Skip to content

ISSN 2834-183X (Print)

ISSN 2834-1864 (Online)

Rep. Steven Holt

Rep. Steven Holt

Freedom Watch 04/13/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
Democrats: Don’t Trust Free Men & Women   
Yesterday I floor-managed legislation to passage in the Iowa House that further advances the fundamental right to keep & bear arms. HF 654 creates an optional firearms education program for our public schools; allows our young adults to legally carry firearms in regent university and community college parking lots; and clears up some ambiguous language in the firearms sections of code. The legislation also allows law-abiding moms, dads and spouses, who have been through background checks and have a current Permit To Carry, to be able to drop their kids and loved ones off at school and lawfully have their firearm in their privately owned vehicle, as long as the weapon is out of sight. Otherwise, we have in effect been disarming law-abiding citizens going about their daily business in their own vehicles. This particularly provision of the legislation brought out the true colors of House Democrats and is the topic of this edition of Freedom Watch.

House Democrats blamed an inanimate object for school shootings, engaged in emotional outbursts not grounded in facts or commonsense, and made the case over and over again during floor debate that the solution to ending school violence is to disarm law-abiding citizens. They even advanced an amendment to create red flag laws in Iowa, thereby denying due process to the citizens of Iowa.

During debate I stated, “None of the shootings referred to during debate, and none of the school shootings that I’m aware of that have taken place, involve a parent with a permit to carry or an educator with a permit to carry going up to a school to drop off their loved ones and just suddenly deciding to commit violence. All of these things are premeditated. I am personally way more comfortable with the idea of law-abiding citizens being allowed to carry a firearm, because like I said, the bad guys don’t care what the law says, they will kill indiscriminately. And one armed citizen with a proficiency in firearms can eliminate the threat.”

Attorney legislators in the Democrat caucus blatantly advanced falsehoods on the floor during debate about offensive weapons such as machine guns and bombs now being allowed in school parking lots. This was absurd, laughable and blatant misinformation easily exposed by a simple review of Iowa code, which prohibits offensive weapons for all but a select few, such as law enforcement and military personnel. They either knew this and decided to mislead the public and the media or were too ignorant to read the code before debate.

Democrats spoke about the loss of life caused by school shootings, while ignoring the millions of children lost to abortion because of their support for killing unborn children, even up until birth. They also ignored or failed to understand that it is their moral relativism that has led to a collapse of the values that produce strong children and adults, producing the mental illness that leads to school shootings.

The debate on this legislation gives compelling reasons why Democrats should not be in control of the government of free men and women, because they don’t trust them, and will move to deny their freedoms as soon as they are given the opportunity to do so.

Republicans will continue to stand up for fundamental rights in Iowa, recognizing that it is not about the gun, but rather about the character of the person holding the gun. Republicans will also continue to stand up for the founding values that come from God, that produce strong families and stable societies, and against the assault and the lies being advanced by the Left against our children, our culture and our nation.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Freedom Watch 04/05/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
No Legal Mumbo-Jumbo: “Bathroom Bill” Explained 
The Governor recently signed Senate File 482 into law. I floor-managed this legislation to passage in the House out of concern for student safety and privacy. The bill addresses student privacy in bathrooms, changing rooms, and on school trips. In this edition of Freedom Watch, I will provide a non-legalistic, simple explanation of this legislation, in response to questions I have seen and inaccurate information being advanced. For more legal terminology, please visit the link at the bottom of this email.

Question: What basic information should I know about Senate File 482?

Answer: Simply put, the bill requires biological girls to use the girl’s bathroom or changing facility and biological boys to use the boy’s bathroom or changing facility in school. On school trips, hotel rooms must be assigned based on biology.

Question: How is it determined who is a boy and who is a girl?

Answer: The law clears up any confusion or debate; the child’s official birth certificate determines if the child is a boy or girl, which is based on biology. It’s a simple and uniform way to ensure every student is treated the same.

Question: What if a student wants more privacy and doesn’t want to use their designated bathroom?

Answer: Parents can request accommodation for their student through the school. School officials must offer reasonable options for alternative facilities. This can include a single occupancy bathroom or changing room, but the school cannot allow the student to use a bathroom that is designated for the opposite sex if a student of the opposite sex is present or could be present.

Question: What do schools have to do to comply with the law?

Answer: Schools need to be sure their bathrooms and changing rooms are designated for either boys or girls. A single occupancy bathroom or changing room can be designated for anyone as long as only one person occupies the room at a time. Schools are not required to close bathrooms or change the construction of their facilities; they must simply designate bathroom and changing facility use based on biology on the child’s birth certificate. The biological standard for facility use has been in force in our nation since 1887 and has only recently come into question.

Question: What if I believe a school is not following the law?

Answer: If you believe a school is not following the law it is easy to address the issue. First, provide written notice to the school describing the violation. If the school does not address the issue within three days, you can file a complaint with the Iowa Attorney General’s office. The Attorney General will investigate and take appropriate action.

This legislation is about protecting the privacy and safety of our children in school and on school field trips. It keeps politics out of bathrooms and changing facilities and allows our students to focus on learning without loss of privacy and safety resulting from ideology not rooted in science.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Freedom Watch 03/30/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
Torchlight
I have not published a newsletter for several weeks, due to a hectic schedule. With some time today to put my thoughts on paper, I will produce a series of newsletters over the next few days to catch up on what has been happening in your Capitol in Des Moines. In this edition of Freedom Watch – Torchlight.

Over the last few days, the issue I have heard about most in messages left on my phone, in texts and in emails, is stopping the use of eminent domain for the CO2 pipeline projects. The common question is, “what more can we do to get the Senate to pass HF565?” Good question. HF565 was overwhelmingly passed by the House, and creates strong protections against the use of eminent domain for the CO2 pipeline private economic development projects. Unfortunately, it was not advanced by the Senate before the final funnel deadline.

The Iowa Republican Platform states, “We oppose federal or state government taking private property away from the owner for the use of another private party. Eminent domain should be used only for public use.” This fundamental principle in my party’s platform recognizes the increasing abuse of government power through the seizure of private property for the economic gain of others, and stands boldly in support of George Washington’s perspective on the linkage between private property and liberty, when he said, “Freedom and Property Rights are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other.” Why then, did protections not pass in the Senate?

This is as black and white as any issue I have seen debated in my nine years of service in the House. Right and wrong in this debate is crystal clear, and a recent poll shows overwhelming opposition to the use of eminent domain for the CO2 pipelines, because Iowans get that the issues at stake go beyond economic arguments and dire industry declarations.

Some folks are using smoke and mirrors and predictions of gloom to confuse this debate. Perhaps it is the mission orientation that comes from 20 years in the Marine Corps that causes me to “cut to the chase” on issues, to look at what is fundamental and at the heart of the matter. This is pretty simple. It is not about whether the pipeline should be built or not, or the questionable science upon which this is based; it is not about whether ethanol lives or dies based on the proposed pipelines; or whether it makes sense to bury a marketable product under the ground. Nope, this boils down to one question: Should eminent domain be used to strip away the private property of my fellow citizens so that that it can be given to another private party for economic development? Easy answer: Hell No.

Remember the words of Washington. Freedom and property rights are inseparable. Freedom ceases to exist without the right of private property. Regardless of how much these proposed projects might benefit ethanol, regardless of how much they might benefit agriculture, regardless of how much money the investors involved stand to make off of taxpayer funded credits, the heart of the matter remains the same: Eminent domain should only be used for public use, and folks, this is not a public use project. The pipelines should therefore be built using voluntary easements, and not by allowing private investors to use government power to seize the property of others.

As to why every Republican is not on board with protecting private property rights in this case, there are a number of factors. Some believe these projects are essential for agriculture in Iowa and therefore they believe this justifies the use of eminent domain; some believe the pipelines fit the “public use” standard; some believe there is already a process in place and the Legislature should not pass additional requirements; and some have other motivations for opposing these protections. I respect these viewpoints, but I respectfully do not agree, and I have rebutted these arguments at length in past newsletters and in my remarks during floor debate. My position remains rooted in what is at the heart of the matter and captured in my party’s platform: “We oppose federal or state government taking private property away from the owner for the use of another private party. Eminent domain should be used only for public use.”

I will continue to do all I can and use the tools at my disposal to stand up against the use of eminent domain for private economic development projects. Stripping away the private property rights of an American citizen for another’s economic gain destroys a fundamental birthright we all share as Americans, a right Washington pointed out is inextricably linked to our future as a free people. No amount of economic gain is worth surrendering this birthright, a fundamental liberty we fought a Revolutionary War to secure.

As to what more can be done to secure the protections for private property in HF565, we must use our voices, as I am doing now, to stand up against this assault on the private property rights of our fellow citizens. If the right of private property is not secure for all of us, it is secure for none of us.   A magic wand to show us the way would certainly make things easier, but none of us has one. What we do have as Americans and Iowans is the torch of liberty to light our way. It has served us pretty well since 1776.

I am proud to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Freedom Watch 03/09/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
Enough Is Enough
Week 9 in the Iowa House saw passage of highly consequential legislation for the state of Iowa. Many of these initiatives were about protecting our young children. I will highlight our efforts in this edition of Freedom Watch.

Senate File 75 – Rural Emergency Hospitals

  • Establishes licensure in Iowa for Rural Emergency Hospitals.
  • This was a priority bill for the Republican caucus from Day 1 of the 2023 Legislative Session.
  • A rural emergency hospital is a health care facility that maintains a 24-hour emergency room, but does not include acute inpatient care.
  • Establishing licensure in Iowa for this kind of health care facility allows these facilities to be more successful by receiving reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid at a higher rate.

HF 135 – Student Right to Know

  • This legislation is aimed at providing more transparency for students at the state’s Regent Universities.
  • This bipartisan initiative requires the Board of Regents to publish a report that includes information on income and debt calculations for students, to allow them to make an informed choice as to the career path they choose. I was excited to floor-manage this legislation. It now heads to the Senate for consideration.

House File 623 – Prohibition on Gender Procedures on Children

  • This legislation prohibits transgender surgeries and harmful hormonal therapy from being used on Iowa children.
  • Two hospital systems in Iowa perform these therapies or surgeries on children. Unity Point provides hormone therapy and puberty blockers, and UIHC provides hormone therapy, puberty blockers as well as top surgery to children.
  • Importantly, there is very limited data available on the long-term effects of these types of treatment. The few studies that have tracked long-term effects do not support the idea that this treatment lowers the rate of suicide in transgender individuals. On the contrary, the only thing that is clear is that suicide is reduced when children are allowed to go through puberty, when 80-95% will return to identifying with the gender of their biology. Otherwise, studies show that those who have had these treatments are 7 to 20 times more likely to commit suicide.
  • Children are just too young to make these permanent, life-changing decisions.
  • Under current practice, these children are being allowed, or even encouraged, to make these permanent decisions, with life altering consequences such as sterilization, before they have been given the opportunity to grow up and learn more about themselves.
  • This law will help give Iowa children the time to mature and grow into themselves before making such a life-altering decision. I floor-managed this legislation to passage with great concern for the safety of our children. This bill is headed to the Governor’s desk.

House File 348 – Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation Curriculum

  • This legislation will prohibit any classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in K-6th grade.
  • We send our kids to school to learn subjects such as reading, writing, math and science. This bill will allow teachers to use their time on those topics and leave discussions on social issues to parents.
  • Teachers should teach and parents should parent.
  • Second graders in Ames were told they could choose to be a boy, girl, both, neither or something else. This is unacceptable This legislation is not intended to stop all discussion, but rather to prohibit instruction, curriculum or promotion of these topics in school.
  • Students with same-sex parents or teachers in a same-sex marriage would not be limited from talking about those relationships.

HF 597 – Removing Sexually Explicit Materials from Schools

  • This legislation is intended to restrict sexually explicit material in Iowa schools.
  • This bill requires that all books in school libraries must be age appropriate and expands the definition of age appropriate in code to include what is NOT age appropriate.
  • Age appropriate does not include any material with graphic descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act.
  • I apologize for the graphic nature of this discussion, but because of the very graphic books that have been found in Iowa schools, I want to be clear about what we’re talking about. A sex act in this legislation is defined as:
    • “penetration of the penis into the vagina or anus; contact between the mouth and genitalia or by contact between the genitalia of one person and the genitalia or anus of another person; contact between the finger or hand of one person and the genitalia or anus of another person.” There are additional specifics but I believe the point is made.
  • I still cannot believe that this is legislation we needed to pass, but it was. Unfortunately, books that contain graphic images and passages of exactly the types of sexual acts prohibited in this legislation have been found in Iowa schools.
  • If you are skeptical that this material could possibly be in Iowa schools, please take the time to view the passages and images from these three examples using your search engine for these titles:
    • Let’s Talk About It contains sexually explicit illustrations with instructions, tips and suggestions on how to perform various sex acts along with masturbation.  The book also suggests safe ways to consume porn.
    • Gender Queer contains graphic illustrations of oral sex.
    • Push contains detailed and disturbing instances of incest and sexual molestation.

Iowa children, under current practice, could be subjected to untested and unproven gender reassignment procedures and therapies that result in permanent physical changes, lifetime mental conflict, and increased risk of suicide. In some Iowa schools, which should be places of wholesome learning, our children are being exposed to explicit, disgusting materials for which there is no justification. Additionally, some educators have chosen to use our places of learning for indoctrination centers, without accountability. This week, Iowa House Republicans responded decisively on these issues, and the message is clear – enough is enough. More must be done, so stay tuned.

 

Freedom Watch 03/05/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
First, Do No Harm: Protecting Our Children
As promised, this is my second newsletter covering Week 8 of the 2023 legislative session.

On Thursday February 23rd the House Government Oversight Committee, of which I am a part, questioned Dr. Katie Imborek, Professor of Family Medicine and Co-Director of the University of Iowa LGBTQ+ Clinic, and Dr. Dave Williams, Chief Medical Officer for UnityPoint Health. They were questioned on issues related to transgender surgeries, procedures and treatments for patients under the age of 18 performed at their institutions.

Representative Brooke Boden, Chair of the Committee, also inquired with Mercy One and Broadlawns, but neither organization performs these procedures or treatments on minors.

University of Iowa LBGTQ+ Clinic performs mastectomies for female minors wishing to transition to male. The clinic’s services also include cross-sex hormone therapy and puberty blockers for children. It is important to note that this is all done with parental consent. The clinic does not perform genital surgeries on minors.

UnityPoint Health does not perform any transgender surgeries on minors. It does provide hormone therapy and puberty blockers to minors with parental consent.

Questions from Republican members of the Committee focused on several themes:

·        First, Republicans questioned whether providing gender transition to minors violates the first duty of medicine: do no harm. Cross-sex hormones have long-term irreversible side effects such as infertility, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and risk of stroke. Puberty blockers are described as completely reversible, yet they come with the risk of sterilization, osteoporosis and decreased growth spurts. Surgical procedures are irreversible. If a minor female has her breasts removed and then realizes it was a mistake, she cannot have her breasts reattached.

·        Second, while parental consent is required for these procedures and therapies, Republicans questioned if it is truly informed consent. Minors are not old enough to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, or drink alcohol. The prefrontal cortex – the part of the brain responsible for rational decision-making is not fully developed until age 25. As a society, we have already determined that minors are not mature enough to make many life-altering decisions, yet current practice allows teens to make these irreversible determinations on therapies and procedures, including the removal of healthy body parts.

·        Third, Republicans advanced the belief, supported by mountains of information, that the data and evidence simply do not support the safety or effectiveness of gender transition services. The British Medical Journal (https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382) ran an article on February 23rd, 2023, which contained the following important facts:

“Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined last year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors. Finland’s Council for Choices in Health Care, a monitoring agency for the country’s public health services, issued similar guidelines, calling for psychosocial support as the first line treatment.

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalization. And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making” for minors with gender dysphoria and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.

Sweden conducted systematic reviews in 2015 and 2022 and found the evidence on hormonal treatment in adolescents “insufficient and inconclusive.” Its new guidelines note the importance of factoring the possibility that young people will detransition, in which case “gender confirming treatment thus may lead to a deteriorating of health and quality of life (i.e., harm).”

In 2022 the state of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration commissioned an overview of systematic reviews looking at outcomes “important to patients” with gender dysphoria, including mental health, quality of life, and complications. Two health research methodologists at McMaster University carried out the work, analyzing systematic reviews and concluding that “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.” The body of evidence, they said, was “not sufficient” to support treatment decisions.”

Further supporting our deep concerns as to the efficacy of these procedures is this perspective from Roger Hiatt, Jr., M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist with more than thirty years of experience working with thousands of troubled youth, including hundreds struggling with the issue of Gender Dysphoria: “Suicidality is a close companion of transgender identity throughout the life cycle. Despite all medical and surgical efforts, the suicide rate among transgender individuals is documented to be about 19 times higher than for those who embrace their chromosomal sex. The only outcome that actually results in decreased suicidality is “desistance,” or a return to gender identity consistent with biological reality. The pivotal event leading to children abandoning a transgender identity is the onset of puberty. Puberty blockers thus adversely impact the probability of the very outcome with the most favorable prognosis. While 80-90% of affected kids will desist without these interventions, almost all who initiate puberty blockers will continue to identify as the opposite sex into adulthood. Efforts to medicalize this psychiatric disorder rob otherwise healthy youth of the opportunity to rediscover their innate biology and instead doom them to a lifetime as medical patients in pursuit of an impossible dream: a change in biological sex.”

Dr. Hiatt’s statement that most children that reach puberty will return to gender identity consistent with their biological sex is echoed by the American College of Pediatricians. Its studies show that 80-95 percent of children who experience gender dysphoria will accept their biological sex by late adolescence. However, if puberty is blocked by medication, this obviously changes the outcome, and not in a good way.

It must also be noted in this discussion, as some doctors demand that they be allowed to continue these procedures, and that legislation should not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, that the history of medical science is replete with disproven interventions once held in high regard by the medical establishment. These include leeches, frontal lobotomies, and physician tested and approved cigarette brands, just to name a few.

Just recently (08/2020), The American Journal of Psychiatry was compelled to retract a study erroneously affirming that hormones and surgery yielded significant improvement in mental health for gender incongruent patients, stating, “Our conclusion based on the findings at hand in the article, which used neither a prospective cohort design nor a randomized controlled trial design, was too strong.”

Due to the lack of conclusive evidence that these therapies and surgeries are ultimately effective, and the unacceptably high risk of doing harm to our children, based a growing collection of evidence, I authorized House Study Bill 214 to move forward. This legislation will prohibit the use of hormone therapy, puberty blockers and irreversible surgeries on children (minors under age 18) in Iowa. I am floor-manager of this legislation, and it passed out of Judiciary Committee at the end of Week 8. It is now eligible for debate by the full House.

I am hopeful we will move quickly to pass these important protections for our young people.

Freedom Watch 03/04/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
CO2 Pipelines & Eminent Domain, Part 2 
In last week’s newsletter, I discussed the ongoing debate on the use of eminent domain for the proposed multi-state CO2 pipeline projects. This issue is of great importance because it involves a fundamental right grounded in the very origins of our Republic. In this week’s newsletter, I will offer additional perspective on the issues of importance in this debate.

The compelling force behind these projects is of course climate change policy. In The Inflation Reduction Act (horribly named by liberal Democrats, because they know it will actually do just the opposite), Congress significantly increased the value of tax credits related to carbon capture. Iowa being a leader in the production of Ethanol, is now front and center in the push to build CO2 pipelines to transport the carbon created in the production of Ethanol to storage sites.

The tax credits I previously mentioned create a huge incentive for any company (and its investors) that can store carbon. Without the taxpayer funded credits from the federal government, this entire project would not make economic sense. This creates an interesting scenario for investors in the pipeline projects, who stand to make a great deal of money, and it can certainly be argued that much of the money that makes this possible comes straight out of taxpayer’s pockets. Wealthy private investors will make lots of money from taxpayer funded incentives to capture carbon, and by the way, they seek to use eminent domain to take other people’s property in order to make it less expensive for them to build the pipeline. Wow. This is an obscene mutation of the capitalist system I love, but I digress. Let’s get back to the central issue of eminent domain.

Last week, I discussed a court case known as Kelo. This was a U.S. Supreme Court case that many constitutional scholars believe was decided incorrectly by the court, and it opened the door for the seizure of private property by eminent domain for economic development purposes as opposed to essential government services. The Kelo ruling effectively confused the proper use of eminent domain between “public use,” which had always been the standard, and “public benefit.”  This decision in large measure helps explain the situation currently underway in Iowa.

Under the Kelo decision, it was a government entity that seized private property and eventually turned it over to a private developer. In the case of eminent domain before us here in Iowa, this would be taken a step further, since the Iowa Utilities Board is being asked by private entities (pipeline companies) to seize the property of other private entities (landowners). This appears to be somewhat unprecedented and takes us another step down the road of government power being used to assault a fundamental, individual right. Put another way, private individuals seek to seize other private individual’s property for their own personal profit, using the power of government to do it. Unsettling to say the least. These companies and private investors should build their pipelines using voluntary easements and should not be allowed to use the blunt force of government to seize other people’s private property. It is really that simple.

Tim Whipple, Special Counsel for Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., who is representing some of our counties on this issue, wrote an excellent article explaining in simple terms what this all looks like and how it will play out moving forward. I have included a link here and I would encourage everyone to read it. It is on page 7 of the link to the Iowa County Magazine.

I continue to work with other legislators on this issue and will keep you informed on our efforts.

I will be publishing two newsletters this week as I work to keep you informed about what is happening at your State Capitol.

 

Freedom Watch 02/25/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
CO2 Pipelines & Eminent Domain 
In a number of areas across Iowa, the proper use of eminent domain has become a huge point of discussion as a result of the proposed multi-state CO2 pipeline projects. The route of these pipelines in Iowa would impact thousands of Iowans, a great deal of farmland and many of our communities.

Thomas G. West, a Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas and a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, stated for the Heritage Foundation, “Sometimes government needs to take private property for such purposes as roads, public buildings, and military bases. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution provides, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Besides the “just compensation” limit, in both the state and federal constitutions, government could take property only for “public use.” Government was therefore forbidden, as one federal court stated, to “take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another.” Today, it is routine, as famously shown in the Kelo case, for government to take property from one person and give it to someone else who is expected to pay more taxes, create more jobs, or build more attractive buildings.”

The Kelo case referenced by Professor West was a U.S. Supreme Court case that many conservative legal scholars believe was decided incorrectly by a liberal court, and it opened the door for the seizure of private property by eminent domain for economic development purposes as opposed to essential government services. The Kelo ruling effectively confused the proper use of eminent domain between “public use,” which had always been the standard, and “public benefit.”

The Kelo decision has resulted in private‐​public collusion against private property rights since government can condemn private property for the benefit another private user. This helps explain the situation currently underway in Iowa.

My concern is that if public benefit is to be the standard, as opposed to public use (essential government services), then private property becomes meaningless in our country, and no one can be secure in their property.

One of our most fundamental principles of liberty as Americans is the right of private property, and I will go on record right now saying that I believe eminent domain should only be used for essential government services, and the CO2 pipeline does not meet that definition. This pipeline is not an essential government service for public use, but rather it is a private economic development project. I do not believe that the blunt force of government should be allowed to be used by private individuals seeking eminent domain to seize other people’s property for their own economic benefit.

I have been working for months with my local county supervisors, with Representative Bobby Kaufmann, who is a champion for private property rights, with Speaker of the House Pat Grassley, with Senator Jeff Taylor in the Senate, and with the Iowa Farm Bureau, to come up with meaningful protections for the private property rights of landowners that were there first and do not want eminent domain used to force this pipeline through their property. The intent of this legislation, HF368, is not to stop the pipeline, but rather to take the realities of the moment into consideration as we attempt to enact into law meaningful and commonsense protections for our landowners.

HF368 has these nine major requirements:

  1. It tells the Iowa Utilities Board that they will not grant a permit for a CO2 pipeline unless the project is in compliance with existing zoning ordinances, and that the pipeline company must have acquired all local county zoning permits. This is important because it is local county officials who are closest to the people and who are most responsible for their citizens.
  2. It mandates that before a company can seek eminent domain, it must first acquire at least 90% of the pipeline route miles in the state through voluntary easements. While I do not believe that eminent domain is appropriate for this project, this requirement does allow for a path to success for the pipeline companies even though the bar is high and is in keeping with recommendations by the Iowa Farm Bureau.
  3. Requires the CO2 pipeline companies to submit regular progress reports on easement acquisition. This helps ensure accountability.
  4. Prohibits the Iowa Utilities Board from issuing a permit for a CO2 pipeline until the new safety guidelines are issued by the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. A CO2 pipeline recently failed in another state following a flood, and many of our residents are concerned about the safety of the pipeline. It is prudent and appropriate to have these new guidelines in place before proceeding.
  5. Requires a pipeline company seeking the use of eminent domain for a multi-state pipeline project to successfully acquire all applicable out-of-state pipeline construction and zoning permits for all the other states the pipeline will go through prior to being granted a permit to construct the pipeline in Iowa. Why would we want construction of this pipeline to take place in Iowa, and have our valuable farmland disrupted, if it ultimately is never completed?
  6. Allows a landowner to file a complaint with the IUB and to notify the relevant County Board of Supervisors of a violation of land restoration standards. This is to ensure accountability for the pipeline companies and protections for our landowners.
  7. The bill expands damages that can be compensated for under Code Section 479B.29 to include soil compaction, damage to soil or water conservation structures, and damage to irrigation or drainage systems. Again, this is to ensure accountability for the pipeline companies and protections for our landowners.
  8. The bill further expands the claims a landowner can bring to include any identifiable loss resulting from pipeline activity. Once again, this is an important protection for our landowners.
  9. It allows that a landowner may file an action of relief in either small claims or district court. As I have stated over and over, this is about our landowners, who were there first.

There are those in the ethanol industry and in renewable fuels who believe this pipeline project is vital for their economic survival. I have always supported legislation and initiatives to support renewable fuels, ethanol and our corn growers, and I will continue to do so. I of course am concerned about our ethanol industry, but as I said to those in the renewable fuel lobby when I met with them on this issue; I have no problem with the pipeline, but it needs to be built through voluntary easements, and not by using the blunt force of government to take other people’s property to do it.

Ads have now appeared attacking the Farm Bureau for supporting HF368. The ads accuse the Farm Bureau of joining with the Sierra Club to destroy agriculture. These ads reflect exactly what is wrong with politics in America today. They are incredibly misleading, engage in character assassination through association and never tell the viewer or listener about the eminent domain issue or the issues so many are concerned about. The Farm Bureau, in spite of many of their members being on different sides of this issue, has taken a principled stand in support of private property rights, and should be applauded.

I will say again, I have no issue with the pipeline, but rather with the tactics of those behind it who seek to conveniently use the power of government to take the property of others. For me, the right and wrong here could not be more clear. Our constitutional protections are not for sale to the highest bidder.

Freedom Watch — February 16, 2023

Books, Budgets, Reforms 

This week, I will highlight the important issues that have taken place since my last newsletter two weeks ago, as we complete week 6 in the Iowa House.

Government Oversight Hearing on Sexually Explicit Material in Schools:
The House Government Oversight Committee brought in five Iowa moms to share their experience challenging age-inappropriate books in their child’s school library or curriculum. These moms gave examples of sexually explicit descriptions and images, and shared stories of retaliation by teachers and administrators for voicing their concerns.

Democrats have been dismissive of the material that has been found in some Iowa schools, claiming it is not really an issue. Yet, these materials were so graphic that adults in attendance lowered their heads in embarrassment when the images were depicted and passages read, and a news reporter complained that his live shot was ruined by a parent in the background holding an image from a book that could not legally be shown on television. Given these facts, it is shocking that we even have to argue this point with House Democrats.

Clearly, many of these graphic books do not belong in our schools with children having unlimited access to them. If using the moving rating system, many of these books would be rated R or NC17. This discussion is not about banning books but rather about what is age-appropriate, and what parental notification and consent should be required.

The process to challenge a book is a bureaucratic mess and gives little or no power to parents. One of the moms had to hire a lawyer just to help navigate the one-sided process.

Government Oversight is working to set up another meeting with school administrators so they can share their perspective. I look forward to hearing their comments as we work toward legislation that will protect the innocence of our children and stand up for parental rights that are largely being ignored in some school districts.

Supplemental State Aid (SSA) for K-12 Schools:
In Week 5 the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, legislation to increase Supplemental State Aid (SSA) funding by 3%. SSA is the amount of funding the state supplies for each student in K-12 schools. Each year the Legislature is required to set this figure for the next fiscal year within 30 days of receiving the Governor’s budget. It is usually the first commitment of taxpayer dollars of the legislative session.

This SSA increase for Fiscal Year 2024 amounts to $106.8 million more than Fiscal Year 2023, for a total of about $3.7 billion in SSA for K-12 schools (over 40% of the overall state budget). It would bring per pupil funding to $7,635 per student, an increase of $222 over FY 2023. Republicans are responsible for record-high education investments over the last decade. K-12 education funding has increased by almost a billion new dollars over the last 10 years. The last time education funding was actually cut was in 2010, when Democrats controlled all three branches of government in Iowa.

As we pass legislation to address the issues of irrational wokeism and disregard for parental rights in some public schools, and give greater choice to parents through Educational Savings Accounts, we remain committed to doing all we can to make our public schools better. We know many of our public schools and most of our teachers are doing their best for their students. Additional legislation is moving to remove some of the administrative burdens placed on schools.

Medical Malpractice (Noneconomic Damages):
The Iowa House passed HF 161, which limits the amount of noneconomic damages that can be awarded for a medical malpractice claim at $2 million if the incident happened at a hospital and $1 million if it happened elsewhere.
In a case of medical malpractice that results in loss of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or death, there are three types of damages a jury can award:

  • Economic damages – Quantifiable damages like lost wages, loss of future earning capacity, and cost of medical bills. This legislation does not limit what can be awarded to the plaintiff in economic damages.
  • Punitive damages – Blatant disregard for the rights or safety of the patient. This legislation does not limit what can be awarded to the plaintiff in punitive damages. This bill mandates that punitive damages are to be awarded to the family, rather than a portion being awarded to the state, as is current law.
  • Noneconomic damages – Mental or emotional anguish or other suffering that is very real but cannot be quantified. This bill caps these noneconomic damages at $2 million for hospitals and $1 million elsewhere, adjusted for inflation annually beginning in 2028.

28 other states currently have a hard cap on noneconomic damages or total damages, including all of our surrounding states. Iowa ranks 44th in the nation for physicians per capita, and we are told that part of the problem attracting doctors to Iowa is the issue of malpractice insurance, which is linked to potential jury awards.

No amount of money can ever make up for the loss of a loved one, and I understand the arguments against caps on noneconomic damages. A dollar amount cannot bring back a loved one, but a massive jury award can close down a county hospital, which is a very real possibility in 2023 with no caps on noneconomic damages in place. This has been told to me over and over again by hospital officials in my legislative district. This was a difficult decision for me, but in the end, these concerns are the reason that I supported a hard cap on noneconomic damages.

Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation Curriculum:
This week, the House Education committee passed House File 8. It is now eligible for floor debate by the full House. This legislation prohibits any classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in K-6th grade. I would like to see this grade even higher, because this is a conversation best left to parents, and instead of simply having a discussion on these topics, the materials I have seen being used in some schools suggest that the objective is not to educate, but rather to indoctrinate and recruit. How else do you explain a poster in a second-grade classroom that proclaims to children that they can choose to be a boy, girl, both, neither or something else, and no one can decide for them?

We send our children to school to learn subjects like reading, writing, math. science and history. This week, a group of legislators, of which I was a part, heard from concerned teachers who came from all parts of the state to tell us they have less and less time to teach these critical subjects; instead, being mandated to spend more and more time on social emotional learning, surveys and gender ideology. This bill would help teachers to use their classroom time on topics that should be taught in school, leaving discussions on social issues more to the parents. Teachers should teach; parents should parent.

In light of the disinformation being spread, it is important to clarify what this legislation does and does not do.

What HF8 Does:

  • Prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in K-6th grade.
  • Prohibits classroom instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation in a manner that is not age appropriate, regardless of grade.
  • Allows teachers to stick to curriculum on school subjects like reading, writing, math, science, and history, while leaving the responsibility to discuss social issues where it belongs – with parents.

What HF8 Does NOT Do:

  • It does not ban sex education. State guidelines on sex education curriculum remain in code and this bill does not change or affect those guidelines. We are working to more clearly define what should be taught in sex education; it should be about reproductive education not gender identity. We are also considering a requirement that parents must opt their children into sex education classes, as opposed to opting out.
  • It does not stop information from being provided to students to prevent sexual abuse. Schools can provide students with necessary information without getting into gender identity and sexual orientation.
  • It does not ban books that contain LGBTQ characters. The book discussion relates to what is age appropriate; this argument is a smoke screen by those who do not want to be put in the impossible position of having to justify obscenity and pornography being supplied to children in some of our public schools.
  • It does not prevent a teacher in a same sex marriage from talking about or displaying photos of their spouse. This Legislation addresses curriculum.
  • It does not prevent students from discussing these topics themselves.
  • It does not allow for bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity. All current bullying policies apply, and instruction on treating others with respect (the Golden Rule) are not impacted.

We have much to do as we prepare to enter Week 7 of the 2023 legislative session. We are approaching the first funnel deadline, a self-imposed requirement that keeps us on track and functional, unlike Washington DC, which continues to drive most of the problems we face as Americans. I am grateful that sanity still reigns in Iowa.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!  — February 3, 2023

 

In week 4 of the 2023 Legislative Session, The House Education Committee advanced HF9, which will now be eligible for floor debate. The legislation is very simple – it requires parental consent before a school can affirm a student’s gender identity that is different from their birth certificate, prohibits schools from withholding information or encouraging students to withhold information from parents that relates to gender identity, and prohibits schools from coercing or encouraging students to undergo gender affirming treatments, instead leaving these decisions where they belong – with parents.

It is incredible that we even have to consider such a bill, but policies already in place in the Linn-Mar school district, and being considered in others, makes it necessary. Perhaps even more incredible than the reality of even needing to have this discussion is the response from Democrats to this common sense legislation intended to protect parental rights and authority over their own children.

What alternate version of reality are we living in when opponents of parental notification attack parents’ right to know what is happening to their own children? When they justify keeping parents in the dark by suggesting that parents who find out their children are having gender identity issues cannot be trusted to keep them safe? How have we arrived at the point in which some school officials believe they own our children?

During the committee hearing, Democrats did not want to talk about the impact on parents and families when information is withheld from them, or whether they had discussed these policies with concerned parents in Linn-Mar. They constantly expressed their belief that telling parents could make students questioning their gender less safe, while totally ignoring the real dangers of keeping parents in the dark when their children are going through such an emotional and stress-filled identity crisis.

When did we arrive at a point in which some education professionals believe they can discount parental rights, values, and views because they believe parents are not “professionals” like they are? During a Moms For Liberty Rally in Des Moines this week in which these issues were being discussed, a Des Moines school teacher started off her comments by mocking and questioning the intelligence of the legislators on the panel who disagreed with her. In that moment, she displayed the arrogance that is at the root of the deepening distrust between the education establishment and the parents who dare to question what is being taught to their children. Her comments clearly showed her disdain for all those who dared to question her viewpoint. She believed herself to be the smartest person in the room; but her arrogance and personal vitriol toward those who disagreed with her exposed that she is in reality part of the problem.

As we work to restore parental rights in education and stop the indoctrination of our children in some schools; as we stand up and say enough to those who would tell second graders that they can choose to be a boy, girl, both, neither or something else; as it becomes more and more clear that this ideology and indoctrination of our young children is fostering mental illness and emotional trauma, we must ask the hard question: How in the world did we get here and how do we return to sanity?

I am reassured by having met with my local school superintendents in the new House District 12 just today. I came away convinced that they are working incredibly hard to meet the needs of their students as they try to navigate the increasing complexities of the societal struggle we find ourselves in. They believe in their students; they believe in public education, and they are doing their best to meet the needs of their students. I appreciated this meeting very much, and I look forward to hearing their perspective going forward.

As for those voices in education who believe they have a right to deny parents vital knowledge related to their children’s well-being and believe that telling second graders they can choose their gender is honest and healthy, all I can say is, “Beam me up Scotty,” because I must be in the wrong country and on the wrong planet.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Freedom Watch 01/26/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
Why we passed the School Choice Bill
Parental choice in education and improving public schools are the top priorities for Republicans in the 2023 Legislative session. The Governor campaigned on school choice all over the state. Republicans running for the House and Senate campaigned all over the state on school choice and improving public schools. I spoke about it often. On election night, the Governor won an historic victory, with a margin of nearly 20 points, Republicans in the Senate gained enough seats for a super-majority, and in the House, we gained seats to the historic level of 64. Now, we will keep our promises.

Our first action in keeping our promises to Iowans was to pass the Governor’s Student’s First Act, bringing real school choice to all the citizens of Iowa. There have been a number of distortions and lots of disinformation put out by those opposed to greater parental choice in education. I think it important to set the record straight about how the program works, how it fits in with our commitment to support the great equalizer that is public education, claims about school choice that are not supported by facts, and what has happened in other parts of the state outside District 12 that has forced the issue of school choice.

How It Works & Fits With Public Education:

Key provisions of the STUDENTS FIRST ACT include:

· Parents who choose to enroll their children in an accredited private school will receive $7,598 for approved educational expenses, the amount of per pupil funding currently allocated annually by the state for each student. Parents can use these funds for tuition, fees, and other qualified expenses at an accredited private school. This funding will flow through a third-party vendor selected by the Board of Education. This system never places the funds directly into the parent’s hands, but rather the funds go from a savings account straight to the educational institution.

· Other student funding generated by categorical state funding formulas will remain with public school districts. It is estimated that Iowa’s public schools will retain about $1,205 per pupil in categorical funding for each student who resides in their district but chooses to attend a private school. Since public schools currently receive no funding for students enrolled in a private school, this would be an increase in funding.

· The Students First Act also allows public school districts the flexibility to use unspent and ongoing funding from Teacher Leadership and Compensation, Professional Development, and Talented & Gifted categorical funds for increasing teacher salaries. There is currently almost $100 million statewide in unspent funds in these categoricals and almost $250 million is allocated to them each year.

Claims & Facts:

Claim: Public money should not be used for private schools.
Facts: Taxpayer money, often referred to in this discussion as public money, already goes to many private entities all over the state and nation. We do not require WIC or SNAP recipients to use government grocery stores. Medicare recipients are not forced to use only government hospitals. We have Pell Grants for education that are used at private institutions. Here in Iowa, the Iowa Tuition Grant has been used for years to fund students going to private colleges. The Governor’s school choice initiative extends what we do for college students to K-12 students.

Claim: Data shows that school choice does not improve student outcomes.
Facts: As is the case with almost every controversial issue, you can find data to support both sides of an argument. However, I believe the data on school choice convincingly shows that both private and public-school outcomes improve where school choice is present. The vast majority of studies support this conclusion.

Claim: Private Schools do not take special needs students.
Facts: Studies show that a large percentage of students in private schools in other states with school choice programs have special needs. There are also special needs students in Iowa’s private schools. Additionally, once private schools have access to increased funding with the creation of school choice, they could potentially increase their support of students with special needs.

Claim: Private Schools discriminate against certain students while public schools take all students.
Facts: While it is certainly true that public schools take almost all students, private schools exist to meet a variety of needs of families who want something other than what public schools offer. Educational Savings Accounts have been found constitutional in numerous court cases. The funding is placed in a savings account to be used by the student at the accredited private school that best fits their needs and does not go directly from the government to the school.

Claim: Accredited private schools lack accountability requirements.
Facts: Accredited private schools have numerous annual reporting and accreditation requirements. Ultimately, answering to parents is the most important measure of accountability, because parents can measure success for their children far better than government agencies ever could.

Claim: School Choice will destroy or weaken public schools.
Facts: In states where aggressive school choice programs have existed for over twenty years, only about 6% of students attend private schools. On average it is a very small percentage of students who leave public schools for private schools when these programs go into effect (1-3%). Of those percentages, even smaller amounts leave rural public schools.

Claim: School choice is an attack on public-school teachers.
Facts: Iowa is blessed to have many resolute public-school teachers doing their best to meet the needs of their students in a challenging environment. We should pray for our teachers every day, while working to find ways to help them be more successful. We must also reject the arguments of special interest groups that seek to confuse the issues before us. School choice does not in any way take away from the work our public-school teachers are doing. We can support public education and public-school teachers, while also embracing positive change.

Claim: The state cannot afford school choice.
Facts: Statement from the Speaker of the Iowa House, Pat Grassley: “I’ve heard some people cite concerns about the cost of HSB 1. As former Appropriations chair, I can assure you that we would not pass any plan that our state cannot afford. House Republicans have a reputation at the Capitol for being very cautious when it comes to the state budget. This has not changed. When fully implemented in FY 29, the projected cost of this program is $341 million. In the same year, the state is projected to spend $3.9 BILLION on public education. Given current projections, in that same year the state will have a $3.1 BILLION ending balance and $3.7 BILLION in the Taxpayer Relief Fund. Ultimately, $341 million amounts to just 4% of the state’s annual budget. This program is not an existential threat to public education. Iowa can afford HSB 1.”

What is Driving School Choice:

Unfortunately, some of our public schools in Iowa are not always serving our students well. This is especially true in some urban schools. Teachers, parents, and students are reporting serious discipline problems in some schools, and a small number are listed as failing schools due to plummeting academic scores.

Regretfully, it is also true that some of our public schools are ignoring the concerns of parents and are engaging in disturbing indoctrination of children, even in elementary school. In the Ames Community School District, a poster was displayed in a second-grade classroom. It was titled “Transgender Affirming,” and contained what appeared to be an image of a male wearing female clothing. The caption stated, “Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them.” In the Linn-Mar District, the school policy allows children to gender transition and change their name while withholding this information from parents, who are ultimately responsible for their welfare and safety. It is these and other real issues in some school districts in Iowa that have resulted in hundreds of emails and documents from concerned parents arriving in the in-boxes of legislators, and we are committed to stopping it. Is it any wonder that school choice became the plea of so many parents in Iowa?

I have no doubt that most of our public teachers and public schools are doing their best to positively educate our children and they will be supported as we address the issues I have highlighted. School Choice is the first step, but we will also work to reform the Board of Education to ensure that our laws are followed, and we will work on legislation to stop the indoctrination of our children in some of our school districts.

Change is always difficult, and no one wants their cheese moved, and while I understand the concerns, I believe that our efforts will have a positive impact on education in Iowa.

Freedom Watch 01/18/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
Misconceptions & Truth about
the Governor’s Students First Act
In last week’s edition of Freedom Watch I outlined the Governor’s STUDENTS FIRST ACT. In this week’s edition, I will provide additional information, including misconceptions and truths about School Choice, including data from other states that have similar policies in place to the proposals we are considering.

Misconception: Public money should not be used for private schools.
Truth: Taxpayer money, often referred to in this discussion as public money, already goes to many private entities all over the state and nation. We do not require WIC or SNAP recipients to use public grocery stores. Medicare recipients are not forced to use only public hospitals. Here in Iowa, the Iowa Tuition Grant has been used for years to fund students going to private colleges. The Governor’s school choice proposals look very similar to the Iowa Tuition Grant, but for K-12 education. Iowa Tuition Grants allow Iowa students to have more choices and access when they select the university or college that best fits their needs. This is not much different from the Governor’s proposal for K-12 students, creating more choices for students and parents.

Misconception: School Choice will deny funding for public schools.
Truth: Under the Governor’s plan, for the first time, public schools will receive approximately $1,205 for every student from their district that is attending a private school. This has never been the case before. This amount will increase as categorical funding is increased. In the first year that a family chooses to send their child to a private school and receive this funding, public schools will still get the $7,598 they normally receive for a student, even though the student chooses to attend a private school. The state in effect will double-pay the first year, which will minimize any funding disruptions for public schools. After year one, the public school would continue to receive the approximately $1,205 in categorical funding from the state, even though the student is enrolled in a private school, but will no longer receive the $7,598, since those funds are following the child to the accredited school that best fits their needs. This means that the costs normally associated with that student will also leave the public school, with the public school now receiving the $1,205 for every student going to a private school.

The Governor’s proposals also allow public school districts more flexibility in being able to use some categorical funding to increase teacher salaries.

Misconception: Data shows that school choice does not improve student outcomes.
Truth: As is the case with almost every controversial issue, you can find data to support both sides of an argument. However, I believe the data on school choice convincingly shows that both private and public-school outcomes improve where school choice is present. The vast majority of studies support this conclusion. One study I reviewed reported that out of 17 studies of school choice participants, eleven reported an increase in student outcomes, four reported no change and only two reported negative effects. At the end of my newsletter, I will include several links to articles that show the positive outcomes of school choice.

Studies also suggest that when school choice is present, civic engagement increases, and parental satisfaction improves. Caroline Hoxby, an economics professor at Stanford University, found positive effects on the teaching profession from school choice programs.

Misconception: Private Schools do not take special needs students.
Truth: Studies show that a large percentage of students in private schools in Arizona, where school choice programs have existed for over two decades, have special needs. There are also special needs students in Iowa’s private schools. Additionally, once private schools have access to increased funding with the creation of school choice, they would likely be able to increase their support of students with special needs.

Misconception: Private Schools discriminate against certain students while public schools take all students.
Truth: While it is certainly true that public schools take almost all students, private schools exist to meet a variety of needs of families who want something other than what public schools offer. Perhaps it is a more faith-based approach, perhaps it is a focus on a certain academic specialty. If a need exists following the passage of school choice in Iowa, private schools are likely to be formed to meet those needs. Specialization is not discrimination but rather a different approach to meet the ever-changing needs of students.

Misconception: Accredited private schools lack accountability requirements.
Truth: Accredited private schools have numerous annual reporting requirements, which include:
-Enrollment numbers
-Gender and ethnicity of students
-Bullying data
-Accreditation requirements (health, safety, etc.)
-Reports to accrediting agencies which include teacher certifications, safety drills, progress on school improvement plans, independent audit/assessment of financials, and adherence to all laws related to nonpublic schools
-Title funding usage data and details
– Annual reports to parents and constituents that include financial data and student assessment scores. Answering to parents is the most important measure of accountability, for parents can measure success for their children far better than government agencies ever could.

Misconception: School Choice will destroy or weaken public schools.
Truth: This is the most misleading of all the claims made in opposition to school choice programs. In states such as Arizona, where aggressive school choice programs have existed for over twenty years, only about 5% of students attend private schools. On average it is a very small percentage of students who leave public schools for private schools when these programs go into effect (1-3%). Of those percentages, even smaller amounts leave rural public schools. There is not a single public school in the nation that has closed its doors because of school choice.

If in fact, a huge number of students were to leave public schools to attend accredited private schools, then it becomes profoundly clear just how important it was that we gave parents greater choice, since such an exodus would lay bare the reality that these schools were not meeting the needs of our students.

Myth: School choice is an attack on public-school teachers.
Truth: Iowa is blessed to have many resolute public-school teachers doing their best to meet the needs of their students in an environment that worsens by the day. They have lost most of the tools necessary to maintain discipline in the classroom, and the breakdown of our families has forced schools to take on an ever-increasing level of responsibility, with teachers having to deal with behavioral issues that make their jobs incredibly challenging. We should pray for our teachers every day, while working to find ways to help them be more successful. We must also reject the arguments of special interest groups that seek to confuse the issues before us. School choice does not in any way take away from the work our public-school teachers are doing. Ultimately, we must not simply fund the status quo if we are to improve education. It is past time to fund our students, not the education establishment.

We can support public education and public-school teachers, while also embracing positive change. Let’s choose our students and families over the education bureaucracy that seeks to protect itself by rejecting innovative ideas that will improve education for all.

Myth: The state cannot afford school choice.
Truth: Statement from the Speaker of the Iowa House, Pat Grassley: “I’ve heard some people cite concerns about the cost of HSB 1. As former Appropriations chair, I can assure you that we would not pass any plan that our state cannot afford. House Republicans have a reputation at the Capitol for being very cautious when it comes to the state budget. This has not changed. When fully implemented in FY 29, the projected cost of this program is $341 million. In the same year, the state is projected to spend $3.9 BILLION on public education. Given current projections, in that same year the state will have a $3.1 BILLION ending balance and $3.7 BILLION in the Taxpayer Relief Fund. Ultimately, $341 million amounts to just 4% of the state’s annual budget. This program is not an existential threat to public education. Iowa can afford HSB 1.”

I look forward to Republicans in the House and Senate taking decisive action soon to bring school choice to Iowa by passing HSB1, the Governor’s STUDENTS FIRST ACT.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

LINKS ON SCHOOL CHOICE:

The evidence is clear – education choice improves outcomes | Education | belgrade-news.com

3 Reasons to Support School Choice – Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)

 

Freedom Watch 01/11/23
A legislative update from Representative Steven Holt
Empowering Parents: It’s Time for School Choice
As I write my first newsletter of the 90th General Assembly, I could not be more excited by the priorities Governor Reynolds and Republicans in the House and Senate will advance in the 2023 legislative session. The Governor has outlined an ambitious agenda that includes universal school choice in Iowa as well as measures to make our public schools stronger, in addition to continuing to stand up for common sense and the founding principles that have made our state and nation successful. In this edition of Freedom Watch, I will outline the Governor’s STUDENTS FIRST ACT.

Parental choice in education and improving public schools will be one of the top priorities for Republicans this session. The House commitment to get this done is clearly evident in the creation of a special Education Reform Committee, with its members being the leadership of the House – Speaker Pat Grassley, House Majority Leader Matt Windschitl and Speaker Pro Tempore John Wills, as well as the Democrat Minority Leader. The sense of urgency on this issue is also apparent, as the Governor’s STUDENTS FIRST ACT (HSB 1) was our very first bill and was assigned the day after the Governor’s Condition of the State address.

Key provisions of the STUDENTS FIRST ACT include:

  • Parents who choose to enroll their children in an accredited private school will receive $7,598 for approved educational expenses, the amount of per pupil funding currently allocated annually by the state for each student. Parents can use these funds for tuition, fees, and other qualified expenses at an accredited private school. This funding will flow through a system that never places the funds directly into the parent’s hands, but rather goes straight to the educational institution.
  • Other student funding generated by categorical state funding formulas will remain with public school districts. It is estimated that Iowa’s public schools will retain about $1,205 per pupil in categorical funding for each student who resides in their district but chooses to attend a private school. Since public schools currently receive no funding for students enrolled in a private school, this would be an increase in funding.
  • In the first year that a family chooses to send their child to a private school and receive this funding, public schools will still get the $7,598 they normally receive for a student, even though the student chooses to attend a private school. The state in effect will double-pay the first year, which will minimize any funding disruptions for public schools. This is also made necessary by federal requirements related to how public-school students are counted each year. After year one, the public school would continue to receive approximately $1,205 in categorical funding from the state, even though the student is enrolled in a private school, but will no longer receive the $7,598, since those funds are following the child to the accredited school that best fits their needs. It is past time that we fund the student in a way that will help ensure the best educational outcome.
  • All students currently attending public school and kindergarten would be eligible for this program in the 2023-24 school year.
  • For students already attending an accredited private school, the program would be phased in over a period of three years. In Year 1 (2023-24), accredited private school students at or below 300% of the federal poverty level would be eligible ($83,250 income for a family of four). In Year 2 (2024-25), accredited private school students at or below 400% of the federal poverty level would qualify ($111,000 income for a family of four). In Year 3 (2025-26), all students, regardless of income, would qualify. Let’s remember that we all pay taxes for education, even those citizens that do not have children. Those taxes are paid to the state regardless of income. I believe, therefore, that it is fair that every parent, regardless of income, should have the opportunity to use this system to send their child to an educational institution that best fits their needs.
  • The bill also gives public school districts the flexibility to use unspent and ongoing funding from Teacher Leadership and Compensation, Professional Development, and Talented & Gifted categorical funds for increasing teacher salaries. There is currently almost $100 million statewide in unspent funds in these categorical accounts and almost $250 million is allocated to them each year.

Public education funding in Iowa has grown over a billion dollars since Fiscal Year 2012. Unfortunately, some of our public schools are not serving our students well. Teachers, parents, and students are reporting egregious discipline problems in some schools, and a small number are listed as failing schools due to plummeting scores.

Unfortunately, it is also true that some of our public schools have now embraced an ideology that they in fact own the children and know better than parents. Parents that challenge the indoctrination of their students in Anti-American ideology and LGBT objectives that are contrary to their values are increasingly ignored and villainized by a growing number of school districts in Iowa. I know this because I have received hundreds of emails and spoken to numerous parents frustrated and frightened for the future of their children and their country. They are often ignored, berated, silenced, and in some cases villainized by arrogant school personnel who consider themselves “professionals” who can dismiss the concerns of parents. This is not only wrong; it is profoundly dangerous for the future of our Republic. Government institutions do not own our children and have no right to inject themselves between children and parents by assaulting the values of families and ignoring the authority of parents.

In a growing number of our public schools, obviously obscene books that have no place in a school library because they are not age-appropriate are defended and usually kept on the shelves by a process stacked against concerned parents. Meanwhile, some teachers in these districts gleefully promote these books to their students, in defiance of the concerns of parents.

Some schools choose to ignore prohibitions against the teaching of Critical Race Theory, with school officials caught on tape bragging about how they work around the law to advance their agenda. The Board of Education has had the opportunity to enforce the law and hold wrongdoers accountable; unfortunately, they have chosen not to do so.

I have stated repeatedly in my newsletters that superintendents and administrators doing it right should speak to those doing it wrong in Iowa, which could have resulted in self-reflection and a course correction. Unfortunately, this either has not happened, or the warnings have not been heeded. Combine these facts with the need to ensure that students are allowed to flourish in an educational setting that best fits their needs and the path is clear: we must fundamentally change how we fund education, and that begins with funding the student, as opposed to funding the educational establishment.

The hysteria that School Choice will destroy, or damage public schools is not supported by facts, as states with aggressive school choice programs in place for over two decades see only about 5% of students attend private schools. If in fact, a huge number of students were to leave public schools to attend accredited private schools, then it becomes profoundly clear just how important it was that we gave parents greater choice, since such an exodus would lay bare the reality that these schools were failing our students. I believe that most of our public schools are doing it right, and for those that are not, the wake-up call is coming.

Discussions have just begun and changes to this plan are possible as we move through the process, but I am committed to passing school choice, in addition to education reforms to make our public schools stronger and better, since the vast majority of our students will continue to attend public schools. For many in rural districts happy with their schools and great teachers, because they are doing it right, you can rest assured, in spite of the coming hysteria, that school choice options in other states have improved education outcomes in both public and private schools.

I will leave you with excerpts from Education as a Battlefield by Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arnn. In future newsletters, I will highlight other proposals to improve public schools and return accountability to parents, as well as our efforts to reform property taxes and push back on the extreme leftist agenda that threatens our families and the future of our Republic.

I am honored to serve as your State Representative. You can email me at steven.holt@legis.iowa.gov

Excerpts from Education as a Battleground
Larry P. Arnn (President, Hillsdale College)
“Public education is as old as our nation – but only lately has it adopted the purpose of supplanting the family and controlling parents.

One can look in history or in literature to see the danger of where the idea of supplanting the family might lead. Study the education practices that existed in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and that exist today in Communist China. Or read the terrifying account in Orwell’s 1984. They tell us that children, by distorting their natural desire to grow up and end their dependence, can be recruited to the purposes of despotic regimes, even to the extent of denouncing their parents to the state.

We do not yet have this in America. But we do have children being turned against their country by being indoctrinated to look on its past – of which all parents, of course, are in some way a part – as a shameful time of irredeemable injustice. We also increasingly have children being encouraged to speak of their sexual proclivities at an age when they can hardly think of them.

To cite just one example, Christopher Rufo has discovered, on the website of the Michigan Department of Education, detailed instructions for how teachers should open the question with students of their sexual orientation – or maybe I should say sexual direction, since “orientation” implies something constant, whereas children are now being taught that sexuality is “fluid” and can take them anywhere.

Also on the website are detailed instructions on how to keep this activity from parents. And as we learned last year, when parents get angry, the FBI is likely to become interested.

Who “owns” the child then? The choice is between the parents, who have taken the trouble to have and raise the child – and who, in almost all cases, will give their lives to support the child for as long as it takes and longer – or the educational bureaucracy, which is more likely than a parent to look upon the child as an asset in a social engineering project to rearrange government and society.

The revolutionary force behind this social engineering project is a set of ideas installed in just about every university today. Its smiting arm is the administrative state, an element of America’s ruling class. The administrative state has something over 20 million employees, many of them at the federal but most at the state level. Directly and indirectly, they make rules about half the economy, which means they affect all of it.

I have said and written many times that the political contest between parents and people who make an independent living, on the one hand, and the administrative state and all its mighty forces on the other, is the key political contest of our time. Today that seems truer than ever. The lines are clearly formed.

As long as representative institutions work in response to the public will, there is thankfully no need for violence. As the Declaration of Independence says, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”

The Declaration guides us in our peaceful pursuits, too. In naming the causes of the American Revolution, it gives a guide to maintaining free and responsible government. The long middle section of the Declaration accuses the King of interfering with representative government, violating the separation of powers, undermining the independence of the Judiciary, and failing to suppress violence.

And in an apposite phrase it says of the King: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

So it is today. And so it is our duty to defend our American way of life.”

Leave a Comment