Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Training Local Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Iowa Senate rejects Blake amendment, then concurs in Senate file 603 restricting local requirements on contractors and training
Summary
The Iowa Senate defeated Senator Blake’s amendment that would have made local control permissive, then later concurred in a House amendment to Senate file 603 and passed the bill as amended. Debate centered on apprenticeships, local control for cities/counties/schools, and possible conflicts with federal Davis‑Bacon/CDBG rules.
The Iowa Senate debated language in Senate file 603 regarding workforce compensation and training rules for developer and contractor projects, defeated a permissive amendment offered by Senator Blake of Polk, and ultimately concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill as amended.
Senator Blake, the senator from Polk, opened floor debate by urging colleagues to back an amendment she described as "pro worker, pro Iowan," saying it would make local choices permissive rather than mandatory: "I have brought forward an amendment that makes this pro worker, pro Iowan, making sure that we are making sure that compensation for Iowan workers are fair, and that we're paying for the jobs that we need to do. Don't worry, everybody. This amendment does it." Blake said the amendment would change broad "shall not" language in the bill to "may," allowing cities, counties and school districts flexibility to require compensation or training beyond state minimums.
The amendment to the amendment, Senate Amendment 30‑34 to Senate Amendment 30‑30, was offered for a recorded roll call. After debate featuring senators who both supported and opposed the change, the roll call on Amendment 30‑34 was 15 ayes and 32 nays; the amendment was defeated.
Supporters of the Blake amendment said the change preserved local control and supported apprenticeships. Senator Townsend, the senator from Dubuque, said apprenticeship training provides a skilled workforce and "this isn't a union or nonunion thing," and argued communities benefit when local workers perform public projects. Senator Weiner, the senator from Johnson, said the amendment "does not give the impression that we wouldn't be supporting young people" entering trades and described apprenticeship training as a gubernatorial priority.
Opponents argued the amendment gutted the bill's protections meant to ensure Iowa workers get priority on public projects. Senator Schultz, the senator from Crawford, urged colleagues to "resist this amendment" and said the legislation was intended to preserve opportunities for "100% of Iowa workers." Senator Winkler, the senator from Scott, and others raised concerns about unintended consequences if the language took effect immediately, including potential conflicts with federally required wage rules.
Multiple senators flagged a possible legal conflict with federal rules tied to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and Davis‑Bacon wage requirements. Senator Winkler asked whether the House amendment could affect CDBG funds; Senator Schultz responded that the issue was under review and said a later block grant bill could address any conflict but asserted "it will not be a problem" as presented.
After subsequent debate on Senate Amendment 30‑30 and the House amendment, the Senate voted to concur in the House amendment to Senate file 603. A roll call recorded 32 ayes and 15 nays; the amendment was adopted and the Senate placed Senate file 603, as amended, on final passage. The chamber agreed to an amended bill title describing the measure as related to workforce compensation, training, unemployment insurance and functions of the Department of Workforce Development and local government entities. The Senate then gave unanimous consent to immediately message the bill.
The floor debate mixed policy argument and procedural requests. Senator Dotzler, the senator from Blackhawk, repeatedly urged colleagues to defer action so staff could confirm whether federal funding rules might be affected; that request was not adopted and the Senate proceeded to final votes. Several senators described specific local examples they said illustrated the bill’s real‑world effects, including contractors bringing out‑of‑state workers and projects slowed by contractor workforce instability.
The actions taken on the Senate floor mean Senate file 603, as amended, now moves on to the next step in the legislative process with the Senate having concurred in the House amendment and the measure having passed the Senate.
