Iowa at the Crossroads: House File 639, Property Rights Protection, and Eminent Domain Abuse

After the news broke that twelve Republicans in the Iowa Senate would not vote for budget bills until House File 639 was brought to the floor, I turned down opportunities to talk to the media except for one interview with a local newspaper.  I didn't think anything would be gained by doing things that might be interpreted by my Republican colleagues as grandstanding.

So, I mostly saved my thoughts for the Senate floor debate of Monday evening, May 12.  If you’re interested in watching the two speeches I gave during the debate, here are the links:

Speech against a strike-after amendment (6:11-6:19 PM) -

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s20250512050823538&dt=2025-05-12&fbclid=IwY2xjawKmrk5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFCRHhhM20xNVRCU0QyN2lSAR5iUuuhBdaswKAv0D17LjPjsz5AEceJbQVS9fqaNmao91D6b7xU_Duna1-OIA_aem_vCqRFSShtvyw7-iPVdri8A

Speech for the bill itself (9:20-9:26 PM) -

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/dashboard?view=video&chamber=S&clip=s20250512090005350&dt=2025-05-12&fbclid=IwY2xjawKmrlRleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFCRHhhM20xNVRCU0QyN2lSAR5PC5x6uErykQ4Y6_j-U6kh5JXKzWjeswSTflXLf7GPz8NJrOzKqXAg6l1rFg_aem_Qvr_q3UgH9rc1AUL4WZaPg

I shared a concise description of the intraparty debate in the final edition of The Taylor Times newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/046c16298c4b/the-taylor-times-by-senator-jeff-taylor?e=7b764a1f29.  Now that the debate has occurred, the bill has passed, and the dust has settled, I have written a detailed and lengthy examination of the relationship between HF 639, property rights protection, and eminent domain abuse.

It is useful to put what we tried to do in perspective.  Yes, it was a challenge to one of the autocratic norms of power in the Senate first established by Mike Gronstal (a Democrat).  But it was not a revolt against Republican leadership.  We were pressuring them but not trying to overthrow them.  We understood that only leadership can call up a bill for floor debate.  Conservative senators had been patient on this issue for over three years. 

Having had more than a dozen pro-property-rights, anti-eminent-domain-abuse bills summarily killed by the Senate Commerce Committee for four sessions in a row, we could not force leadership to bring a bill to the floor but we could collectively use the modest power each senator has—the power to vote Yes or No—to encourage them to do the right thing.  In the end, it would be their decision.  They could choose to not do it although that would make it more difficult to pass the budget bills on the floor. 

            Three of us first met with leadership privately, showing them the signed statement and explaining why we were taking this approach.  It was a calm exchange of thoughts.  We told them that we would make our pledge public if we could not get a commitment for open floor debate and an up-or-down vote on the bill.  When, after 36 hours, we had not heard back from leadership, we went public with the statement. 

We pledged “to vote against any remaining budget bill until a floor vote occurs on the clean HF 639 bill.”  We chose HF 639 rather than HF 943 because that bill had passed out of a Commerce subcommittee, with a public hearing, and was still a live option.  That was not true of 943.  It had been passed by the House but had died in the Senate.  We were trying to follow a Senate norm.  We were not asking for passage of HF 639 before we voted for budget bills, just for an opportunity to speak about it and vote on it. 

When we used the word “clean,” we meant 639 with the language passed by the House a month before with a bipartisan 85-10 vote.  In other words, a non-strike-after-amended 639—not the hostile takeover amendment proposed by Senator Bousselot in Commerce, which replaced the House language with pro-Summit language.  As is always the case for Senate Republicans, the twelve of us reserved the right to strengthen the bill by trying to add 943 as a floor amendment (filed by Senator Campbell). 

We were also willing to consider tweaks to satisfy leadership if they were operating in good faith and had some specific objections to 639 language (e.g., a word here, a line there).  Instead, Senator Klimesh and Senator Bousselot eventually proposed a new strike-after amendment that would hijack the bill number while substituting language acceptable to Summit and its allies.

What is discussed in Republican caucus, behind closed doors, is confidential.  I cannot reveal the specifics of who said what.  But I can speak in general terms.  Thinking about what was said by our anti-639, pro-pipeline colleagues, there was little or no empathy for the negatively-impacted farmers and rural landowners.  There was a great deal of concern about the bill’s negative impact on the pro-business climate in our state. 

There was no serious effort to dispute our contention that the IUC permit granting eminent domain to Summit was unconstitutional.  Instead, a whataboutism deflection was used, incorrectly citing Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution—prohibiting states from using ex post facto (which refers to criminal, not civil, law) and impairing the obligation of contracts (which is irrelevant because 639 does not negate existing Summit voluntary easement contracts). 

The tone of the caucus was quite emotional, with fear and anger being the dominant feelings expressed.  Surrounded by a sea of emotion, one of the few islands of rational critique was provided by Senator Klimesh.  He presented a list of specific criticisms of 639—which he would later use during floor questioning of Senator Alons—trying to depict the bill as “crap” (to borrow a word publicly used by a fellow anti-639 Republican). 

Of course, the criticisms cast the bill in the worst possible light.  Every potential unintended consequence was taken to outlandish lengths.  A person unfamiliar with the bill, and with the multi-billion-dollar investment of Summit that could be negatively impacted if it were to become law, would have thought this was the worst bill ever proposed in the Iowa General Assembly and that the sky would undoubtedly fall if it were ever to be added to Iowa Code. 

Senator Klimesh is intelligent and well-spoken, so his gaslighting attempt was successful in providing the majority of the Republican caucus with seemingly plausible reasons to vote No.  Even though it was misleading—after all, HF 639 passed overwhelmingly in the House after being carefully considered by multiple attorneys and thoroughly vetted in public—one might still have grudging respect for the senator’s performance because it was so effective.

When I gave my floor speech on 639, I briefly mentioned Senator Klimesh’s criticisms but did not try to answer each one because I assumed they were intended to pacify some Republicans and distract the rest of us.  Rather than engage in a defensive battle with disingenuous arguments, I chose to focus on the broad themes of constitutionality, truth, and justice.

            However, it might be useful to take one example of Senator Klimesh’s rapid-fire accusations against HF 639 to show the flimsiness of the house of cards he skillfully constructed.  Referring to the section of the bill expanding the right of Iowans to be intervenors in an Iowa Utilities Commission hazardous liquid pipeline case, he rhetorically asked Senator Alons, Who are these intervenors?  Members of which general assembly?  It doesn’t say!  It could be the general assembly of some other state.  Which elected county or city officials?  In the state?  Outside of the state?  It doesn’t say!  Residents of which state?  It doesn't say! Will millions of Minnesotans be intervening?  Is the intention to “bog the system down”?   

            This was a bill being considered by the Iowa General Assembly for Iowa Code.  The obvious presumption is that the government officials and residents will be Iowans.  The strike-after amendment proposed by Senator Bousselot also included new subsections to be added to Section 476.33 of Iowa Code.  The language of the amendment included numerous references to “the commission.”  I guess I could have followed Senator Klimesh’s example and challenged the amendment on the grounds that it was ambiguous. 

What is this commission to which the amendment refers?  It doesn’t say!  Is it the civil rights commission or the natural resources commission?  It doesn’t say!  Is it a commission within Iowa or does it reside within Minnesota or Mississippi?  It doesn’t say!  I wouldn’t have done that because it’s a silly argument even if it sounds plausible.  The context of Code makes it obvious that “the commission” is the Iowa Utilities Commission, and it is defined as such in Section 474.1.

The same is true for understanding the geographic parameters of HF 639 intervenors.  The bill language does not need to specify “Iowa.”  It is a new subsection for Section 476.33, which focuses on Iowa Utilities Commission hearings.  Chapter 476 of Iowa Code deals with Iowa public utility regulation.  The words “resident” and “residential” appear 12 times in the chapter, with Iowa mentioned once and Iowa implied the other 11 times.  What’s more, the phrase “general assembly” appears 19 times in the chapter and Iowa is never specified as being the state of the legislature because it is obviously implied.

            Senator Klimesh’s comments near the end of his speech in opposition to HF 639 were telling.  Referring to the IUC permit issued to Summit Carbon Solutions corporation, the senator said that under existing law, “they have the ability to utilize eminent domain—decision right or wrong.  I mean, we’ve been debating that all night.”  In fact, the opponents of 639 had not been debating the IUC’s decision to give Summit eminent domain authority “all night.”  They ignored that crucial issue and focused on red herrings, boogeymen, and straw men.  On that fundamental question—the rightness or wrongness of eminent domain for private gain—the senator himself was neutral or at least he wouldn’t publicly say what he thought. 

Senator Klimesh went on to add, “While we were trying to squash a fly, we took a nuclear bomb to it.  That’s what we did, right?  We had the ability to take a fly swatter; we took a nuclear bomb to it.”  I think it’s insulting to use “a fly” as an analogy for the life-altering stresses forced upon farmers who do not want their land taken by state government for the profit-making benefit of a private corporation.  “A fly” is also a gross trivialization of the serious threat to constitutional rights and good government when referring to the alliance between Summit and the IUC. 

His language was misleading in other ways.  HF 639 is not “a nuclear bomb.”  It would provide reasonable protections for landowners and guardrails for the IUC.  It would not kill the proposed Summit pipeline.  It would insist that moving forward, in phase two, the corporation would need to prove itself to be a common carrier and courts must use a higher standard to determine public use, purpose, or improvement if eminent domain proceedings are to occur.

Lastly, Senator Klimesh stated, “We had the ability to take a fly swatter,” but neither he nor his Republican allies have been willing to take a fly swatter or any other tool that would hinder, limit, or inconvenience Summit for the past 3½ years.  Yes, they had the ability.  No, they did not have the will.  They did nothing, in terms of Senate floor debate.  So, the framing of the issue was not honest. 

To use his inappropriate analogies, when we offered on Friday, May 9, to substitute a “fly swatter” (HF 943) for a “nuclear bomb” (HF 639), in a concession to the exaggerated and misinformed criticism expressed by so many of our Republican colleagues in caucus, it triggered even greater outrage.  “Goalpost moving!” we were told, as Senate leadership rejected it out of hand, even though Senator Klimesh himself had raised the same idea (for whatever reason) three days earlier.

One of the strongest and most frequent criticisms the dozen of us received in caucus was that we were “willing to take Democrat votes” to try to pass HF 639.  It was a specious argument for three reasons. 

First, it was premised on the idea that we could control how Democrats in the chamber would vote, when, in fact, they are independent actors who would decide for themselves.  Second, it ignored the fact that 90% of the bills passed by the Senate are non-controversial proposals that receive widespread if not unanimous support from Democrats.  Third, it suggested that we were secretly plotting with “the enemy” when, to the contrary, we kept them at arm's length while hoping that they would do the right thing and join us in passing a Republican bill.

            The day after the vote, I came across an interesting Facebook post by Senator Molly Donahue, a Democrat from Cedar Rapids.  The context of her relevant words is something that happened right after the Democratic amendment to add HF 943 language to HF 639 was ruled non-germane and an attempt to suspend the rules was defeated. 

Referring to Senate Republican leadership, Senator Donahue writes, “Leadership then asked our leader through a text to call a Caucus so that they could talk.  In that ‘talk’ the gop leaders asked for us to vote down this bill, knowing that we would be the ones that would help push it over the top.  But we do not believe that private company should be allowed to steal land from land owners.”

I was shocked when I read this on my laptop.  I could hardly believe my eyes as I took a picture of the words while sitting in the chamber on Tuesday afternoon.  In the middle of floor debate on HF 639, a Republican leader texted Senator Weiner, requesting that Democrats go to caucus.  Republican leaders then met with Democrats, trying to convince them to team up … after repeatedly accusing us of doing that very thing.  The height of hypocrisy! 

But it was worse than being hypocritical.  It was also a betrayal of the Republican Party because they wanted to team up in order to kill a Republican bill.  We were hoping Democrats would join us to pass a Republican bill.  They were hoping Democrats would join them to stop a Republican bill.  That’s a big difference.

(Senator Donahue’s Facebook post can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1086882149918799&set=a.287379886535700.  A second source has confirmed the accuracy of her description of the requested private meeting and unsuccessful partnership attempt.)

During his closing comments in support of his strike-after amendment, Senator Bousselot told the Senate, “Let’s be pragmatic.”  That’s exactly what we do not need.  It was an excess of pragmatism that brought us to this point.  Four sessions of pragmatism—and, in some instances, self-serving opportunism—led us down the wrong road. 

Let’s be principled.  Iowa’s motto—“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain”—is a statement of what is principled and necessary, not what is pragmatic and convenient.

In closing, I want to add three things of a personal nature.  Throughout the closing weeks of the legislative session, when twelve of us were at odds with Senate leadership, Senator Whitver clearly disagreed with us but did so without guile or animosity.  He understood that it was not personal on our part and he treated us with civility and amiability.  I have respected Senator Whitver since joining the caucus and the way he conducted himself throughout the controversial and publicized HF 639 process has only increased my respect.

Senator Bousselot and I could not be further apart on the issue of the Summit pipeline, but our interactions toward the end of session remained friendly and respectful because we both understood that these are policy differences, not personal differences.  I appreciate his professionalism.  I was also impressed by Senator Bousselot’s gracious acknowledgment of the red-shirted landowners in the gallery as he began his closing comments in opposition to 639.

Finally, it should be noted that the 22 Republicans who voted No on HF 639 are not identical.  Some were very angry at us; others were not.  Some could understand why we were resorting to such an unusual strategy; others could not.  Some were willing to acknowledge a measure of responsibility for the failure of our caucus to deal with this issue several years ago, before the IUC permit was given; others were not.  Some were genuinely interested in seeking common ground of compromise; others were not.

A lid on a boiling pot will keep the water inside for only so long.  Eventually, it will boil over.  Yes, you can call those of us who insisted on removing the lid “troublemakers,” but we are not the ones who ignored the boiling pot for four straight sessions, who hoped that the problem would go away.  Who said that we had to “let the process run its course” and could not “change the rules in the middle of the game.”  That we should stand silently on the sidelines while the game is being played.  That we must delegate our lawmaking responsibilities to the executive branch or judicial branch. 

Bringing HF 639 to the Senate floor for a vote forced all 50 of us to go on public record about this contentious issue.  I don’t regret being part of the group that brought this about.  At the same time, I am not going to demonize Republicans who voted the opposite way that Monday night.  We agree on most issues; this is one on which we part company.  Their perspectives and priorities led them to vote No.

On one side of the debate over eminent domain-for-private gain, we have Bruce Rastetter, Terry Branstad, Tom Vilsack, the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, 15% of Iowans, and the Green New Deal.  I would rather stand with Clarence Thomas, Tamara Scott, Brad Zaun, the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, 78% of Iowans, and the Republican Party of Iowa.

            I want to publicly thank some of the people who were instrumental in accomplishing something that would have been unthinkable a year ago.  I’m grateful to my eleven Senate Republican colleagues who stood firm, in the weeks leading up to the vote, and did so with humility and class.  I’m grateful to the two other Senate Republicans who voted for the bill when it reached the floor.  I’m grateful to Senate Republicans who disagreed with us about this bill but chose to remain friends despite our differences. 

            I’m grateful to House Republicans who voted for the bill on March 26 and provided encouragement to those in the Senate who were pushing to move it forward.  I’m grateful to Senate Democrats who joined with us in voting Yes.    

I’m grateful to political leaders who provided support behind the scenes and to grassroots activists who helped with logistics and lobbying.  And I’m grateful to the thousands of farmers and rural landowners who spent countless hours contacting us year after year, pleading for relief, praying for justice, and hoping that we would do the right thing.  A constitutional majority of the Senate finally responded.

There were 98 Republican legislators at the Capitol who voted on HF 639.  Of these, 69 voted Yes (70%) and 29 voted No (30%).  When we consider both chambers of the General Assembly, the 13 Republican senators who supported passage of the bill are part of a GOP legislative super-majority.  We are in step with our political party. 

            We don’t know if Governor Reynolds will sign HF 639 into law.  I hope she does but that is a decision she must make.  Despite the personal and political turmoil it caused, the Senate finally fulfilled its responsibility by having an open debate and a public vote on the question of the proposed Summit pipeline and its relationship to state government.  We did the right thing in having that debate and vote, and we did the right thing in passing the bill. 

Which road will the State of Iowa take?  Will we turn toward executive expedience, crony capitalism, rights for sale to the highest bidder, and government favors for the few at the expense of the many?  Or will we continue toward constitutional fidelity, free enterprise, protection of property rights, and government that is honest and fair?