Senator Chuck Grassley will attend the Memorial Day Parade and speak at the Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday in Aplington. The parade begins at 10 a.m. at the Amvets Post 102 Building in the 900 block of Patriot Street in Aplington.  The ceremony begins at 10:30 a.m. in Pleasant View Cemetery.

Senator Grassley is an original co-sponsor of the Veterans Access to Care Act introduced Thursday by Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. The legislation would help to improve veterans' medical facilities by allowing facilities with a need for additional health care professionals to apply to be designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area.  Once designated, these facilities have access to National Health Service Corps, which provides service-obligated scholarships and loan forgiveness to health professional students who pledge to practice for at least two years in a Health Professional Shortage Area.  The bill also would require the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a process for veterans' facilities to qualify as Health Professional Shortage Areas.

Below is a statement from Senator Grassley about Memorial Day, thanking those who have served and remembering those who have given their lives for freedom.

Memorial Day - Reflecting on the True Price of Freedom by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Memorial Day really is a community-oriented holiday.  The first observances of what we now call Memorial Day were spontaneous expressions of gratitude and remembrance on the part of Civil War veterans for their fallen comrades, organized by veterans groups in local communities.  Only once it became an established tradition did state legislatures and Congress recognize the day as an official holiday.  The tradition remains for local organizations to recognize Memorial Day with moving and heartfelt observances.

Memorial Day is a time for families and neighbors to gather in remembrance and in tribute to those individuals from their community who gave their lives for our country.  This allows us to remember them not as strangers, but as sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

When you first arrive at a national cemetery, you are struck by the sea of identical white headstones spreading across green fields.  When you draw closer, you see the name of an individual and their home state, with a date often indicating a young life taken too soon.  That's when it hits home that these are not anonymous soldiers, but individual Americans who left behind a hole in the lives of their loved ones.

I've made it my practice to honor each Iowa soldier that has died in Iraq and Afghanistan with a personal tribute in The Congressional Record.  In the process of doing that, I have learned a little bit about each of these brave Iowans.  I've learned about their hobbies, their sense of humor, and the families they left behind.  I've also noticed that time after time, the family members say the same thing; that their loved one was proud to serve their country, knew the risks, and accepted them.  You can't help but be deeply touched by that kind of selflessness.

I'm proud that we have so many such people in Iowa.  I think it's in close-knit communities like we have in Iowa where the value of service to our fellow Americans is most ingrained.  Neighbors help neighbors and people really care about each other's lives.  When a soldier from a tight-knit community goes off to war, he knows the people he's fighting for by name.  And, if he doesn't come back, his loss is felt very personally in his home town.  We have a solemn duty to honor those who have fallen in service to our country, not in the abstract, but as family members, friends, and neighbors.  Remembering the individual lives of our fallen heroes is deeply humbling and profoundly American.

It's also important to remember what they were fighting for.  Our nation is unique in human history in that it was founded not on the basis of a common ethnic identity or loyalty to a monarch, but on certain enduring principles.  Those principles are best articulated in the simple but eloquent words of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our patriot forefathers concluded that these principles were worth fighting for and took up arms.  The odds were not great that groups of local militias and a hastily cobbled together national army would defeat the largest and best training military at the time.  Nevertheless, our forefathers risked everything because they believed so deeply in the fundamental truths just mentioned.

Our founding principles are as true today as they have always been and generations of Americans have given their lives to protect that unique and precious gift of liberty.  It's impossible to describe in words the debt of gratitude we owe these fallen heroes, but Memorial Day is a reminder for each of us to reflect on the true price of our freedom.  God bless all those who defend our freedom.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a senior member of the Finance Committee with Senate jurisdiction over the IRS, today made the following comment on the employment status of Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS tax-exempt division in the middle of a debacle over the targeting of certain tax-exempt groups.

"My understanding is the new acting IRS commissioner asked for Ms. Lerner's resignation, and she refused to resign.  She was then put on administrative leave instead.  From all accounts so far, the IRS acting commissioner was on solid ground to ask for her resignation.  She was the head of the division that the inspector general found inappropriately targeted groups over their political associations.  She had an opportunity to disclose the targeting to Congress days before her disclosure at a legal conference and didn't do it.  Then she gave the impression that the issue came up independently at the conference, when it really was a plant that she arranged.  The IRS owes it to taxpayers to resolve her situation quickly.  The agency needs to move on to fix the conditions that led to the targeting debacle. She shouldn't be in limbo indefinitely on the taxpayers' dime."

May 21, 2013 - WASHINGTON - In response to questions from Sen. Chuck Grassley, a top IRS official today acknowledged that the way the agency reportedly treated a small Iowa pro-life group would be inappropriate and took responsibility for planting a question that led to an IRS apology for targeting certain groups applying for tax exemption.

"The IRS has a lot of power over people," Grassley said.  "When the agency abuses its power, it has to be held in check.  Otherwise, taxpayers who already fear the IRS will fear it that much more.  Distrust among taxpayers and IRS and vice versa undermine the integrity of our tax system."

Grassley questioned recently resigned IRS acting commissioner Steven Miller at a Finance Committee hearing today on the IRS' treatment of groups seeking tax exemption.  A recent report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found the IRS inappropriately screened groups using search terms geared toward a conservative political orientation.

Grassley asked Miller whether it was appropriate for the IRS in effect to offer a small Iowa pro-life group a quid pro quo:  the group could become a charity if it did not protest in front of Planned Parenthood.   Miller said it would not be appropriate for the IRS to offer such a quid pro quo.   The group, called Coalition for Life of Iowa, applied to the IRS for charitable status in mid-2009.  In addition to the quid pro quo suggestion, the group also received a letter from the IRS asking several invasive questions including the details of the group's prayer meetings.

Grassley also asked Miller who at the IRS was involved in planting a question at a legal conference regarding the IRS' treatment of conservative groups.  Miller responded that he would take responsibility for the arrangement.

On May 10, Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations group, addressed an American Bar Association conference.  She received a question from the audience on the IRS' targeting of conservative groups and gave a detailed defense of the IRS' actions.  Initially, those involved claimed the question was spontaneous.  On May 14, Grassley sent a letter to the IRS raising questions about what led to the incident. Days later, the individual who asked the question admitted that the question was in fact planted at the IRS' request.  Grassley intends to pursue more details on what led to the planted apology.

Video of Grassley's exchange with Miller is available here.

"The farm and nutrition bill provides some needed reforms, and moving this bill out of committee gets us one step closer to providing our farmers and rural communities the certainty so many of them desire.  Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran incorporated reforms that make the farm program more defensible and effective.  By including my payment limits reform they showed a real effort to put together responsible programs that ensure a safe and stable food supply for the American people while giving certainty to farmers and rural communities," Grassley said.  "Now that the bill is moving forward, we can look at additional reforms and continue to improve the bill."

Grassley has long sought reform of the farm payment system.  His provisions that were included in the bill are nearly identical to legislation he introduced earlier this year that would place a hard cap on the farm payments an individual farmer can receive in a year and close long-abused and well-documented loopholes in the farm payment program.   The legislation would establish a per farm cap of $50,000 on all commodity program benefits, except those associated with the marketing loan program (loan deficiency payments and marketing loan gains), which would be capped at $75,000.  Thus the combined limit would be $125,000, or, for married couples, $250,000.  The $50,000 cap would apply to whatever type of program is developed as part of the new Farm Bill. The bill also closes loopholes that currently allow non-farmers to qualify for federal farm payments and would allow one off-farm manager, but only one.

In addition, an amendment sponsored by Grassley along with Senators Mike Johanns, John Thune and Pat Roberts was approved during today's Agriculture Committee action on a new farm bill.

Grassley said the measure is intended to make the farm bill more market-oriented in the way target prices are set.  Grassley would have preferred that a target price program not be included in the bill, but since the target price program was included he wanted to push for ways to make it more market-oriented.  For commodities except rice and peanuts, the measure set the target price by averaging the prices from the five previous years, while dropping the low and high price for that average, and multiplying it by a factor of 55 percent.

"Target prices distort planting decisions, and I hear opposition to target prices from farmers in Iowa, so this is an effort to move toward a market orientation as much as possible," Grassley said.  "That way, if peanut and rice farmers want to protect a high price set by congress, they can fight that battle, but other farmers won't have to defend high target prices."

Grassley did not have the opportunity to offer his amendment that would restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to release personal information to environmental activists.  Grassley's amendment follows the EPA's release of information to activists on 80,000 farmers nationwide.  Grassley said that he is preparing the amendment for floor consideration.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's opening statement at the mark-up.

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Agriculture Committee Farm Bill Mark-Up

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

First of all, I want to say thank you Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Cochran.  You both have been working diligently to get us here today to another mark up of the farm bill.  It is not an easy process to get a farm bill ready for committee consideration, but I appreciate all the work that has gone into making this happen today.

I supported the bill we passed out of the Senate last year.  It was not a perfect bill, but it included some important reforms, and would have provided the certainty our farmers were requesting.  Beyond certainty for farmers, by getting a farm bill completed, we give certainty to rural communities, conservation initiatives, and people who are truly struggling to put meals on the table for their families.

Many of the reforms from last year's bill are again included in the Chair's mark.  I appreciate the inclusion of my payment limits reforms.  Having responsible payment limits on the commodity program is crucial to the defensibility of the farm safety-net.  We need payment caps on our commodity programs, and we need to close loopholes that have allowed non-farmers to game the system.  The status quo must change.  Farm program dollars going to those who aren't actually farming is an offense to the American taxpayer and to the farmers who actually grow this nation's food.

So let me just say thank you again to the Chair and Ranking Member for agreeing to put these payment limit reforms in the mark.  In addition, the mark also reflects the priority many of us share, which is to maintain crop insurance.  No matter where I go in Iowa, farmers keep stressing the importance of crop insurance.

In regards to other reforms in this bill, ending direct payments is another reform the committee can point to as an important step.  However, I still have serious reservations about the programs created in the Chair's mark that would replace direct payments.  The shallow loss, or Agricultural Risk Coverage, program certainly is more market-oriented than direct payments, but I continue to have concerns with how the program will interact with crop insurance.

But my bigger concerns are with this new target price program.  This proposed program falls short of the reform-minded approach we approved last year.  Setting high target prices for any commodity is bad policy.  The federal government has been down that road, and it does not work.  It is not good for farmers, and it is not good for taxpayers.  We need programs that have farmers making decisions based on the market, not based on how much money they will get from a government program.

Another area of reform the committee has worked on over the last two years is in dairy policy.  I understand current policies may not be providing the assistance needed.  But after listening to many of my dairy farmers and processors in Iowa, I would also like to express concern with the proposal to put a supply management system in place.  Similar to how we shouldn't have crop farmers planting for government programs, we shouldn't have policies that induce dairy farmers to artificially adjust production.

Furthermore, it continues to trouble me that we have not been able to have a more constructive discussion on how to find savings in the nutrition title.  We should have found more savings in the nutrition title last year, and unfortunately we are headed down the same path this year.

Some of my colleagues have put forward very thoughtful proposals that would save money from nutrition programs, and these proposals are simply good government reforms.  This is not about taking away the benefits of those who really need food assistance.  It is about making sure we don't have wasteful spending on things like paying states bonuses in the food stamp program for simply running the program they way it's supposed to be run.

I have highlighted some of my concerns with this bill, and I have laid out some of the positives.  Is this bill perfect?  No.  But it does provide some needed reforms, and if we move this bill out of committee today, we will be moving one step closer to providing our farmers and rural communities the certainty so many of them desire.

I look forward to working with the Chairman, Ranking Member, and others to have a defensible and effective farm bill.