Iowa Senate President

(music)

Democrats flipped an Iowa Senate seat in a special election this week, but republicans still hold a super majority in the Senate and control the agenda. We'll talk with Senate President Amy Sinclair on this edition of Iowa Press.

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

(music)

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Elite Casino Resorts is rooted in Iowa. Elite's 1,600 employees are our company's greatest asset. A family run business, Elite supports volunteerism, encourages promotions from within and shares profits with our employees.

(music)

Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs and help local businesses. Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build. Learn more at iowabankers.com.

(music)

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 31st edition of Iowa Press. Here is Kay Henderson.

(music)

[Henderson] Our guest on this edition of Iowa Press has been in the Iowa Senate since 2013. In 2023, she was elected by her republican peers to be the President of the Iowa Senate. Amy Sinclair, a republican from Allerton, welcome back to Iowa Press.

[Sinclair] Thank you, happy to be here.

[Henderson] Also joining the conversation, Stephen Gruber-Miller of the Des Moines Register and Erin Murphy of the Gazette in Cedar Rapids.

[Murphy] Senator Sinclair, your friends across the rotunda this week passed a new five-year moratorium on state casino licenses. Back before the session when my outlet talked to you, you said that you personally, individually have some reservations about that and you mentioned the Racing and Gaming Commission, that they have a job to do. How widely shared is that perspective within your caucus?

[Sinclair] Honestly, I'd say the issue of the moratorium is pretty much a jump ball in the Senate. Just procedurally the House this week did indeed pass a five-year moratorium. It originally had some other items in it. I think it has been simplified through the process. That bill will come over to us, we'll read that in on Monday and it will get assigned to a committee. Additionally, a bill passed through our state local government committee, a state moratorium on gambling is not a local government issue, so that bill will also be referred to the state government committee at which time the process will continue. I don't know, I've tried to do a soft vote count, I can't honestly tell you where the Senate will land. But we will go through the process. I think the process is a good one where we have public and legislative input through a subcommittee process and then through a committee process. And ultimately if it passes those hurdles can come to the floor. And that will be the process we follow. I don't believe there is any fast tracking that we can do, that we would do.

[Murphy] To that, if I may jump in because I'm curious, speaking of the Racing and Gaming Commission, they have a Thursday meeting where they are scheduled to vote on the Cedar Rapids casino's license application. The bill also has a retroactive provision in it that would make it retroactive to the start of the year. Do you feel -- so because of that do you feel there's not necessarily a rush to do that bill before Thursday? Or do you think regardless of that retroactive application it should be done before Thursday?

[Sinclair] I see the activity moving at the pace that the legislature moves. Sometimes that's fast, sometimes it's slow. It depends on the motivation of the subcommittee and committee numbers. You're correct, it does have retroactivity in it, so the pressure is less. I think it needs to be a well-vetted conversation. This isn't a republican versus democrat issue. This is an Iowa issue. And the question is, are there enough casinos in the state or are there not? The question is, should we allow those established boards and commissions to do their jobs that they were created to do or do we not? There are some larger political and philosophical conversations that we're having along with this that I think need the time to do that. So, we're going to follow the process and I couldn't begin to guess where it will end up.

[Gruber-Miller] There was a special election this week in eastern Iowa for a Senate seat vacated by now Lieutenant Governor Chris Cournoyer. Republicans lost that special election. This is a seat that Senator Cournoyer won with 61% of the vote in 2022. President Trump carried it by over 20 points in the fall. What happened?

[Sinclair] Special elections are weird. I think we all know that. There's low voter turnout in all of them so it doesn't take as many numbers to sway the end result. It's certainly a disappointing loss. It leaves us still with a super majority. It's not like it's a seat we needed to retain to be able to advance the Governor's nominees. But to that point, it's important that we remember that candidates matter and that the work you put into it matters and that you shouldn't take things for granted.

[Henderson] Earlier this month, Governor Reynolds recommended a 2% increase in general state assistance for public schools and then the per pupil allocation would then be advanced to the people who have signed up for the educational savings accounts to cover private school expenses. It's something around $7900 per student. I'm wondering what is going to happen in the Senate. The House has indicated that they'd like to address other issues like transportation equity.

[Sinclair] So, transportation equity, I don't know if you recall, we've both been around long enough for it, transportation equity was a -- I started that, I created that, I passed that as Chair of the Education Committee. It was my priority that year. I believe wholeheartedly that the zip code of the child shouldn't matter the quality of the education. And when we have those inequities built into a system where in one district it costs a thousand dollars to get a child to school that is taken off the top of that per pupil funding versus a more urban district that might cost $35 to get the child to school, that is a real inequity, that's a real difference. And so that transportation equity was a priority of mine given that I represent all rural districts. Every single one of my districts is impacted by the cost of transportation. So, certainly I'm open to that. We did follow the Governor's lead in the Senate with that 2% SSA. We believe that we should do timely funding of our school districts so that they know what numbers they're working with to finish their budgets on time. And so, we want to get that out in the 30 days that we promised them we'll do it. So, we're working from the Governor's numbers. I will say that you juxtaposed it with the transportation. Transportation, that categorical for transportation is subject to the SSA increase, so there will be an increase to that equity fund. It doesn't quite get it back up to where we get every district down to the statewide average, but it is subject to that 2% increase.

[Murphy] Senator, over on the House side, the republicans have created a new committee just to deal with higher ed specifically separated out from K-12 education. They have passed a series of bills, started those moving. I won't ask you to comment on those specifically --

[Sinclair] Good because I don't know House bills.

[Murphy] Exactly. But I am curious on a philosophical level, some of those bills have not only dealt with the Regents universities but also would impact private colleges in the state. I'm just curious to get your perspective on the role the legislature has to play in governing or dictating policy to private universities in Iowa as well.

[Sinclair] I would be remiss because the Senate hasn't spoken about this bill at all, so I would be remiss to comment on behalf of the broader Senate. I'm always a little cautious about, personally about meddling in the affairs of entities that are not public entities. I don't feel just from a governmental perspective that that is our job. That being said, the formation of that higher education committee I think was an important step that the House has taken. Many states, many states around the nation have separate K-12 education committees and higher education committees just as a manner of public policy because they do touch on different issues. There is much more interplay at the federal level with that higher ed piece maybe than there is at the K-12 level that we're talking about adults versus juveniles. There's very good reason why the House would establish that higher education committee and I'm glad that they're taking the more robust look at some of those issues that come before us. I can't comment on whether or not the Senate will take any of those up. They will be funneled into our standing education committee just because we don't have in the Senate that separate higher education committee. We don't necessarily have the numbers that can allow for additional committees. But I appreciate that the House has taken the step to look more closely at what goes on in our higher education. Just as a matter of workforce, these are the institutions that are creating our skilled workforce. And as we all know, we've been talking for years about that need for a skilled workforce. And so, taking a solid look at the institutions who are helping us to achieve that is a good idea.

[Gruber-Miller] So, speaking of whether or not the state should get involved in some education issues, the Governor has a bill that would restrict cell phone use in K-12 classrooms during class time. Last week on this show the democratic House leader Jennifer Konfrst said that a lot of schools are already taking action on this. So, is it necessarily an issue for the state?

[Sinclair] So, I would tell you everyone can acknowledge that cell phones have had a detrimental impact on the physical and emotional health of children. That's undeniable at this point. I have not seen the specific language of the Governor's bill yet. I know that she indicated in her Condition of the State that that language would include instructional time specifically. I think it's wonderful that we would take that first step to say during instructional time cell phones should not be distracting our children from doing the jobs that they're there to do. I would love to see the language and our education committee chair has already requested that language be sent to his committee so he can get started to work on it as soon as my office receives it. That being said, you are exactly right, there are school districts that are already taking those steps. I would hope that the bill would not do anything to limit districts who are working with parents and families, who are taking those steps more broadly into a full-on ban at their schools if that is what the families and the administration at the local district determine is best for their kids. I also like the fact that it is still flexible. There are rural school districts where schools cancel more frequently. We have a lot more transportation. And so, parents being able to contact their kids if that were happening is still a good idea. So having the flexibility that meets the needs of the local districts I believe is what the Governor is planning and I'm supportive of that.

[Henderson] Iowa law prohibits teenagers from handling a cell phone while they're driving. But that is not the law in Iowa when it comes to adults. The Senate a couple of years ago voted 47 to 3 to make adults abide by the same standard. The Governor spent part of her Condition of the State speech earlier this year making a point asking again trying to get it through the legislature. What was your reaction when she did that? And what has been your reaction to the reluctance around House republicans to bring this up?

[Sinclair] So, a lot of House republicans look at the issue as one of freedom, which is probably where I would have been fifteen years ago. I don't need to be told how to drive my car. Drive your car well, use some common sense, put your cell phone down. My view on that has certainly evolved through the years. When we look at the traffic fatalities and in a vast majority of those traffic fatalities distracted driving, cell phones specifically, are a root cause of that. So, my personal opinion on that has morphed, which again is why you see the Senate passing it not once, we've passed it more than once, by very wide margins because we understand that the distracted driving of one is interfering with the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness property of another. And in my opinion, that is where we should have laws, when one person's actions are interfering with another person's freedoms. And so, we have often passed it, I support the Governor in working with the House to advance some legislation that increases the ability of law enforcement to really enforce what is already on the books. It's illegal to text and drive. So, giving them some additional tools to enforce that I'm supportive of. We should not be texting and driving. We should not be doing something that is harming other people.

[Murphy] Another example of the Governor's priority is her proposal for paid leave for state government workers. That got a couple of subcommittee hearings this week, including in the Senate. A good amount of support in the room for that proposal to have some paid leave for new mothers and fathers. A member of your caucus, though, Senator Jason Schultz expressed some reservation. He talked about wanting to be sure that the taxpayers are protected and also essentially wanting to be cautious about making government positions too appeasing and competing with the private sector in that way. I'm curious how much your caucus has had discussion on this and maybe whether you have a personal view on this program.

[Sinclair] We've had zero discussion on it at this point. I think that is part of the process and this is one of those bills that, unlike the moratorium, there is no pressure for time. And so, I think giving it some time to go through that subcommittee and committee process, have those ideas vetted. I agree with Senator Schultz that we need to make sure that we're keeping the taxpayer in mind when we're working on issues like this. But I will just speak from the position of a pro-life individual, if we're going to be pro-life, we need to be pro-life and supporting moms and kids after birth is also an important factor. So, I'm open to the conversation. I hope it gets a full hearing. And we'll see where the Senate goes with it.

[Gruber-Miller] Another of the Governor's priorities is to use federal funding to create hundreds of new medical residencies, which she hopes would address the doctor workforce shortage, especially in rural Iowa, which as we talked about you represent a rural district.

[Sinclair] I do.

[Gruber-Miller] We saw this week with the federal funding freeze maybe that there's going to be some uncertainty about what type of federal funding will be available for some of these programs. Is that a concern as you're looking to see if that plan from the Governor is possible to implement?

[Sinclair] Right and there are a lot of uncertainties, we can all admit that. We don't know -- any time there is a transition in power at the federal level changes happen to what is available to states. And so, I think we need to take a watchful attitude but not sit back on our laurels. We do probably need to move forward with how do we advance more doctors in the state of Iowa? How do we encourage those doctors to stay here? And how do we best support some of the neediest spaces where there are some health care deserts? Let's see how we can get folks into those positions. So, I'm supportive of what the Governor is doing and certainly there needs to be a watchful eye on how that interacts with the changes at the federal level. I clearly don't have answers for what the Trump administration is doing but I'm happy to work both with the federal delegation as well as with the Governor to see how we can improve health care access to Iowans.

[Henderson] The Governor called for spending a million dollars at the University of Iowa to try to figure out why Iowa's cancer rate is going up while it's not going up in other states. Others have suggested one million dollars isn't enough. What are your thoughts?

[Sinclair] Honestly, I haven't taken thoughts on whether a million dollars is enough. I think cancer research is always important, particularly as you say when we're confronting some cancer rates. What are the causes? And probably that is the place to start and I know that the Governor has indicated that is what that money is for is trying to find the underlying causes so we can start dealing with those at the forefront to prevent rather than treat. I won't speak to whether it's enough or not. I'm sure people are saying that it isn't. I also know that there is always a time to start and this is a time to start. I've had conversations with researchers at the University of Iowa as well and understand that whether it's pediatric or just cancer in general there is a need for research. I will look to support the Governor though the appropriations process. That is going to be a conversation I'm sure with Senator Costello as he navigates his way through the HHS budget.

[Murphy] There are people in the state who have expressed concern or maybe even a belief that agricultural products runoff are what is contributing to that rate. And the other side of that debate is people get protective of the agricultural community. Should that study, that research in your view have any kind of guard rails on it?

[Sinclair] I don't think it would behoove the government to tell researchers where to research. That is not our job. I would say that the research that has been done regarding ag chemicals, there's constant research happening that regards ag chemicals and I don't see any reason why this research would exempt that.

[Murphy] That's a perfect transition to what I wanted to ask you about next which is a bill that was introduced last session that you spoke on the floor very passionately about that would deal with labeling of pesticides and the opposition to that bill came from people who suggested that it went too far and maybe didn't, would sort of limit the way that Iowans are alerted to the possible harmful effects of these products. That bill is back again, going to move again this session. Kind of give me your thoughts on that and its future this session.

[Sinclair] Certainly and there's a lot of confusion about what that bill did. All that bill did was said that a company couldn't be sued for following the letter of the law, never said it couldn't be sued for causing actual harm. Should companies be allowed to be sued for following the letter of the law that we established? That's not justice. That's not justice if we're allowing businesses or individuals to be sued for doing what they are mandated by federal government to do. That's not justice. So, can they still be litigated when there is actual harm done? Certainly. That bill didn't prevent that. Any legislation that I've seen this year wouldn't prevent that. What it prevents is a class action lawsuit often funded by foreign folks with foreign money and actual litigants never find the benefit of that. It's a money grab and it's a money grab on a business where all they are doing is following the letter of the federal law and that shouldn't be allowed. We should always allow for actual harmed victims lawsuits to recover their damages. This bill would not impede that. It would impede money grabbing attorneys from coming in and doing class action lawsuits against a company who has followed the law.

[Murphy] Have you had any conversations yet with your colleagues in the House about -- the Senate passed it, the House did not last year.

[Sinclair] Right and I have and there are still reservations. There are always reservations when it comes to Tort reform and this is a classic example of tort reform. I can't speak to what either chamber will do with the bill. But we aren't allowing justice if we are allowing businesses to be sued for doing what they are instructed to do by the federal government in terms of labeling. They are not allowed to label more and we are allowing them to be sued for something they can't do.

[Gruber-Miller] On another subject, there is a bill, it's over on the House side but it has to do with whether or not it would require driver licenses and non-operator IDs to have somebody's citizenship status, so whether or not they are a U.S. citizen. The framing around this, the supporters are saying this would be an aid when making sure that only citizens are voting. And we all remember last fall Secretary Pate identified people who may or may not have been citizens based on some driver's license data. Some of that was outdated. This bill by my reading potentially suffers the same problem. But I'm curious, is that a route, like a driver's license marker that you think would be helpful in this debate?

[Sinclair] I'm unfamiliar with the bill. But as we can all recall, we do require voter ID. Iowans support voter ID. Iowans want voting to be just as easy as possible that everyone who can vote, who should vote can vote, but people who shouldn't vote can't. Voter ID is one way of doing that. I am unfamiliar with the details of a House bill. But if you'll recall, the Secretary of State's actions were upheld by the court system. This would be a way I suppose, without knowing the details, this would be a way that we could clarify that, simplify that and keep a similar action from happening again in two years with the Secretary of State's office.

[Gruber-Miller] Are there other ways that you think the Senate should be working on this to make sure that the data is up to date and that people are --

[Sinclair] Well, frankly if the federal government had worked with us the data would have been up to date and it wouldn't have been an issue. So yeah, there are multiple avenues of how we can ensure that only people who are eligible to vote are voting.

[Henderson] Secretary Pate has presented some priorities to the legislature and suggested that acting quickly in this year would be helpful before an election year so election officials can get used to this. One of the things he's asking for is sort of standardizing the process of recounts. And as you know, we've had two congressional district wide recounts in the past four years. But the legislature has been presented with this before. Do you find that after that second recount that there's more interest in standardizing the recount process?

[Sinclair] I think there's always interest in making sure our elections are as safe and secure and accurate as they can be. I know that Secretary Pate has introduced several bills. Those bills will travel through the state government committees and will be reviewed for whether or not they are the route that Iowa needs to go. Having not personally read the bill that you've presented I don't want to comment on whether that’s the best route to take. But I will say that we are doing everything we can to make sure Iowa's elections are safe, secure and accurate and if a standardized recount process is what Secretary Pate suggests we'll take a good look at that and see how we can advance forward on it.

[Murphy] There was an event in the Capitol rotunda this week as there often is with the advocacy groups and this one was an anti-abortion pro-life gathering and many of the advocates talked extensively about the need to protect all life and going even beyond the new state law here in Iowa that bans abortions effectively after about six weeks of pregnancy. In your view, what is the next step legislatively speaking on this movement?

[Sinclair] I indicated earlier what I believe the next steps should be. We should be supporting moms and their babies as we're moving forward. We have a law that regulates this procedure. We have a law that protects life. We have a law that protects life that is fairly well supported by folks in the state of Iowa. They understand that if a heartbeat is there that it's a human life and that life exists.

[Murphy] Pardon me, I just wanted to let you know we're about 30 seconds left. I don't want you to --

[Sinclair] I don't foresee other bills moving forward. I haven't seen any drafted so I can't say that there will or won't be.

[Henderson] Question, you have a colleague who proposed of buying the bottom row of Minnesota. Is that a yes or a no?

[Sinclair] It's a joke until it isn't, right Stephen?

(laughter)

[Henderson] That's it for this edition of Iowa Press. Thanks for coming here and sharing your views.

[Sinclair] Thank you, Kay. Thanks, guys.

[Henderson] You can watch every edition of Iowa Press at iowapbs.org. For everyone here at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching today.

(music)

(music)

(music)

(music)

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

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Elite Casino Resorts a family run business rooted in Iowa. We believe our employees are part of our family and we strive to improve their quality of life and the quality of lives within the communities we serve.

(music)

Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs and help local businesses. Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build. Learn more at iowabankers.com.

(music)