Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am here to join Senator Merkley in offering amendment No. 3812 regarding funding for wind energy research.

This is a straightforward amendment. It simply restores funding for wind energy research to the amount provided for just 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, so we can see there is no cost to this amendment from the bottom line of the bill. 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 of wind technologies and innovations. These advances have greatly increased the competitiveness of wind and facilitated rapid growth in wind energy across the country.

In Iowa, wind energy now accounts for more than 30 percent of the State's total electricity supply. Wind supported 88,000 jobs in 2015, an increase of 20 percent from the previous year. Wind was also the No. 1 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 is quite amusing to me that some of the strongest opponents of wind energy in this body 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 powerplant came online in the United States in 1958. That was 58 years ago. Nuclear received special tax treatment, including--would you believe it--a production tax credit. Nuclear also benefits from Price-Anderson Federal liability insurance that Congress provided as a temporary measure way back in 1958. This temporary measure--can you believe it-- 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 for wind energy research. We are just asking for the same amount of money appropriated for next year as this year.

Fossil energy research and development is another one I can point out, which is allocated $632 million in this bill, equal to the 2016 levels. Even prominent conservative advocacy groups have called for the nuclear and fossil fuel 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 by the CBO. I urge my colleagues to support the Merkley-Grassley amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I recently gave a speech to the Midwest Political Science Undergraduate Research Conference, which was held at Wartburg College in Waverly, IA. It dealt with the current state of our political discourse and what we should all do as Americans to try and elevate that political discourse.

The election-year rhetoric is already heating up in the Senate, so I think it is appropriate to share with the Senate what I told these political science students and their professors.

This is an election year, so there is a lot of talk about how Americans have voted and will vote, as well as which Americans will vote and which ones will not vote. There is something that is evident in this election season, and it is also something I have seen increase steadily since I have served in elected office, and that happens to be cynicism. Americans are increasingly cynical about their system of government and those who serve in that government. Candidates of all political stripes are tapping into this cynicism by railing against so- called elites. Sometimes it is the notion of elites within a political party, elites in Washington generally, or elites even in the private sector. Regardless, there is a perception that elites of some kind or another have an undue influence over decisionmaking and ordinary citizens are being ignored.

I am 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 especially 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. 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 debate, it is important to understand how we got where we are today. For instance, the debate between anti-Federalists and Federalists sheds a great deal of light on what our founding generation agreed upon and what they 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 political discourse today is inevitably influenced by this heritage, but it 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 debate more about principles instead of pure partisanship, but 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 they do and only consume like-minded media. As a result, when people do encounter a view they don't agree with, there is a tendency to think there must be something wrong with the person who holds that view. 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 am not arguing there shouldn't be vigorous debate. In fact, the clash of ideas is an essential part of our representative system of government, but you cannot effectively challenge an opponent's philosophy if you don't understand that philosophy, and you cannot understand your opponent's philosophy unless you understand what you believe and why you believe it. That is why it is so important 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 the 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 to 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 will not eliminate and shouldn'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 is why the presumption should be to let individual Americans live their lives as they see fit. When government 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 government is so closely divided, a great many decisions will upset almost half of the American people. That is not a sustainable situation. So my preferred solution--which, of course, is based upon my political philosophy--is to let States and communities make more of their own decisions when it comes to issues such as health care and education. Of course, others may disagree and do disagree, and we should have that debate, but it should be an honest and respectful debate based upon very basic principles.

That was the end of my substantive remarks to those students at Wartburg College. I then commended the students for their interest in exploring political issues. I also said to the students that the fact that they are interested and that they are engaged and many of their peers are not gives these students a very 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 with whom you may disagree and then do your part to elevate the political dialogue. I would issue the same challenge to my colleagues here in the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source