New Year brings different priorities for local legislators

With strong majorities in both the House and Senate, Iowa Republicans are once again hoping to keep Gov. Kim Reynolds' desk piled high with bills to sign during the 2024 legislative session.

The 90th Iowa General Assembly kicks off Jan. 8 with a target end date of April 16. GOP lawmakers are eyeing changes to the tax code as well as other top priorities when the gavel sounds in Des Moines. Local lawmakers include: Rep. Zach Dieken, House District 5; Sen. Lynn Evans, Senate District 3; Rep. Megan Jones, House District 6; Sen. Dave Rowley, House District 5; and Rep. John Wills, House District 10.

The Sentinel-News reached out to each legislator in its coverage area to gauge their views on a variety of issues heading into the 2024 session. What follows are their responses.

CO2 pipelines remain a hot topic in northwest Iowa and elsewhere across the state. Do you support any legislation that could aid or impede their construction? If so what and why?

Zach Dieken: As with anything, I would have to read the legislation before voting yes. However, I am in support of private property rights being protected and not infringing on our basic freedoms for something that is clearly a money-making scheme.

Lynn Evans: The CO2 pipeline discussion is an issue of private property rights. When we talk about eminent domain proceedings in the United States, it is important to split the eminent domain protocols into two main pillars; public use and necessity. Eminent domain takings must be necessary and for public use.

The proposed pipeline is a private for-profit project and is not for public use. Additionally, the project is not necessary. If capturing carbon dioxide is a priority, there is a reasonable, more profitable alternative to capture CO2 on site at each individual facility using existing, proven technology converting CO2 to methane used in the production of methanol. Methanol is a fuel for which there is already a market in the maritime industry and it does not require the building of a pipeline.

For these reasons I oppose the Iowa Utilities Board granting eminent domain for the CO2 pipeline projects.

Megan Jones: The House did pass a bill to go after the pipelines. The Senate can take it up during the 2024 legislative session, as it is still eligible.

In full disclosure, I am affected by the proposed pipelines in four different pieces of property. House Rule 76 prevents legislators from voting on legislation in which they are financially impacted, and rightfully so. Legislators should not be there to make sweetheart contracts for themselves. As I am financially impacted by these proposals, I am not allowed to vote on legislation regarding these pipelines.

Specifically, House Rule 76 on the limitation on the right to vote states, "No member shall vote on any question in which the member or the member's immediate family member, as defined in chapter 68B of the Code, has a direct financial interest different from other similarly situated persons or classes of persons of the general public."

The key phrase is "has a direct financial interest different than other similarly situated persons or classes of persons of the general public". So if a new bill is drafted that does not impact the current pipelines or has very general applicability, I would be able to vote on it.

Dave Rowley: I have supported legislation to pause the projects until we can clearly determine if an action of eminent domain can be used in these circumstances. I co-sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 6 to deny the use of eminent domain in relation to carbon pipelines. Several legislators and I stood with the landowners on their constitutional rights to private property and the narrow reasons eminent domain should be used. We represented the landowners at the IUB hearings this fall. Rep. Steve Holt was our spokesperson speaking on our group's behalf. We expect a decision from the IUB in the next few months.

John Wills: I have voted two times to put a moratorium on eminent domain because I thought that might be the best option to get through the Senate. They did not even vote on it and so I am not sure what would be able to move through the Senate.

Do you support any changes to the current tax code? If yes, what and why?

ZD: I would love to see families who choose to have many children have the tax burden taken off them. I think we need to do anything and everything we can to support the family as it is the backbone of our culture.

LE: Taxes are going to be a major topic of discussion during this legislative session. In particular income tax. I support changes so that taxpayers can keep more of their paycheck in their pockets.

As revenue has continued to increase and maintaining a responsible budget, the state of Iowa is in one of the strongest, if not the strongest positions in our state's history. As

such, we need to work to decrease the burden on the taxpayers in a responsible manner, that has a positive impact over time, and is sustainable while still meeting our budgetary requirements.

MJ: Sure. I don't want to discount any idea as we head into session.

DR: I support lowering the personal state income tax eventually to 0 percent. At this time we're phasing in a 3.9 percent flat rate by 2026. Corporate to 5.5 percent. There is no income tax on retirement income now in Iowa. For the first time in Iowa history we are in the strongest position to work towards permanent and sustainable tax cuts. We have a projected surplus of $2.9 billion currently and billions more over the next several years. By managing tax revenue against annual expenses prudently we have an opportunity to maintain a balanced and sustainable budget. This results in all Iowans and Iowa families keeping more of their hard earned dollars.

JW: Yes, I would be happy to speed the current income tax reductions up and actually look at affordable cuts to further reduce the income tax burden that Iowans are paying. It is obvious that Iowans are overpaying taxes as we have nearly $6 billion in excess funds right now.

If one were to look at all the states across the country that are growing quickly, it is the low tax or no income tax states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, Tennessee and others. The high tax states like New York, California and others are declining in population.

A new study that just came out shows that California is set to lose a historic number of congressmen, while Texas is set to grow by almost the same number of congressmen. The number of congressmen is a direct result of population. So, if Iowa wants to be competitive then we must look at the tax culture that we currently have and make it more attractive for people to look at relocating here.

Recent reports have indicated that the governor would like to change the AEA structure within the state, and even eliminate them outright. Do you support this? Why or why not?

ZD: I have not seen anything specific on what the governor wants to do so I have no idea on whether I would support what she wants. Like anything, if there is wasteful spending within AEA structure I don't see an issue with trying to make sure it is an efficient government department.

LE: The AEA system in Iowa was conceived in 1974 and enacted in 1975. At the time it was a unique and innovative system. Its central focus was to support students with special needs.

Over time additional services have been provided by the AEAs and special education regulation was largely moved out of the Department of Education and placed on the Area Education Agencies (which were originally designed to provide supportive services, not a regulatory agency). I support moving AEAs back to their original mission to provide services supporting special needs students and ensuring that more of the revenue provided is being used for meeting those needs.

Local school boards should have more of a say in how that revenue is being used that currently passes through their budgets to support AEA services. Currently, they are simply flow-through dollars and local school boards have very little input on how those funds are being used by the AEAs. I am not supportive of eliminating the AEA system, but I am in support of changing the structure to refocus the mission more onto special education support services and giving local school boards more of a say in how those funds allocated for AEA services are used to meet the needs of their district's students.

MJ: I don't think there will be a proposal to eliminate them. I need some more clarification on what these proposals are, but the AEAs have shouldered a lot of increased responsibilities in recent years and provide a lot of services to students that would otherwise not be available in our smallest of school districts. The children of our state deserve access to these vital services.

DR: I support reviewing the AEA's administration and services as a matter of due diligence. Most businesses or agencies should periodically review their strengths, weaknesses and overall performance measured alongside peers. My understanding is the AEA has changed significantly in practice and scope since it was started in 1974. I think it's reasonable to review the AEA and to see where improvements or efficiencies can be made.

JW: I don't think the governor has said anything about elimination of the AEAs. That is a construct of the teachers unions and others. I think that anything that has been around for 50 years and never has had a serious look into it for modernization and streamlining has a high likelihood of needing just that.

I support the idea of looking at the AEAs and seeing what can be done to make them more streamlined, more effective, and more efficient to doing the job that we ask them to do, which is to teach our kids...and often the most vulnerable of our kids, those with special needs.

Do you support any new laws further restricting abortion access in Iowa? If so, what and why? Do you believe anything will be proposed this session?

ZD: Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being. Thus, all laws should protect all human beings from conception to natural death. Bills of equal protection under the law for all human beings need to be introduced and passed.

LE: A special session was called earlier this summer. From that session, the heartbeat bill was passed in both chambers and signed into law by the governor. The bill that was passed was very similar to the earlier passed law that was struck down by the Iowa Supreme Court. The bill passed this summer is currently in the court system. I support the current bill. We need to await the court rulings before any new laws concerning abortion should be considered.

MJ: What I am hearing from constituents is that we need to let the law that we passed during the special session settle. However, I would fully anticipate the legislature looking adoption services and ways to support new moms and families.

DR: After we passed the Heartbeat Bill HF 732 last summer and Gov. Reynolds signed it into law my focus has turned towards supporting young mothers and families that may face an unplanned pregnancy. I am anticipating legislation that will improve access to quality childcare as well as other services young parents or single parents may need.

JW: I am pro-life and so I favor protecting all human life from conception to a natural death. Right now, though, the state's heartbeat law is held up in court and so I favor seeing what the Supreme Court has to say about that.

Many states bordering Iowa have changed laws regarding the sale of marijuana. Do you support changing state law to loosen restrictions on the use of marijuana? Why or why not?

ZD: I think medical marijuana is about as far as I will go. I am open to how it could be helpful in specific medical situations. I am not in favor of recreational marijuana at all – I personally believe it leads to greater problems than what the state would gain from legalizing it.

LE: I do not support legalizing recreational marijuana use in Iowa.

MJ: I have not heard a lot of discussion on this. The federal government is definitely a heavy in this issue and if something is going to change, it really should start there.

DR: I do not support legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in our state. The unanticipated consequences states face when they legalize pot far outweigh any social benefit to that state, including net tax revenue.

JW: I do not. I have seen peer-reviewed studies showing that one use of marijuana, in any form, changes a brain forever, especially if the brain has not been fully developed. Human brains do not complete development until the mid-20s. Until we know more about the effects of THC on the brain and other things, I am not in favor of legalizing that substance.

Iowa has a wonderful law on CBD oil, which is the part of marijuana that has been found to be helpful for diseases and pain. It is the part that does not make a person high and the studies that I have read and understand show tremendous value in that portion of marijuana.

Name three areas Democrats and Republicans can find common ground during the 2024 legislative session.

ZD: Making adoption cheaper, addressing issues with the foster care system, and addressing ongoing mental health issues.

LE: When you look at any legislative session, roughly 75-80 percent of bills are passed with bi-partisan support. To say that Democrats and Republicans can't find common ground is a fallacy. Unfortunately, this is rarely reported or celebrated as good news doesn't sell papers or gain social media clicks, nor is it good campaign rhetoric.

This session, I believe that there will be bipartisan support for early childhood legislation that will expand access to preschool, support improving early childhood literacy and increase access to daycare services.

MJ: I'll even name four. The majority party's priorities this session will be: Improving education outcomes; maintaining a safe and secure Iowa; ensuring Iowa's strong economy; and keeping government transparent and efficient.

I believe we can find common ground on every single one of those issues. An overwhelming majority of bills passed each year are done with bipartisan support.

DR: I serve on several committees where we find common ground on most issues. Health and Human Services we agree on most legislation helping families thrive in Iowa. We can find common ground for mental health services, foster care, childcare services and rural hospitals. In Commerce we work well together on policies that may affect consumers, modernizing and updating state code and regulations in place for businesses.

JW: A resolution to condemn Hamas and support Israel for the cowardly attack on Israel by Hamas on Oct. 7; protecting children from online pornography; human trafficking.

Are there any issues of personal priority to you that you plan to address this year? Is there any legislation you intend to introduce? Explain.

ZD: Introducing a bill of equal protection for human beings in the womb – a bill that would actually abolish abortion. Helping single mothers with childcare and health insurance, try to incentivize fathers to take care of their families, and an overall support of the nuclear family in Iowa.

LE: I will be sponsoring a bill to expand the statewide voluntary preschool program beyond its current 10-hour-per-week minimum, increase 4-year-old preschool funding and increase access to 4-year-old preschool.

I will also be supporting or co-sponsoring bills to improve school safety, support local EMS services and bills to address concerns about pharmacy benefit managers, and creating a level playing field for local main street pharmacies.

MJ: I am working on a few bills and am always ready to hear ideas. One of them expands HF 2317 that was signed into law on March 1, 2022. Division VI of that legislation excludes retirement income from Iowa taxable income for eligible taxpayers for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2023. We have started to see the roll out and implications of that legislation. I am not sure we caught everyone we intended to catch. I am working on a bill to include more options for retirees trying to access the income tax exemption.

DR: I have several bills I filed last session to follow up on including cross county titling of vehicles, local control of short-term rental properties, a bill relating to the minimal state aid formula for school districts. I am also working on commerce bills that support the availability and access to property insurance coverage for consumers. One of the bills I am running will extend the notice of cancellation sent to customers from insurance companies. Personal priorities are taxes, economic growth, school safety, the carbon pipeline process, supporting daycares, nursing homes, mental health services and overall healthcare for northwest Iowa rural areas.

JW: I am pretty passionate about protecting people's rights and protecting people from predators. I have legislation that addresses both of these issues. I also have a bill that kind of goes to the question above that will require unmarried fathers of unborn children to pay pre-birth child expenses, kind of like child support only it would be for pre-birth expenses.

So often we hear women say that they have to have an abortion because they can't afford the costs of childbirth. Well, often women have to tap into state welfare to have the baby. The man in this situation has no expense until the child is born and that often means the child suffers from poor pre-birth care and so it is time that men start paying their share as a consequence of their actions the same as women. So, the cost of car seats, pre-birth vitamins and checkups would be a shared expense, not just one for the woman. I believe that this is something that both Republicans and Democrats would get behind. Of course the baby's father would be confirmed if need be.

What are some of the biggest concerns you're hearing from constituents in your district?

ZD: As of recently, a few of the biggest concerns are the state impeding local control of how money is spent or taxed at the local level. I had many constituents contact me upset about the Satanic idol statue at the capitol.

LE: The CO2 pipeline/eminent domain, taxes (both income tax and property tax), access to daycare, attracting employees to rural Iowa, and availability of affordable housing are issues that have consistently been topics of discussion throughout the interim.

MJ: I am hearing from a lot of folks that they appreciate the work the legislature has done, but that perhaps it is time to take a deep breath. We have made a lot of big, bold and comprehensive changes since we've had the trifecta. While it may be tempting to keep pushing, I am hearing from folks that we should slow down and let the system settle a bit.

DR: This year I've talked to many constituents who are clearly experiencing the effects of accumulative inflation. The annual rates of +7 percent in 2021, 6.5 percent in 2022 and now +3.4 percent in 2023 have resulted in food costs going up +23.5 percent in that same period of time (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). In fact most goods and services have increased similarly during this same time. I do think the tax relief policies now law are going to be a big help to us all. In the Iowa senate we are committed to working together, and to ensure all Iowans have an opportunity to enjoy a higher quality of life. For me that means you can keep and use the dollars you've worked hard for to provide for yourself and your family. While that doesn't fix the economic pressures we face as a nation it does help here in Iowa.

JW: Property taxes are a big issue. It is the most-hated tax that we have. We had a very big property tax bill last year and I anticipate that we will address it further.

Beyond that people are really worried about the economy and how inflation is affecting their lives. That is really the biggest concern that I have fielded.

After that, education issues are another big issue in which people are concerned about our K-12 education system as well as the university system that we have in Iowa. Iowans want their K-12 education system to be, once again, the best in the country and we will strive to do just that.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

ZD: N/A

LE: N/A

MJ: Over the years, I have had to take tough votes – I'm not there for headlines. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, not make news. Voting "no" does not always indicate my vote on the policy, but rather it might just be unconstitutional. I have had pretty good foresight about which bills will go down. We don't always hear the follow-up story from the courts. I do my best to uphold the Constitution and my constituent's expectations of me.

DR: I am looking forward to representing District 5 in the Iowa State Senate this session.

JW: N/A