Latest news with #Bousselot
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sen. Mike Bousselot announces exploratory committee for governor's race
Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, spoke during a subcommittee meeting March 20, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) State Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, announced Monday he is exploring a 2026 gubernatorial bid. His announcement, posted on the social media platform X, comes less than two weeks after Gov. Kim Reynolds said she would not seek another term as governor in the upcoming election. Reynolds has held office since 2017, taking the position after former Gov. Terry Branstad vacated the governor's office to serve as U.S. ambassador to China during President Donald Trump's first term. As Branstad had held the office since 2010, Republicans have not had an open primary field heading into a gubernatorial election for over a decade. The 2026 election will be the first time for several Republicans interested in the position to compete without an incumbent in the race. Bousselot is one of the Republicans interested in competing for the governorship. He said he launched an exploratory campaign for the Iowa governor's race Monday, thanking Reynolds for her leadership in a statement and saying he has received encouragement from others to run. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX 'The next governor has big shoes to fill,' he said. 'I am honored by the calls asking me to consider running for governor. I am exploring this run because our next governor of Iowa should be a leader who listens to the people, acts on principle and works tirelessly to deliver results.' Bousselot has served as state senator for Iowa's Senate District 21 since 2023. He first took elected office in 2021, winning a special election to represent House District 37 from 2021 through 2023. Before his election, Bousselot served as the director of the Department of Management under Reynolds and as Branstad's chief of staff in the governor's office. Branstad was one of the people who have encouraged Bousselot to run for governor, according to the news release. The former governor said in a statement he was 'pleased Mike Bousselot is considering running for governor.' 'I have known Mike since 2009,' Branstad said. '… Mike worked hand-in-hand with President Trump's team during the president's first term, and he will be a fighter for President Trump again. Mike has the work ethic, vision and character necessary to lead Iowa to an even brighter future.' Alongside Bousselot, several other Republicans have expressed interest in the position. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird indicated in a statement she is considering a run, and House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters last week he is 'not ruling anything out' when considering a 2026 gubernatorial bid. The Des Moines Register reported State Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, is also considering running for the position. One Republican, former GOP state Rep. Brad Sherman, announced his gubernatorial campaign prior to Reynolds announcing she would not run for reelection. Iowa Auditor Rob Sand, the sole Democrat to hold statewide elected office, has not officially announced plans to run for governor in 2026, but is widely expected to join the race after having raised significant funds leading into the upcoming election season. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Republican state Sen. Mike Bousselot of Ankeny officially exploring governor run in 2026
Republican state Sen. Mike Bousselot is officially exploring a run for Iowa governor in 2026. Bousselot, a 42-year-old Republican who represents Ankeny, announced in an April 21 news release that he is forming an exploratory campaign as he considers seeking higher office. Bousselot's move is the most definitive of any potential gubernatorial candidate since Gov. Kim Reynolds announced April 11 that she would not seek another term. In a statement announcing his intention to explore running for governor, Bousselot praised Reynolds for her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as "bringing economic opportunity for all Iowa families and keeping our communities safe." More: 'A wide-open race': How Kim Reynolds' surprise decision shakes up Iowa's 2026 elections "The next governor has big shoes to fill," he said. "I am honored by the calls asking me to consider running for governor. I am exploring this run because our next governor of Iowa should be a leader who listens to the people, acts on principle and works tirelessly to deliver results." Bousselot, an attorney, was elected to the Iowa Senate in 2022 after previously serving one term in the Iowa House. Before holding elected office, he worked for former Gov. Terry Branstad as a policy adviser and chief of staff. He also worked in the Iowa Department of Management under Reynolds. "I am pleased Mike Bousselot is considering running for governor," Branstad said in a statement. "I have known Mike since 2009. He has served in the executive branch, as a successful entrepreneur in the private sector, and as a legislator in the state House and state Senate. Mike worked hand-in-hand with President Trump's team during the president's first term, and he will be a fighter for President Trump again. Mike has the work ethic, vision and character necessary to lead Iowa to an even brighter future." Bousselot was raised in Davenport. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Iowa and a law degree from Drake University Law School. He chairs the Commerce Committee in the Iowa Senate and serves on the Judiciary, State Government, Appropriations and Ways and Means committees. "Our GOP nominee must be someone who will hold the line on affordability for Iowans, stand with President Trump and ensure the best days for Iowa are ahead," Bousselot said. "I've seen firsthand the challenges and opportunities facing our state. I'm ready to fight for Iowa families, secure our communities and ensure our state remains a place where hard work is rewarded and freedom thrives." A host of other Iowa Republicans are considering the possibility of a campaign for governor in 2026 — the first time Republicans are without an incumbent on the ballot since 2010. Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig said he and his family are "thoughtfully discussing" the possibility of running for governor "and keeping all options on the table." Attorney General Brenna Bird has hinted that she is weighing a bid for governor, saying she and her husband "will pray and consider what (Reynolds') decision means for our future." House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, said he's "not ruling anything out." And state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, has said he's considering a campaign. Former state Rep. Brad Sherman, a Williamsburg pastor and a Republican, launched his campaign for governor before Reynolds' announcement. Three of Iowa's U.S. representatives, Ashley Hinson, Zach Nunn and Randy Feenstra, have been discussed as possible candidates. U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks on April 15 ruled out the possibility of running for governor. On the Democratic side, state Auditor Rob Sand is expected to run for governor, although he has not announced a campaign. Sand raised more than $8.5 million in 2024, boosted by $7 million in donations from his wife and in-laws, fueling speculation about a run for higher office. Stephen Gruber-Miller covers the Iowa Statehouse and politics for the Register. He can be reached by email at sgrubermil@ or by phone at 515-284-8169. Follow him on X at @sgrubermiller. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: GOP state Sen. Mike Bousselot officially exploring 2026 governor run
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pipeline bill survives funnel with major amendment from senators
Iowans opposed to carbon dioxide pipelines hand out buttons that read "No CO2 pipelines" at the Iowa State Capitol Mar. 18. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Iowa senators amended and advanced on Wednesday a House bill aimed at protecting private property rights from eminent domain. House representatives passed the proposed legislation last week which combines a series of bills aimed at reforming the Iowa Utilities Commission and preventing the Summit Carbon Solutions' pipeline from using eminent domain in the state. Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeney, said the Senate subcommittee meeting on the issue was 'long awaited.' Bousselot said his goal 'has always been' to pass legislation that protected 'all landowners' and not just those affected by certain projects, which he alleged House legislation over the past several years has done. 'House File 639, before us today focuses only on creating additional property rights for land impacted by potential hazardous liquid pipelines … but does not take into account all types of pipelines, transmission lines or power generation,' Bousselot said. Bousselot proposed an amendment that would remove certain parts of the House bill and add language to 'avoid' eminent domain by allowing a project to find voluntary easements outside of the original project corridor. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Bousselot said this would apply to 'any project seeking eminent domain approval before the IUC, including pipelines, transmission lines and power generation.' His amendment would also require the Iowa Utilities Commission to make, within one year, a decision on any project that is seeking eminent domain rights. 'By saying that decision needs to be made within one year, there's plenty of time for fact finding, but it also means, like the court cases that are going on today, those court cases get to court faster,' Bousselot said. As passed from the floor, House File 639 would have: Increased the insurance requirements for a hazardous liquid pipeline to cover any damages to property and reimburse landowners for increases in their property insurance premiums due to the pipeline. Changed the definition of a common carrier, to require a hazardous liquid carrier to establish with 'clear and convincing evidence' that it will transport a commodity. Required an Iowa Utilities Commissioner to be present at all proceedings. Allowed any interested party, including lawmakers, to intervene in IUC proceedings. Restricted the IUC's ability to sanction intervenors Limited the length of a hazardous liquid pipeline permit to one 25-year term. Bousselot's proposed amendment would strike the common carrier definition, permit limits, intervenor requirements and would adjust the insurance requirements. The amendment would add a requirement for the 'lifetime' repair and replacement costs for drainage tile, crop loss and soil degradation. Under the proposed amendment landowners would also be able to request, and be granted, a new land representative. The amendment retains the requirement that a commissioner from the IUC be present at informational meetings and hearings, and the section on insurance requirements that hold operators responsible for damages caused by the projects. Some of the landowners said the contents of Bousselot's amendment were 'a surprise' and they questioned how the landowners outside of the corridor, or the area around a proposed eminent domain project, would be notified. Jake Highfill, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute said the organization was in favor of the corridor change and that it was 'common practice' for members of the institute in other states. Jake Ketzner, a lobbyist for Summit Carbon Solutions, urged lawmakers to vote against 'any piece of legislation that changes the rules in the middle of a project.' Ketzner said the company has been suggesting the corridor change Bousselot proposed and appreciated the amendment, noting it would give the project a route forward in counties where it currently has 90-95% of easements secured. 'If we have the ability to move off someone's ground that does not want the project, currently, the only way to deal with that is restarting,' Ketzner said. 'So we think what you're suggesting makes a lot of sense.' Sen. Matt Blake, D-Urbandale, said he signed off on the bill in subcommittee because it was the 'last train out of the station' on the private property rights issue, but he urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment, which he called a 'tremendous change to the system.' Sen. Tony Bisignano, a Democrat from Des Moines, said he opposed the amendment because of its rushed nature, and because he felt it was not 'solving property rights.' 'We haven't had a time to talk with people, to step back and really look at it,' Bisignano said of the amendment. 'These people deserve the debate on eminent domain and property rights. This is a consolation.' He voted in favor of the amendment to 'keep it alive' for floor debate, which he has pushed for earlier in the session via a failed amendment to chamber rules. The committee voted to adopt the amendment. 'This amendment builds on the work that was found in House File 639, retaining some, adding a lot, but ultimately is a major, major addition to strengthening and protecting private property rights in Iowa,' Bousselot said. The bill advanced to the Senate floor via a voice vote in favor. Bousselot said he intends to file an additional amendment on the floor dealing with communications. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill limiting claims against pesticide makers nears legislative finish line after tight Senate vote
A tight Senate vote has pushed forward a bill to shield pesticide and herbicide manufacturers from lawsuits claiming they failed to warn users of potential health risks, including cancer, if their products' labeling complies with federal rules. Senate lawmakers voted 26-21 Wednesday on Senate File 394, advancing it to the House for consideration. Six Republican Sens. Kevin Alons, R-Salix; Doug Campbell, R-Mason City; Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville; David Sires, R-Cedar Falls; Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center; and Cherielynn Westrich, R-Ottumwa, voted against the bill. The legislation passed in the Senate last year, 30-19, before stalling in the House. The Republican-led legislation is part of a renewed nationwide push from the Modern Ag Alliance, a coalition of over 90 agricultural stakeholders, founded by agricultural chemical manufacturer Bayer, to pass several similar bills in other states. Bayer manufactures glyphosate, the active ingredient in the popular herbicide Roundup, which is at the center of the bill's discussion. The company's plant in Muscatine manufactures 70% of North America's Roundup. The company has faced thousands of lawsuits linking cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer to Roundup, paying more than $10 billion in 2020 to settle suits of over 95,000 cases related to claims that the product's labels did not warn of potential cancer. The agricultural chemical manufacturing giant's officials highlight that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in a 2020 regulatory review, stated "there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label" and it is unlikely to be a human carcinogen. Senators on both sides of the aisle stood to speak on the bill during debate Wednesday. Republicans said the bill isn't a "blanket immunity" for agricultural manufacturers, which Democrats say is wrong. Floor manager Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, said Wednesday during debate that Iowans would still be able to sue agricultural chemical manufacturers "under negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, breach of implied warranty." In closing comments, Bousselot said the Senate lawmakers supported that avenues to sue agricultural chemical manufacturers still exist under the bill through a voice vote to amend the bill Wednesday. The amendment says, "This subsection shall not be interpreted to prohibit a cause of action based on any other provision or doctrine of state law." "What we do if we allow lawsuits like this to continue to go forward is we are forcing the more than 20 companies who produce glyphosate today in that terrible choice between breaking federal law so they can avoid crippling lawsuits or to continue to go forward and get sued into oblivion," Bousselot said. But Sen. Matt Blake, D-Urbandale, said the legislation is still an "immunity bill" even with the amendment. He said if the bill is put into law, cases against agricultural chemical manufacturers that stem from a claim of a product's failure to warn wouldn't survive under state law. 'Failure to warn is the root of the product's liability claim. The other claims stem from this root cause," Blake said. "If the state deems a warning label to be deemed sufficient, it kills the root cause, and no other causes can grow from it. That is what this bill does. It grants absolute immunity. It grants foreign chemical companies absolute immunity for causing damage for a product they sell. "I'm not trying today to say to ban the product. It is important for farmers and should continue to use it. I'm saying companies should be held liable for a product that causes cancer." Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Cedar Rapids, said lawmakers supporting the bill should consider the state's second-highest rate of new cancers in the country, according to the 2024 Iowa Cancer Registry. The cancer registry predicted that 6,100 people will die in Iowa from cancer this year. "We need to start asking ourselves, who does this government exist to serve? Do we serve the people of Iowa or the powerful corporations that seek to evade responsibility for the harm that they are causing?" Donahue said. "Our constituents deserve representatives who will stand up for their health and their safety." Over 150 Iowans rallied in the Iowa Capitol in February to urge lawmakers not to support the bill. Iowa Farmers Union President Aaron Lehman said in a statement Wednesday that "Pesticide companies should not get a free pass for any future liability." 'Chemical companies should not be allowed to hide behind a label," Lehman said. "This bill would take away Iowans' ability to seek relief after they discover an illness or permanent injury that has been caused by a product that had been labeled as safe despite clear evidence presented in a court of law.' Food & Water Watch Iowa organizer Jennifer Breon said in a statement Wednesday, echoing the union's concerns with the legislation. 'Today, the Iowa Senate voted to put corporations above struggling Iowans. All eyes now turn to the House, where a handful of Representatives stand between sick Iowans and the polluting pesticide industry," Breon said. "Iowa's fast rising cancer rates have touched so many families — we implore Iowa Representatives to stand up to Bayer and stop their dangerous Cancer Gag Act.' Elizabeth Burns-Thompson, executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, applauded the bill's passage in a statement Wednesday, saying farmers will "lose access to key crop protection inputs due to meritless litigation" if the bill isn't passed. "MAA and Iowa farmers are grateful for the support of the bill sponsor Senator Mike Bousselot and the rest of the Iowa Senate," Burns-Thompson said. "We look forward to working with House leaders to provide the certainty farmers need." Sabine Martin covers politics for the Register. She can be reached by email at or by phone at (515) 284-8132. Follow her on X at @sabinefmartin. This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Bill limiting lawsuits against pesticide makers nears legislative finish line
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Pesticide immunity bill advances from Iowa Senate
An Iowa bill pertaining to pesticide lawsuits would help the makers of RoundUp and other pesticides. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Iowa senators narrowly passed a bill Wednesday that would protect pesticide companies from 'failure to warn' lawsuits. Similar bills have been introduced across the country, after failing in Iowa, Missouri and Idaho last year. Legislators in Georgia advanced their version of the bill, but it has not yet been signed into law by its governor. Senate File 394 would rule that pesticide labels issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 'shall be sufficient' in satisfying any requirement to warn users of the product's health and safety. The bill passed the Senate 26-21. Sen. Mike Bousselot, the bill's floor manager, said despite the arguments against the legislation, 'it's a simple bill.' 'It says that if you sell your glyphosate or your product and you follow federal law to the T, you can't be sued for having done the wrong thing in labeling your product,' Bousselot said of the bill. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The bill does not name the popular household and commercial pesticide RoundUp and its ingredient glyphosate, but debate on the bill centered on the pesticide's manufacturer, Bayer, and the numerous lawsuits that claim the product gave plaintiffs cancer. Bousselot said the bill does not give blanket immunity, because plaintiffs can still sue under other claims, like negligence, fraud and breach of warranty. The Republican from Ankeny also introduced an amendment that said the bill would not 'prohibit a cause of action based on any other provision or doctrine of state law.' Sen. Matt Blake, D-Johnston, said even with the amendment, which passed, the bill is 'an immunity bill' for pesticide companies. Blake said product liability law comprises three main theories of law, all of which would 'fail' in Iowa under the bill. 'Failure to warn is the root of a product's liability claim,' Blake said. 'If the state deems a warning label to be … sufficient, it kills the root cause.' Sen. Adrian Dickey, R-Packwood, said the bill is about 'sue happy lawyers' and reiterated a point he made in a committee hearing on the bill that the abundance of warning labels in the country have 'diluted' their cautioning. EPA will not allow Bayer to put a cancer warning on its label to simply 'cover their backside' if it is counter to the science submitted to agency, Dickey explained. 'Today's bill is not preventing anyone from suing a company if they feel the product causes cancer,' Dickey said. 'It's simply common sense legislation that states that you cannot sue a company for having a label on a product when the federal government doesn't allow the label to be on the product.' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, noted evidence uncovered during RoundUp litigation, known as the Monsanto Papers, that show the company ghostwrote independent studies to support the safety of the pesticide. 'If they did everything right, why are there reams of discovery emails showing that they lied?' Weiner said. Weiner noted a recently settled case against Bayer in Georgia that sided with plaintiffs. She said the same case would not be allowed in Iowa under the bill. 'A vote for this bill is a statement to Iowans that a plaintiff in Georgia will be made whole financially … but in Iowa, in Iowa, the farmer with cancer gets nothing,' Weiner said. In February, more than 100 Iowans gathered in the State Capitol rotunda to hold a vigil for loved ones who were lost to cancer and to protest the bill they deemed the 'cancer gag act.' Bousselot said the 'dirty little secret' is that his opponents don't want the bill to pass because it would require lawyers to prove that a pesticide chemical is carcinogenic. 'It can't be proven (that) glyphosate causes cancer,' Bousselot said. 'What is the justice in suing someone for mislabeling a product, if the label that you want would have broken federal law in the first place?' Daniel Hinkle, senior counsel for policy and state affairs at American Association for Justice, said the bill would defer to the EPA label on a product's safety, but he said if the label changes in the future, the user would only be protected by what the label said at the time they used the product. Hinkle explained with an example of a farmer using a different chemical, paraquat, which research has shown may be linked to Parkinson's Disease. EPA 'has not found a clear link' between the two, which is reflected in the product's label, similarly to that of glyphosate which the EPA holds is not linked to cancer. 'From this, even if the EPA came out in 2026 and says, 'You know what, paraquat causes Parkinson's disease, and we think it should be on the label,' … the farmer who is exposed under the old label, would have no ability to hold the company accountable,' Hinkle said. Legislators in Oklahoma proposed an amendment to their pesticide bill that would remove a company's immunity from failure to warn claims in the state if the EPA canceled the registration of the pesticide based on new findings. Proponents of the Iowa bill argue that without its protections, Bayer will stop manufacturing and distributing glyphosate, which according to Modern Ag Alliance, would double or triple farmers' input costs across the country. Modern Ag Alliance is a group of agricultural stakeholders, including Bayer and several Iowa commodity groups, that has lobbied in favor of the bills and sponsored advertisements in farming communities across the country with slogans like 'control weeds, not farming.' Weiner brought up the advertisements and said despite the rhetoric, glyphosate 'isn't going anywhere.' Jess Christiansen, the head of crop science and sustainability communications at Bayer, said the company set aside $16 billion for RoundUp litigation and already, the company has spent more than $10 billion of that. 'The reality is that it doesn't matter if you're a big multinational company, like a Bayer Crop Science, or a mid size or a startup company — the math is the math,' Christiansen said. 'You can only endure so much loss before you have to make a tough decision … we can't continue to go down the path we're going.' Bayer maintains that its products do not cause cancer and that it complied with all of the requirements from EPA for the labeling of their products. 'We're very much in favor of being a regulated industry,' Christiansen said. 'It's in the best interest of the public for that to happen –- then let's uphold that, so that's really what the (bill) language is about.' Opponents of the bill, including several senators who spoke on the bill, allege Bayer and other pesticide companies have worked to cover up key information showing researchers are aware of the link to cancer. Central to the argument is a 2015 finding from International Research Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, that classified glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans.' Proponents of the bill discredit the IARC study, noting the large number of substances the body considers carcinogenic, and point to other bodies of research, including those evaluated by EPA and other countries that corroborate the safety of glyphosate. Opponents say IRAC evaluated a greater body of work. Research published in 2019 about the divergence of the two decisions showed IARC evaluated more than twice as many studies in its decision, and more that were peer-reviewed. Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Cedar Rapids, noted recent research showing Iowa has some of the highest rates of new cancer in the country, and said the bill would 'protect the corporate profits at the expense of public health.' 'I'm here to tell you right now that giving corporations immunity when their product harms Iowans, is like handing a wolf the keys to the hen house and hoping for the best,' Donahue said. A bill that advanced in the Iowa Senate last year had a provision limiting the bill's protections to Chinese-owned companies, which targeted paraquat's manufacturer, Syngenta which is owned by ChemChina. SF 394 does not mention Chinese-owned companies. The bill was immediately messaged to the House. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
