott said other states that have implemented similar work requirements have not seen significant savings, and that these requirements will raise overall health care costs in the state because it will cause more people to be uninsured. 'We have a growing number of people who are uninsured when measures like this are enacted, and those folks end up seeking charity care at emergency rooms and hospitals,' she said. 'Charity care is not free. A health care provider needs to spread out the cost, shift those costs on the other folks in order to keep paying the bills and keeping their doors open. It raises costs on everyone when folks are not insured.' Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner also said the legislature is moving forward with this measure 'without having any firm idea what the fiscal impact will be.' The Legislative Services Agency fiscal notes on the bill stated the nonpartisan agency did not receive responses to multiple requests for information from HHS about the financial impact of implementing work requirements. Klimesh said HHS has included fiscal impact estimates in its waiver request over a demonstration period of five years that have found a cumulative savings of $50 million for the state, and held public hearings on the proposal, a part of the process of seeking approval from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Klimesh also pointed to movement by the U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce to make federal changes to Medicaid which includes requirements for able-bodied people between ages 19 to 65 to work, attend educational programs or participate in community service for at least 80 hours a month to stay eligible for coverage. 'Essentially, if you look at the blueprints the federal government is utilizing, it almost lines up specifically with what the state's requirements are,' Klimesh said. The bill was approved as amended in a 33-13 vote, and returns to the Iowa House.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa House sends bill regulating pharmacy benefit managers to Gov. Kim Reynolds
Pharmacists who advocated for legislation setting regulations on pharmacy benefit managers celebrated from the Iowa House gallery as the chamber sent the bill to Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk May 12, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Iowa House lawmakers sent legislation to implement restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers to Gov. Kim Reynolds Monday, a bill supporters said will help keep rural pharmacies in business — but that opponents said could lead to higher insurance and drug costs for Iowans. Pharmacists celebrated from the gallery as the House voted 75-15 Monday on Senate File 383, the legislation setting some restrictions and regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. PBMs are the entities that negotiate prescription drug prices between manufacturers, health insurance companies and pharmacies. The bill sets new restrictions on certain PBM practices that supporters of the measure argue are major factors contributing to the closure of local and rural pharmacies in the states. It creates multiple restrictions on PBMs' use of strategies that favor a specific pharmacy to fill a prescription, like different cost-sharing rates or fees, or other financial penalties or incentives. The legislation would also require pharmacies to be reimbursed at the average state or national acquisition cost of a drug. Rep. Brett Barker, R-Nevada, said the bill was needed to combat practices by PBMs, which he said have manipulated the U.S. health care system and 'stacked the deck against consumers, pharmacies, employers and taxpayers.' 'These monopolistic companies have become three of the most powerful corporations in the world from profiting off an opaque and complex system at the expense of everyone else in supply chain,' Barker said. 'These abusive, anti-competitive practices have created an epidemic of pharmacy closures and rising prescription drug prices nationwide. … Community pharmacists want to care for their communities, and it's time that they get an even playing field to do just that.' Pharmacists and advocates have spoken out in favor of the bill, saying that current PBM practices favoring mail-order prescription refills and pharmacy chains have played a major role in the closure of more than 200 pharmacies across the state, including 31 pharmacies in 2024. The measure was amended by the Senate to make some definition changes for how drug rebates received by PBMs would be passed through to health insurance companies to lower coverage costs, but Democratic Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott said the amendment could lead to higher health insurance costs for Iowans. Some business leaders share these concerns, citing the Legislative Services Agency analysis that found the bill could result in higher costs and copays for the state's health insurance program. According to a news release Iowa Association of Business and Industry (ABI) from earlier in May, the bill could result in an additional $340 million in costs for private-sector health insurance plans and raised costs of approximately $169 per insured Iowan annually. Leaders representing business organizations like ABI, the Iowa Business Council and Iowa chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business released a statement urging lawmakers to make further changes to the legislation that will ensure health coverage costs do not rise for Iowans. 'ABI members and Iowa businesses support policies that improves access to care. But this legislation simply shifts hundreds of millions of dollars in new costs to employers and working families,' Nicole Crain, ABI president said in the news release. Rep. Jeff Cooling, D-Cedar Rapids, introduced an amendment that he said would limit prescription drug cost increases for Iowans, but the proposal failed. He said he believed the portion of the bill setting a dispensing reimbursement fee of $10.68 from PBMs to pharmacists for each prescription would be a cost put on Iowans filling their prescriptions. Cooling said the bill allows the insurance or employer group to decide whether to cover the dispensing fee. 'As a representative in this state, I can't imagine an employer that is going to say, 'yes, that's okay insurance company, raise my rates, I'll cover that,'' Cooling said. 'What to me seems far more likely is (saying), 'no pass that on.' So I believe a vote for this is a vote to raise prescription costs per fill by $10.68 if someone fills them at an independent pharmacy.' He also said this provision will likely further incentivize Iowans to fill their prescriptions at larger pharmacies and increase financial pressures on independent and rural pharmacies, as people filling their prescriptions at larger, chain companies which do not receive the $10.68 dispensing fee. 'That's fine, but when folks figure out that they can go to a larger pharmacy and not have to pay that $10.68 at the counter, where do you think they're going to go to save money?' Coolin said. 'That's what I think will happen. I think even with the best of intentions with this bill, that it will not fix the problem that we all want to fix.' But the Iowa Pharmacy Association, a major supporter of the bill, released a statement urging the legislation, as passed by the Senate, to go to the governor's desk. In a news release, the organization stated other states have implemented similar PBM regulations and have not seen health insurance premiums increase. Wes Pilkington, the president-elect of the Iowa Pharmacy Association Board of Trustees and owner of Evans Crossing Pharmacy, said in a statement that further changes to the bill 'are only designed to protect the massive profits of Big Insurance and the PBMs they own.' 'Big Insurance makes huge profits on the current system which leads to pharmacy closures and harm to Iowa's patients,' Pilkington said. 'This legislation is designed to help Iowa pharmacies, NOT protect Fortune 10 insurance companies.' Barker dismissed the criticisms of the bill as misinformation. 'Despite mistruths many you have heard in this room tonight, dark money, astroturf campaigns and fear mongering, we have a really good bill in front of us that will move the needle to protect vital health care infrastructure in our state,' Barker said. '… By sending this bill to the governor, Iowa will take a huge step to catch back up with states across the country who have taken a leading role in reforming a broken system by reining in abusive PBM practices.' Kate Gainer, CEO of the Iowa Pharmacy Association, celebrated the bill's passage in a statement Monday. 'This bill is a critical step toward protecting Iowa's local pharmacies and ensuring accountability for PBMs, whose practices have forced Iowa pharmacies to shutter their doors and countless Iowans to lose healthcare access,' Gainer said. 'With states nationwide enacting similar reforms, we're grateful the House and Senate have paved the way for Governor Reynolds to sign this bill and safeguard Iowa's pharmacies and the patients they serve.'
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iowa House and Senate Republicans reach budget agreement
The rotunda in Iowa Capitol as seen May 8, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Majority-party lawmakers in the Legislature have reached a budget agreement, House Republicans announced Thursday, signaling the 2025 legislative session is nearing an end. In a news release, House and Senate Republicans released the spending figures from their budget agreement — a total of $9.425 billion in state appropriations for fiscal year 2026. The compromise is $28 million less than the House Republicans' initial budget target and $8 million more than Senate Republicans and Gov. Kim Reynolds' target released in April. The road to reach an agreement included some public disputes between GOP legislative leaders and the governor over specific budget items. One of the major points of contention was $14 million in pay for paraeducators and other school staff that was first allocated in the 2024 law making changes to Iowa's Area Education Agencies. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Rep. Gary Mohr, R-Bettendorf, the House Appropriations Chair, said the budget agreement will provide this funding for paraeducator pay, alongside some other House GOP funding priorities, through the Sports Wagering Fund. The state fund is where taxes on sports betting and internet fantasy sports are collected — which currently contains more than $40 million. The one-time spending from this pool will go to these budget items for the fiscal year, Mohr said, with the expectation that spending on these programs will come from the state's general fund in future years when revenues increase. The allocation from the Sports Wager Fund comes on top of commitments to draw from the state's reserves and Taxpayer Relief Fund already expected for the upcoming fiscal year, as the budget comes in above projected state revenues. The state's general fund is expected to collect $8.5 billion in FY 2026, according to the Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference in March, driven in part by cuts to the state income tax and federal financial uncertainty. Mohr said he believes spending of these one-time funds will not put the state in a bad position heading into future years, as state revenue is expected to increase. The state's reserves — totaling more than $6 billion — were factored into the decision to make income tax cuts in 2024, he said. 'If you look back at the history of Iowa revenue, we expect over time, revenue will increase much faster than state spending,' Mohr said. 'So again, while we knew we were going to (need) to take dollars out of the savings accounts, we don't expect that to continue for five or 10 years. Yes, we knew it was going to be necessary for the first few years, but we expect state revenues will be sufficiently higher in the out years to offset, so we're not continually taking money out of the reserve savings.' Reynolds released a statement Thursday supporting the budget agreement. 'As I've said for the last few weeks, my priority with the budget is maintaining fiscal discipline and putting Iowa taxpayers first,' the governor said. 'This agreement among all three parties does just that, and I want to thank Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate for coming together to keep Iowa on a strong and fiscally sustainable path.' The House Appropriations Committee passed several spending bills Thursday afternoon that reflected the compromise reached between the chambers. The education appropriations bill, House Study Bill 337, included $7.5 million for community colleges, lower than the $8 million proposed by House Republicans but still 'about $7.5 million more than what the Senate initially wanted to do,' Rep. Austin Harris, R-Moulton, said. GOP budget agreement gives increase to community colleges but not state universities The House bills for the administration and regulation budget, House Study Bill 343, and for the agriculture and natural resources budget, House Study Bill 338, were also passed in the committee meeting. Democrats expressed frustration with the changes made through the compromise, saying they preferred House Republicans' initial spending proposal. Rep. Sean Bagniewski, D-Des Moines, praised Rep. Norlin Mommsen, R-DeWitt, who ran the subcommittee for the agriculture and natural resources appropriations bill, for including and answering questions about Democrats' and advocates' wants and concerns during the budgeting process. 'This is certainly not what we would have put together as Democrats for this budget, but I just want to express my appreciation for the process that he laid out for this,' Bagniewski said. There are still several appropriations bills left, including the standings bill that contains paraeducator pay, and the health and human services budget bill. Mohr told the committee he is expecting to have another committee meeting Monday, but House Republican staff confirmed they do not plan to meet Friday or over the weekend to wrap up session. While House lawmakers will not be back until next week, senators are scheduled to hold floor debate Friday. On the tentative debate calendar are several budget bills. Also on the schedule is House File 639 — the bill passed earlier this year by the House that combined several earlier measures aimed at the proposed Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. It would raise requirements for pipeline operators, change the definition of a common carrier eligible for eminent domain, and add new requirements surrounding the Iowa Utilities Commission. The measure was passed through the committee process in the Senate with Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, recommending a significant amendment, but it has not come to the floor. The Senate has not brought up legislation related to pipelines or eminent domain for debate in several previous sessions, though such measures have passed with bipartisan support in the House. But this year, there's more pressure for the Senate to bring the bill up for debate. In a letter to Senate leadership, 12 GOP senators pledged to oppose any budget bills unless House File 639 is brought up for debate. While the eminent domain legislation is on the calendar, this does not guarantee the bill will be brought up. However, without the support of the 12 Republican senators, the budget bills are unlikely able to pass. With 16 'no' votes from Democrats who are expected to oppose most Republican spending proposals, legislation will be unable to reach the needed 26 votes. Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, one of the letter's signers, told the Iowa Capital Dispatch it 'absolutely is still the intent' of the 12 GOP senators who signed the letter to vote against appropriations bills unless eminent domain legislation is brought up for debate, and that he thinks there's 'resolution to stick with it' within the group. He said he cannot confirm the pipeline bill will come up Friday when the chamber is scheduled for debate, but that 'if we retain enough support to stop the budget, then it needs to be brought up.' 'I am optimistic that there's a recognition that the issue needs to be addressed,' Alon said. 'And this is the bill in front of us. … I think it's going to come to a vote. It's just — I don't know if it's tomorrow, I don't know if it's next week. I don't know when that is for certain.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
