Iowa Speaker of the House

[Travis Graven] The 2026 Iowa Legislative Session opened this week. We'll talk about what's in store with House Speaker Pat Grassley from our set here in the House chamber on this edition of Iowa Press.

[Announcer] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

The Bob and Doreen Sheppard Family proud supporters of educational programing seen only on Iowa PBS.

Banking in Iowa goes beyond transactions. Banks work to help people and small businesses succeed, and Iowa banks are committed to building confident banking relationships. Iowa banks, your partner through it all.

[MUSIC] 

[Announcer] For decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond, celebrating more than 50 years on statewide Iowa PBS. This is the Friday, January 16th edition of Iowa Press. From the House chamber in the Iowa Capitol, here is Travis Graven.

[Graven] The 91st General Assembly gaveled in earlier this week here at the Iowa Statehouse. It's the 10th year of Republican trifecta control. Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the governor's office. One of the Republican leaders is joining us here on Iowa Press today. Speaker Pat Grassley Republican from New Hartford. It is his 20th session here at the legislature, first elected in 2007 and elected speaker of the House in 2020. Mr. speaker, thanks for joining us here on Iowa Press again and welcoming us to your office here in the House chamber.

[Rep. Pat Grassley] It's always good to have you guys back here and show off the beauty of the Capitol.

[Graven] And joining the conversation, Erin Murphy, the Des Moines chief bureau chief of the Gazette in Cedar Rapids. Stephen Gruber-Miller of the Des Moines Register, statehouse and politics reporter.

[Stephen Gruber-Miller] Mr. Speaker, property taxes are going to be one of the top topics here at the legislature this session. We've already seen plans from House Democrats. The governor rolled out her plan. Senate Republicans have rolled out their plan. When should we expect the House Republican plan? And how different will that be from what we've seen already?

[Grassley] Yeah, I think, so you're right. That's going to be something that's going to be a big talking point or not talking point topic that's going to be looked at this session. I think it's very positive that we're getting bills out early. My expectation would be next week, the second week of the legislative session, to be seeing a bill from the House. I think there's a very positive sign from the standpoint, regardless of what the details are and what they all look like, I think they're all trying to get to the same goal, which is certainty for the taxpayer. What you can expect from our bill, as far as the specifics, obviously, we're going to share that with the caucus first. As far as taking their feedback and take it to them before we would release that. But you're going to see something that I think is easy to understand, easy to digest, and something that provides certainty and relief for the taxpayer and shifts the burden, the burden that's currently been on the taxpayer is going to be shifted from the standpoint of certainty back to them, away from local governments. And so that's where we're going to try to do with our bill. Again, simple early in session and providing certainty for the taxpayer.

[Gruber-Miller] One of the areas that the plans that have been released so far seem to agree on is the need for a freeze or some sort of property tax cut for seniors. Is that an element that will be part of your proposal?

[Grassley] As we're looking at all the other proposals, making sure and I think it's, you know, it's a very complicated topic. So it's really hard. It's not as easy as just a specific piece of policy to give a piece of feedback on. What we're trying to do right now is hear from all the stakeholders. Once our bills out, begin conversations with we've had them. But continuing with stakeholders, talks with the governor's office, talk with the Senate and see what they look like. Making sure that there's not any unforeseen shifts that may happen with some of the changes. That's one of the things we want to make sure we're getting feedback on. Whatever the comes of this conversation, our ultimate goal is to make sure that it is providing certainty for relief, not at the back of just shifting any sort of burden to one taxpayer or another. But that's all going to happen through the committee process to see what those are. Once we get the runs and see what the impacts are on Iowans and local governments.

[Gruber-Miller] Yeah. Speaking of local governments, you know, a couple of years ago, legislators passed sort of a growth restriction. How quickly property taxes could grow. The governor in her condition of the state, said 2% cap on revenue growth for local governments. I'm curious what you think of that. And if that, you know, we've we've had inflation tracking higher than that in recent years. So is that enough for local governments to be able to continue providing services at the rate Iowans expect?

[Grassley] And as I've been saying leading up to session, from our standpoint, I think part of the reason why we've struggled to find any certainty for Iowans is we've always entered this conversation of saying, okay, where does the certainty need to continue to exist for the taxing entity? I think that's what you're starting to see shift. We understand that there has to be some level of service at the local level. And I think part of what's going to come from this, hopefully, is a different way of delivering of services, more efficient way of delivering services, but making sure that ultimately we provide that certainty for the taxpayer. Yes, we recognize that we still have to have those essential services at the local level, but for too long, we've entered into this conversation without sitting in the taxpayers seat and answering our questions from that standpoint. So we recognize that. And again, nothing set in stone. Obviously, when you have multiple bills around, not one of them will pass through in their current form. So we look forward to working through all those pieces.

[Graven] How much are local officials involved in these debates and conversations? Are you talking to local elected officials?

[Grassley] I think what here's what I've had as far as you know, as you touched on earlier, I've been here for a long time. This is one of the most positive interactions. I don't want to say that doesn't mean that the local governments support everything that we're doing, but there's been a great willingness from the standpoint of folks that represent them down here in Des Moines. Engaging with myself with our Ways and Means chair and at least sharing ideas. And we've asked them, once our bills are out, make sure you give us feedback right away. So that doesn't mean we're all going to agree. So I'm not going to leave any of the viewers thinking that that's what's going to happen necessarily. But there is an open line of communication and dialog.

[Erin Murphy] Another topic that promises to be very prevalent this session is eminent domain property taxes, carbon capture, pipelines. Again, as that was an attempt to address last year. House Republicans have already held their first subcommittee hearing on on their legislation, held just a couple hours, actually, before Governor Reynolds conditioned the state address last night. Why was it so important to for House Republicans to get an immediate start on that bill?

[Grassley] I think just like property taxes, this is something that we've been talking about leading up to session. We want to try to get some of our priorities out to the public to make sure we're getting that feedback as early as possible, but we've been really clear, obviously, the way everything ended last session with the veto of the bill that we heard, you know, we heard from the governor, we heard from some folks that were supportive of the veto, saying this bill was too broad, saying that it touched on a lot of topics. Maybe we weren't necessarily trying to address. And there was probably some truth in that. In some of the bill we passed last year. So that's why we focused it much more on just eminent domain itself, or carbon capture pipelines. And I think that's why you've seen us roll out early to show Iowans that it still is something that we really care about. And just because the bill was vetoed last session, it's not something that the House has forgotten as a priority.

[Murphy] Well, and to that, has there been conversations with the governor early this session about getting something to her desk that she would be willing to support? What? She didn't mention that topic in her condition of the state address. Has she been engaged with House Republicans?

[Grassley] I shared with the governor and Senate leadership before we released our bill, that we were going to be releasing a bill this week just to make sure they're aware. I don't think it's going to be productive for us not trying to work towards a solution. It sounds like. And until we see it, I don't want to speak for the Senate. It sounds like we're going to have a bill that comes our way from the Senate that our Senate leadership has been working on, which I actually think is a positive sign towards finding some level of resolution for the last several years. It's just been bill after bill from the House's perspective, heading over to the Senate. Regardless if we agree with one another, I think it's a positive step forward for landowners that have had this issue, just like we have over our heads for several years, that there's actual movement on both sides. That's how legislation gets done when it comes to finding some level of compromise or agreement. So I think it's a positive sign where we actually sit today, more so than the past year.

[Murphy] And so much that we want to get to. But real quick, let's talk about each of those two bills. Your bill that ran summit, the company that has proposed a pipeline through Iowa, said in the subcommittee hearing on Tuesday. Let me be clear. This bill would kill our project. What's your reaction to that?

[Grassley] Well, my immediate reaction is to say that we've said all along we don't want to have the use of eminent domain as a hammer to have to get a project done. I think our and our position has been very clear. We've passed several different bills out of the House, not just one policy, and said it's this or nothing. We've shown a willingness to pass several different pieces of policy that look differently, as long as they're centered around eminent domain, we're more than happy to engage in conversations with the Senate, the governor, or anyone that's interested.

[Murphy] And to that, the Senate bill would allow projects to widen their corridor, widen, go beyond their originally planned route to find more voluntary easements. Is that something House Republicans can support?

[Grassley] I've been pretty clear. I think, with Senator Clements and other folks in the Senate that if property rights and eminent domain is part of the conversation of what that looks like, if if it still provides those protections that Iowans expect of the House to be passing, we're more than happy to engage in those without having sat down and looked at all the details in depth. I wouldn't want to commit to anything. But if eminent domain is a part of the conversation, let's at least talk.

[Graven] One priority that you've identified for House Republicans is tougher on crime, longer prison sentences for people previously convicted of violent crimes. Is that going to require a larger investment for the Department of Corrections? You'll need more prison space for more people.

[Grassley] Potentially, and I think that's why we've started this conversation. That's why I was talking about it before we left in session or before we came into session. And I think from my standpoint, kind of the way I answer that question is if it takes more investment from the state to keep Iowans safe, that's something that we'll just have to look at and make decisions on how to make those investments. I think we need to get in a position where we can first enact these policies, and if we have to engage in the conversations with Department of Corrections or anyone else to make sure that those policies, we think that are important of keeping Iowa families safe, we're more than happy to engage those from House Republicans perspective.

[Gruber-Miller] Last session, your caucus didn't have support for a bill that would limit failure to warn lawsuits over labeling on pesticide manufacturers products. Has anything changed since last year? Do you do you expect that to be something that comes up in the house again?

[Grassley] I think not knowing, you know, we haven't caucused on it yet at this point. Stephen but from the standpoint of I know a lot of groups on both sides of the issue have been advocating or working against the bill, and that's just and that's good for the process. I've been pretty clear that when it comes to agriculture, personally, as a farmer, I'd rather have products that are made here in America that are we're not dependent on countries that really don't like us a lot, and how we do production agriculture. And so from my standpoint, I've said if that's something that caucus wants us to advance, we need to engage in that conversation with them. If that's something they want to move forward. Clearly, last year we didn't have the votes. But if the caucus decides that that is something they want to do, I think that's something that we'd be entertaining.

[Gruber-Miller] One of the things that has happened since last year is there was a widely cited study that was retracted after it became clear that Monsanto, at the time, had had a role in sort of writing that that study. Does that change the conversation or how you're thinking about the issue at all?

[Grassley] I mean, not having had the conversation with members, it's hard for me to speculate. Again, we haven't. It'll be it's going to be better once we can all get in the room, decide where we want to go. That's how we approached it last session. We went to caucus on 1 or 2 times. It became pretty clear at that point there was not a level of support. I think we'll go down that same path this session.

[Murphy] There hasn't been an election in between. What might have changed within the caucus that your vote might be different this year?

[Grassley] Well, I think there's been a I think the fact that it's more eminent right now that it may not be something that's able to be made in this country any longer, is one of the conversations is that as that clock ticks, I think that changes it. But like I said, there's been a lot of advocacy on all sides of the issue. So from the standpoint of does it have the votes? Does it not have the votes? I don't know where we stand at this point. Obviously, like a lot of other policies we'll talk about this year, the caucus will dictate a lot of where we go on those.

[Gruber-Miller] Turning to sort of water quality issues, you know, we've seen in central Iowa Water Works has had to turn on their nitrate removal system in January, which is pretty unusual to deal with high nitrate levels. There are people around the state who are frustrated that there hasn't been more action taken. I know some things have been done. I'm curious, from your perspective, you know, you you and the governor both have said mandates are not really the answer here, but are there things the state can and should be doing to improve its water quality?

[Grassley] Well, my fear has always been. First of all, I will say, and you kind of led off with that and not to filibuster it to death. Stephen but we do have to be talking about the things that we have already done in the state. We're spending more money than any other state in the country on this. We're doing monitor through the DNR. The EPA is coming through and inspecting our water. I think it was 2024 was the last time that had happened in our treatment facilities here in the state. We've passed those those tests. So we have to talk about more things we're doing. I've had several conversations with Secretary Naig want to get him over in the legislature, because that is one thing that I think we should have been doing a better job of, is talking about all the things that we have done. Back to the mandate piece. My fear has always been a lot of the angles that come to mandates. My fear would be that groups are saying, oh yeah, we're going to use the water quality issue to change the way we do agriculture in the state of Iowa, and to its detriment with what farmers are already facing every day with record high fertilizer prices, ammonia prices and inputs, and lower prices. I think we just have to be mindful. Farmers are making changes every spring, every fall, and the practices that we use, the programs working, I think we have to do a better job of telling the message. As leaders here in the state.

[Murphy] As we record here on Wednesday afternoon, some of your members on the Higher Education Committee are getting a report from community colleges on their exploration at the legislature's behest of offering bachelor's degrees at community colleges. Feel free to insert why you feel that was necessary. I'm also interested to hear your response to. There's been concerns from the private colleges in the state that this is sort of taken away, creating competition for what they do, and even some of the community colleges have shared that concern because of relationships they have built with those private colleges.

[Grassley] So I think that that's obviously why we want to get the feedback from the schools. One of the things that I think we're going to look at in this process is, first of all, there are pockets in the state as far as the ability to attend university, for example, not necessarily a private college, but I'm just saying from a university standpoint, which is always what's talked about when it comes to this is direct competition to universities. I think that we need to be very mindful of where those locations may or may not be. I think we also need to be talking about what are those degree fields in which we would be doing it. I don't think the expectation of every member in the House is to say, every community college becomes a four year school for every, every degree that they currently offer or would want to add. I don't think that's where we're trying to go with this conversation, but if there are areas of the states, the state that those high demand fields could have more exposure from a four year standpoint, I think that's something we need to at least talk about.

[Murphy] The representative Collins from the House Republicans, who chairs that higher education committee, is also talked about legislation that would give the legislature more input on curriculum at the Regents universities. You can imagine that there will be some pushback to that. Why is that something that's needed in your mind?

[Grassley] And I will just say, from the standpoint I know Representative Collins has several bills. Obviously, the higher education, this is part of the reason why I separated the regular education committee from the Higher Education Committee was to make sure that we had specific looks and deep dives into those issues. And I think you've seen that from the legislature. So before I answer on every single piece of policy that Representative Collins will introduce, which will be several, I'm sure it's something that we're going to vet through the committee process. We've had great conversations with the Regents, we've had great conversations with the community colleges. It's going to be an open, transparent process. Not every bill that we've proposed has made it through to the governor. We've worked with the board, for example, and some of those policies that they could do internally. So I just look forward to those all working through the process.

[Murphy] And speaking of that other education committee, Governor Reynolds didn't mention this in a condition of the state, but she is planning to propose a 2% increase in K-12 general funding as part of her budget proposal. There's a lot of schools out there that are asking 5% to to keep up with the cost of inflation, et cetera., where our House Republicans are going to land on that spectrum.

[Grassley] Yeah, obviously we're waiting to see where that final landing spot would be from the governor's proposal. That's traditionally been the starting spot when it comes to setting SSA. So I think it's something that whether it's at the end of this week or early next week, we'll get together as a caucus. And, you know, just recognizing as we're making budget decisions what these impacts are and what other potential things may be. So I think that's probably within the week we'll start figuring out what our plan forward looks like.

[Murphy] Is you hope that will get done. Early this session. There have been a few years recently where that got punted to later.

[Grassley] Yeah, we always try to shoot for it to be early. That's our objective. Going into it is going to be something that is certainty. So the schools know what they're going to get early. That's our objective. But again, I think it will just depend what negotiations look like between the House and Senate and the governor.

[Gruber-Miller] The governor, in her condition of the state address, proposed a couple of things that might align with the Make America Healthy Again movement. One of those was banning certain food dyes in school lunches. I know this is something that some of your members have talked about in the past, and I'm curious if you think there's support within the House Republican caucus to make it happen.

[Grassley] Yeah, I think that some of the things that the governor talked about last night, kind of around the making us healthier, I think that's been something that we've kind of showed in the House. I think we led on looking at nutrition standards. We had some bills dealing with some of the dyes. We had the bill obviously with Snap benefits. So I think that's something that we've kind of led on. So I would expect the caucus to want to engage with the governor and have a level of interest in that.

[Gruber-Miller] And with that, is there any risk that as you're requiring schools to use certain foods or not use certain foods, that it could raise the cost actually, of school lunches?

[Grassley] Yeah, I think those are part of the decisions we'll have to look at. At the same time, if if we feel something kind of back to the the three strikes and the crime issue that we talked about earlier, if it's something that we feel is important, we'll have to find a way to make sure we can make those investments in it. But that'll all work itself through the process, I'm sure.

[Gruber-Miller] Yeah. And you had mentioned SNAP and the governor is participating now this coming summer, in summer EBT. And she's proposing to pass a law that that requires the state to continue to seek the waivers from the federal government that lets it participate in those programs. Is that going to be an easy ask, or are there concerns that need to be worked out for that?

[Grassley] I mean, obviously we want to see what the exact get deeper into the exact details. You know, we passed a bill last year because I think the two, if I remember right, she may have mentioned was it snap in the summer one, if I remember right off the top of my head, I think we have an interest obviously in Snap. We've worked on that bill in the past. We've sent that bill to the Senate. Hopefully we can get that. So it's codified, but we would definitely have interest in engaging with the governor's office on what it would look like for the summer food program, as well.

[Murphy] I'd like to ask the former Appropriations Committee chair a few questions about the state budget.

[Grassley] How much time we got left. Erin, let's dig in. All right. You guys are out. Erin and I are going here.

[Murphy] Probably not as much as you'd like. Unfortunately, I know that you're hearing it because you've talked about it. The criticisms from Democrats and specifically about using the one time money to pay for ongoing expenses. Because right now, because of the reductions in revenue from the income tax cuts, there's more spending than there is revenue for the time being. Republicans believe that will rebound. I address that first, that the accusation that Republicans are violating their own budgeting rules.

[Grassley] And I think it's been very clear, and I laid it out in my opening day speech, and I'll continue to say it all throughout session. We've overcollected taxpayer's money. Let's just use the $4 billion of the Taxpayer Relief Fund, which I said in my speech, and I'm one of the only few members left here in the legislature, but that was created under a split control government. Democrats and Republicans. I'm one of the few that's left here that was here when that happened, and we created that so we could provide tax relief. The way that we've decided to get tax relief for Iowans is using a $4 billion worth of over collection and reduce our income tax to the sixth lowest in the country. So from that standpoint, when we've been making these decisions, Budgetarily, we put ourselves in a position where, okay, not only have we made record investments in things like Medicaid, things like K-12 schools, but at the same time, we've overcollected to the tune of $6 billion. Let's just use taxpayer relief fund that we want to get back in the hands of Iowans. So we feel very confident that there's other states that are not sitting in nearly the good position we are, even as far as we've gone on those tax cuts.

[Murphy] I think Kay and I may be the only members of the press corps who were there for that divided government, too. So and this is the other question in this, and I've asked you this a number of times, I believe, on this show, maybe even in this crow's nest. It's at this point it's still a projection that eventually state revenue will rebound and surpass current spending levels. What assurances can you provide or what is the level of concern that anybody is that is fair to have? Because that also depends partially on stuff that's out of state government's control, right? The national economy can create headwinds that make that growth difficult. How sure should Iowans be that those numbers will eventually rebound? And that before these reserve accounts run out?

[Grassley] Well, I think that if there's one thing whether you agree with Republicans or not, I think we've shown over the last several years that we've done a good job of managing state spending, where states have gotten into trouble when they've done income tax cuts, is they've continued to spend beyond their means for many, many years, did not have a plan on how they could potentially offset that like we did when it came to the Taxpayer Relief Fund. When it came to the ending balance, and then put themselves in a position where all of a sudden now, then it's then it is the house of cards. We wouldn't have made the decisions if we didn't, number one, feel confident that it was going to work out through the projections. But number two, that fundamentally we just believe when Iowans are struggling right now with everyday costs of living, that that money that we've collected as a state should be back in their hands.

[Gruber-Miller] I want to ask you about an interesting proposal that we heard from the new Majority leader, Representative Kaufmann, on the first day of session. He said it might not be popular, but he's interested in passing a pay increase for lawmakers. Lawmakers are part time. You make $25,000 a year, most of you a little bit more for leaders like yourself. Is that something you agree with, and if so, why the.

[Grassley] So our caucus is engaged in several conversations, not only internally across the aisle, also across the rotunda. I can tell you that there are good people that are not running for office, that are not staying in office. We've we've lost really good members purely because it was a situation where, yes, it is a citizen legislature. It's a part time job. This the pay increase has not been looked at even before I was elected for over 20 years. And so when you're getting to the point where, as you guys know, there's some of these more divisive issues, not Republicans and Democrats don't always agree. I think this is something we actually have some shared concerns about, the ability for our members to stay here, our ability to go out and recruit members, and also at the same time. And I think Representative Kaufmann said this, and I think he's right. You're just going to end up with a situation where the only thing you have is retirees or wealthy folks, and that's nothing against those individuals. But I think we have to have working class families, young people being able to be in those jobs. So I think it's something as a caucus, they feel passionate about. And I've told them if that's the route they want to go to move forward, let's figure out what that plan would be. Working with Democrats, working with across the rotunda, working with the governor to see what that path is. So I guess the ultimate answer is yes, we're interested.

[Gruber-Miller] Any indication from the governor or your Senate colleagues that they would be interested in that?

[Grassley] So we've had some preliminary conversations just at a member to member level, and we've been pretty transparent that we've been interested. It feels like I don't want to speak. You guys know I don't speak for the other chambers and the governor, I would say indications are it's it's at least an open door to a conversation.

[Graven] We heard we're taping this show on Wednesday. We heard this morning from Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen about salaries and needing to raise those in the judicial department for competitive reasons. Being able to hire and retain the right kind of people that they need. Do you agree with that? Do you see a need there for additional money? The governor did include a little bit of an increase for the judicial department in her budget.

[Grassley] If you look at our budget. So remember, there's there's always multiple budgets. There's the governor's budget, there's the House budget, the Senate budget. But then ultimately there's the one budget that gets passed through and signed into law. So if you look at our budget the last several years, we've been looking at ways to try to have investments into judicial salaries. We've looked and Chief Justice Christianson touched on indigent defense and some other things. If you look at the bills that we passed out of the House in our initial budget process, we've added increases to try to catch up on a problem that's been created. And, you know, just being able to keep up with whether it's the private sector or just an interest in these positions. So I think the chief justice makes a good case on those issues. Last year we did get a slight increase in those actually passed through the Senate and to the governor. But the House budget has traditionally included some of the things that she discussed in our first run at it.

[Graven] Quick prediction. Are we going to get out of the session on time?

[Grassley] These guys, you guys should all know long enough I don't make predictions. I've been here too long to do that, but we're hoping to get Iowans work done as quickly as possible.

[Graven] All right. Thank you, Speaker. We appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us here today. And you can watch this episode of Iowa Press and all of our episodes online at iowapbs.org. There you'll also find all of our coverage from this opening week of the legislative session. The Condition of the State address from the governor. Condition of the Judiciary address and the Condition of the Guard address as well. For our entire hard working Iowa PBS crew here at the Iowa Statehouse, I'm Travis Graven, thanks for joining us today.

[MUSIC]

[Announcer] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

The Bob and Doreen Sheppard Family proud supporters of educational programing seen only on Iowa PBS.

Banking in Iowa goes beyond transactions. Banks work to help people and small businesses succeed, and Iowa banks are committed to building confident banking relationships. Iowa banks, your partner through it all.