Here is information about Senator Grassley’s schedule this week. The Senate is in session.
Senator Grassley will meet with Iowans in Washington, D.C., from Community Bankers of Iowa, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, the Iowa State Education Association and the Iowa Funeral Directors Association.
Senator Grassley met with Iowa students visiting Washington, D.C., from West Sioux High School.
Senator Grassley will meet with Iowa families visiting Washington, D.C., from Vinton, Waverly, Osage, Diagonal, Newton, Oakland and Waterloo.
Senator Grassley was a guest on public affairs programs with Dan & Dan on WOC radio in Davenport, Cindy Kohlmann on KDTH radio in Dubuque and Theresa Rose on KILJ radio in Mount Pleasant. Senator Grassley will be a guest with Greg Haubrich on WGEM radio in Quincy and Sally Hart on KCII radio in Washington.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Finance Committee hearing on “Navigating Business Tax Reform.”
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over a Judiciary Committee hearing on “The Need for More Timeliness and Transparency: Oversight of the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program.” Senator Grassley has been conducting oversight of the PSOB program since January 2015 after learning that families of fallen public safety officers were waiting years to learn if their claims had been approved. Several Iowa families were on the waiting list for over 3 years, well past the 1-year deadline the Justice Department set for itself. Senator Grassley has been asking for periodic updates about the progress of the backlog. Worth County Sheriff Jay Langenbau will testify regarding the PSOB death benefit claim filed on behalf of his wife who was a flight nurse who died in a helicopter crash while transporting a patient.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:30 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a press conference on the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA).
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will speak at the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s World Intellectual Property Day reception about the importance of intellectual property for innovation and our economy.
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over a Judiciary Committee hearing on “Counterfeits and Their Impact on Consumer Health and Safety.” The hearing will explore the hazards counterfeit goods can pose to consumers, and what is being done to prevent them from entering the market.
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Budget Committee hearing on “Better Budgets, Better Results.”
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 12:30 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will meet with community and business leaders from Marshalltown.
On Thursday, April 28, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over the weekly executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee may consider S. 247, the Expatriate Terrorist Act, S. 2348, the Rapid DNA Act of 2015, S. 2577, the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 and S. 2840, the Police Act.
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 2 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Finance Committee hearing on “Mental Health in America: Where Are We Now?”
-30-
Senate Floor Speech by Senator Chuck Grassley regarding speech to Midwest Political Science Undergraduate Research Conference at Wartburg College
Delivered Monday, April 25, 2016
I recently gave a speech to the Midwest Political Science Undergraduate Research Conference, which was held at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa.
It dealt with the current state of our political discourse and what we should all do as Americans to try and elevate that discourse.
The election-year rhetoric is already heating up here in the U.S. Senate so I think it is appropriate to share with the Senate what I told these political science students.
This is an election year so there is a lot of talk about how Americans have voted and will vote, and also which Americans will vote and which ones will not.
There is something that is evident in this election season, and it’s also something that I have seen increase steadily since I have served in elected office, and that’s cynicism.
Americans are increasingly cynical about their system of government and those who serve in it.
Candidates of all political stripes are tapping into this cynicism by railing against elites.
Sometimes it is the notion of elites in a party, elites in Washington generally, or elites in the private sector.
Regardless, there is a perception that elites of some kind or another have an undue influence over decision-making and ordinary citizens are being ignored.
I’m not saying that such concerns are all illegitimate. But I think the cynicism is made worse by a lack of understanding when it comes to how our government works, and more importantly, why it works the way it does.
It seems to me there has been a decline in interest in teaching American students about our constitutional system and the principles on which it was founded.
You cannot understand how our government works and how it is supposed to work without understanding the Constitution. And, I would add that the best guide to the Constitution is the Federalist Papers.
You also cannot understand the Constitution without understanding the Declaration of Independence.
But you cannot understand the Declaration of Independence without understanding the natural rights philosophy.
You also cannot separate the study of history from political science.
To understand our current political debates, it is important to understand how we got here.
For instance, the debate between antifederalists and federalists sheds a great deal of light on what our founding generation agreed upon and disagreed upon.
Subsequent events such as the Civil War, the Progressive Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement, all drew upon earlier American political ideas, either borrowing from or rejecting them.
Our public discourse today is inevitably influenced by this heritage, but also seems disconnected from it.
From cable news shows to the local diner, people with different views shout past each other without comprehending the opposing arguments.
In recent years, there has been a realignment of political parties that follows more closely along philosophical lines.
That has led to more party line votes, but you would think that would make our debates MORE about principles instead of pure partisanship. It hasn’t.
There has been a lot written about how Americans are increasingly sorting themselves into groups, where they live and work with people who think like them and only consume likeminded media.
As a result, when people do encounter a view they don’t agree with, there is a tendency to think that there must be something wrong with the person who holds it.
Moreover, if a policy you disagree with gets enacted, but almost no one you know supports it, naturally you feel there must be something amiss.
That leads to anger, resentment, and cynicism. And that makes for fertile ground for demagogues.
There are real differences of philosophy reflected in the two major political parties so I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be vigorous debate.
In fact, the clash of ideas is an essential part of a representative government.
But you cannot effectively challenge an opponent’s philosophy if you don’t understand it, and you cannot understand your opponent’s philosophy unless you understand what you believe and why.
That’s why it is so important that Americans study American history and civics.
Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
In an election year, we talk a lot about voting being a civic duty, but that is incomplete.
Our civic duty goes well beyond the simple act of voting.
We have a responsibility to understand what we believe and why before we go into that voting booth.
Representative government doesn’t work very well if citizens are only engaged in the month or two before an election.
Our system of government relies on an informed and active citizenry.
We need more Americans to write their members of Congress and ask their positions, attend town meetings, and seek to understand both sides of an issue.
Still, we have to come to terms with the fact that we are a closely divided nation.
Better understanding of each other’s principles will elevate the debate, which is good for representative government, but it won’t eliminate political differences.
The next step is to respect other people’s right to live according to their principles.
I believe that calls for a renewed commitment to federalism.
The father of our constitution, James Madison, designed a system for what he called an extended republic.
The classical understanding of a republic as small, unitary, and homogeneous did not apply to the new United States and it certainly doesn’t now.
In fact, Madison argued that our large, diverse country could better prevent a majority faction from forming and trampling on the rights of others.
However, it also required decentralizing power and allowing different states and communities to do things their own way.
Whenever a government takes an action, there will almost certainly be some people unhappy with it.
That’s why the presumption should be to let individual Americans live their lives as they see fit. When governmental action is warranted, the decision should be made as close as possible to those it affects.
In my view, the extent to which the federal government now makes a great many decisions that affect the lives of Americans, beyond the limited role envisioned in the Constitution, leads to a great deal of unnecessary conflict.
Since our country is so closely divided, a great many decisions will upset almost half of Americans.
That is not a sustainable situation.
So, my preferred solution, which of course is based on my political philosophy, is to let states and communities make more of their own decisions when it comes to issues like healthcare and education.
Of course, others may disagree and we should have that debate.
But, it should be an honest and respectful debate on principles.
That was the end of my substantive remarks to the students.
I then commended the students for their interest in exploring political issues.
I also said to the students, The fact that you are interested and engaged, and many of your peers are not, gives you a special calling.
I ended my speech with a challenge. I said, I would challenge you to continue developing your understanding of your political beliefs, and those of others you may disagree with.
Then, do your part to elevate the political dialogue.
I would issue the same challenge to my colleagues.
-30-
Floor Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley: Amendment on Funding for Wind Energy Research
Delivered Monday, April 25, 2016
I’m pleased to join Senator Merkley in offering amendment #3812 regarding funding for wind energy research.
This is a straightforward amendment. It simply restores funding for wind energy research to the level provided for last year -- $95.4 million.
The underlying bill provides $80 million, so the Merkley-Grassley amendment will increase funding by just $15.4 million.
These additional funds will come from within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program.
There is no cost to this amendment. It does not raise overall spending levels.
It simply redirects $15 million from other renewable and efficiency programs to wind energy research.
This funding will allow the Department of Energy to continue the advancement in wind technologies and innovations.
These advances have greatly increased the competiveness of wind and facilitated rapid growth in wind energy across the county.
In Iowa, wind energy now accounts for more than 30% of the state’s total electricity supply.
Wind supported 88,000 jobs in 2015, an increase of 20 percent from 2014.
Wind was also the number one source of new generating capacity in 2015 – greater than natural gas and solar.
Some of my colleagues oppose wind energy and federal policies that support this clean and renewable energy.
They argue we shouldn’t pick winners or that wind is a mature industry.
Don’t kid yourself.
Wind, while nearly mature, is just an infant compared to the federal dollars and incentives provided for fossil and nuclear energy.
It’s amusing that some of the strongest opponents of wind energy are the biggest proponents of other, much more costly, programs for mature, traditional energy sources.
For example, the 100 year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax preferences that benefit only their industry that result in the loss of more than $4 billion annually in tax revenue.
Nuclear energy is another great example. The first nuclear power plant came online in the United States in 1958 – 58 years ago.
Nuclear receives special tax treatment including a production tax credit.
Nuclear also benefits from Price-Anderson, federal liability insurance, that Congress provided as a temporary measure in 1958. This temporary measure has been renewed through 2025.
Nuclear energy has also received more than $74 billion in federal research and development dollars since 1950.
This bill includes over $1 billion for nuclear research. This is an increase of $71 million, or 7.3 percent over fiscal year 2016 levels.
Fossil Energy Research and Development is allocated $632 million in this bill, equal to 2016 levels.
Even prominent conservative advocacy groups have called for the nuclear and fossil energy funds to be cut or eliminated altogether.
Again, this amendment will simply provide level funding for wind energy research, by providing an additional $15 million.
This is not new money, so there is no score.
I urge my colleagues to support the Merkley-Grassley amendment.
-30-
