(DES MOINES) - Gov. Terry Branstad and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds today addressed "Hearing in the Heartland: Supporting the Renewable Fuel Standard."  

   

Gov. Branstad, Lt. Gov. Reynolds, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey and the entire Iowa congressional delegation sent a letter to President Barack Obama, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack on December 20, 2013, encouraging Federal officials to host a public hearing in Iowa or the Midwest to give more citizens the opportunity to provide perspective and data on the EPA's proposal to reduce volume obligation levels for 2014 in the RFS.  The White House, Administrator McCarthy and Secretary Vilsack each declined the invitation and the opportunity to host a hearing on this important issue.  Thus, Gov. Branstad and Lt. Gov. Reynolds, along with other leaders from the Midwest stepped up to host this important hearing event.  

   

The following are Lt. Gov. Reynolds' remarks, as prepared for delivery:  

   

Good morning and welcome to today's "Hearing in the Heartland" to discuss the Renewable Fuel Standard, otherwise known as RFS.  

   

My name is Kim Reynolds and I'm proud to serve as Iowa's Lieutenant Governor.  First, let me begin my official remarks by welcoming you to Des Moines.   

   

Midwesterners are passionate about the RFS. From our farm fields to our Main Streets to our Legislative Chambers, Iowans understand how important it is to maintain a strong RFS.  

   

That's why we were deeply committed to organizing this "Hearing in the Heartland" that gives Iowans and other Midwestern citizens an opportunity to directly engage on this important policy discussion.  

   

As many of you know, there are tremendous benefits that currently flow from the RFS, including:  

•  ·          Diversifying our nation's energy portfolio and reducing our reliance on overseas oil.  
•  ·          Giving consumers lower cost choices at the fuel pump.  
•  ·          And, raising family incomes and driving growth in rural America.  

Today, we must stand together and let the policy makers in Washington, D.C. hear our collective voices.  

   

Today, we must firmly tell them that taking a step backward on the RFS is unacceptable.   

   

We should be continually moving forward to grow the production and use of ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels.  

   

Today, we must share the facts and address the misperceptions related to the RFS.   

   

We cannot afford to have misunderstandings or muddled policies when it comes to the RFS.   As citizens, who have seen first-hand the positive impacts that the RFS has had in Rural America, we believe we have an obligation to help educate others.  

   

We need to let people know that the ethanol industry supports more than 38,000 jobs and the biodiesel industry supports 62,000 jobs.  

   

We need to let people know that this one proposed rule by the EPA would directly jeopardize an estimated 37,400 ethanol jobs and 7,500 biodiesel industry jobs.  

   

That one purposed rule would place an unnecessary hardship on families throughout rural America.   

   

These are important jobs that cannot be lost and we must continue to fight for them.  

   

Iowans know since Governor Branstad and I were sworn into office, our focus has been on revitalizing our economy, creating good jobs and growing family incomes. When we came into office, unemployment was at 6.1 percent. Unemployment is now at 4.4% and we are proud of the careers that have been established through record employment.  

   

We have worked hard to recruit companies to locate or expand in Iowa.  We've seen more than $7.5 billion dollars in private investment.  

   

Many of these projects are directly tied to Iowa's leadership in renewable fuels and agriculture, such as CJ Bio America which is co-locating at the Cargill facility in Ft. Dodge, and the Valent Bio Science Facility in Osage.  

   

What's so exciting to me is that these investments are happening across Iowa ,  in counties, both large and small,  urban and rural.  

 

The EPA's proposal could have a very negative impact on families and communities throughout the United States.  Here are just a few examples:

• Farmers and individuals involved in agricultural production and the biofuels industry could take a direct hit on family incomes.
• Consumers who prefer to choose lower cost biofuels over petroleum-based products will not be able to stretch family incomes.

Today, regular gasoline in Des Moines is selling for $3.29 per gallon. E10 is selling 30 cents cheaper at $2.99. And E-85 is selling for $2.85.

Communities from North Dakota to Nebraska, and from Iowa to Indiana have experienced growth and revitalization thanks, in part, to a thriving agricultural sector.

That's why we believe future growth would be jeopardized by the current EPA proposal.

So, let's talk about a few of those communities.

In Southeast Iowa, there is an ethanol facility in West Burlington that can annually produce 110 million gallons of fuel and currently employs 46 individuals.

In Emmetsburg and Nevada there are 2 cellulosic ethanol plants that will soon begin production.  These plants will be key innovators in the biofuels industry and key employers in their communities.

Algona has a biodiesel facility that can produce up to 60M gallons of fuel each year and provides good-paying jobs for 37 Iowans.

These are real people, real plants and real communities who are counting on us to keep rural America strong.

That's why our goal today is to provide you with an opportunity to amplify the voices of these workers, their families and their communities.

To ensure that they will not be negatively impacted by the EPA proposal.

This Forum also will provide individuals and organizations with updated information so that the EPA can make their decision and refine their proposal. 

If you haven't done so yet, I encourage all interested citizens across the Midwest to submit official comments to the EPA before the January 28thdeadline to ensure your voice is heard in Washington, D.C.

Today, you will hear from a variety of interested citizens about the importance of the RFS. From farmers and agriculture producers to employees at renewable fuel production facilities, there will be a series of 30-minute panels throughout the day.

I am looking forward to joining the other senior leaders in hosting those discussions.

We are extremely pleased with the bipartisan engagement on this issue throughout the Midwest.

Today, we are joined by key agricultural leaders from the Midwest, including five secretaries of agriculture.

We also are pleased that Lieutenant Governor Sue Ellspermann from Indiana is here to actively participate in this important hearing.

Thank you again for your participation today .

And, please give a warm welcome to the hardest-working Governor in the United States, who has been a steadfast supporter of Iowa renewable fuels from the very beginning, Governor Terry Branstad.

The following are Gov. Branstad's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

Good morning and thank you for that kind, introduction, Lt. Governor Reynolds.

As you can see, I've truly met my match in terms of energy, enthusiasm and passion to serve the people of Iowa in our Lt. Governor.

It's an honor to host today's "Hearing in the Heartland" to discuss the Renewable Fuel Standard and gather your comments on the EPA proposal that would lower the volume obligations.

Many of you traveled from across the Midwest to join us for this policy discussion in the beautiful World Food Prize Borlaug Hall of Laureates.

Let me begin by thanking the elected officials who joined us today:

From Iowa, we have:

• ·         Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds
• ·         Sec. of Agriculture Bill Northey
• ·         Congressman Steve King

Also joining us later today will be:

• ·         Congressman Tom Latham,        
• ·         Senator Chuck Grassley,
• ·         Iowa Economic Development Authority Director Debi Durham,
• ·         Iowa Department of Transportation Director Paul Trombinio and
• ·         Iowa Department of Natural Resources Director Chuck Gipp.

I also appreciate the leadership of Lt. Governor Ellspermann [Els - Per - Men] from Indiana and the agriculture secretaries from:

Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota who are with us today.

I've been a relentless supporter of biofuels dating back to the 1970s, when we called it "gas-a-hol".  

It's truly incredible to see how the industry has grown and provided diverse benefits to agriculture and created thousands of quality jobs across America.

With a state that has over 92,000 farmers, dozens of thriving international agri-business companies, and a large variety of bio-science leaders, it's easy to see that the growth is a result of the hard work and innovation of our farmers and the technology advancements in the use of corn, soybeans and other biomass products. 

There are many benefits that flow from the Renewable Fuel Standard and the use of biofuels, including:

o   Diversifying our nation's energy portfolio and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

o   Reducing air pollution.

o   Giving consumers choices at the pump.

o   And helping grow family incomes in rural America.

In fact, biofuels have enabled value-add opportunities for a variety of biostocks including corn, soybeans, woody biomass, and even corn stalks. And, renewable fuels have created high-paying jobs and rewarding careers in rural America.

The EPA's proposal on the RFS would have devastating effects on this growth and on job creation.

Since the EPA proposal was released, there has been a strong bi-partisan opposition from Midwest leaders

I was one of several Midwesterners who traveled to Arlington, Virginia, to testify at the EPA's only hearing on the RFS proposal. I also met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and reaffirmed the negative impacts the administration's proposed rule would have on job creation, agriculture and rural America. 

A bi-partisan group of governors joined me in sending a letter encouraging the EPA not to reduce the RFS.

The Iowa Legislature unanimously passed resolutions encouraging the EPA to reverse course and reaffirm support for a robust Renewable Fuel Standard.

We also hosted a rally at the LincolnWay Ethanol Facility in Nevada with over 300 Iowans - and leaders from other states have also hosted events at facilities in their communities.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar shared with me that she and Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Dave Fredrickson toured Minnesota's ethanol plants and heard strong opposition to the EPA's proposal.

These efforts show the tremendous importance of the RFS on our nation's agriculture and biofuels industries - and how the EPA proposal would have a damaging effect on jobs and farm income.

The proposed rule by the EPA would have a direct impact on the 41 Iowa ethanol plants, 13 Iowa biodiesel plants and the scores of facilities across the Midwest.

It is estimated that this single EPA proposal would cost nearly 45,000 jobs nationally.  That's thousands of families who would face undue financial hardship and stress.

In 2012, during the drought, corn prices were $8 a bushel, but now they are actually close to $4 a bushel.  

The EPA's proposed rule would result in corn prices below the cost of production and a reduction in agriculture land values. In addition, the misguided proposal would hurt farm equipment dealers, manufacturers and would cause significant loss of jobs throughout rural America. 

I was Governor of Iowa during the Farm Crisis of the 1980s, a time which brought incredible hardship to farm families and rural communities. I will never, ever, forget the challenges endured during those times - and the last thing that we ever want to see again in our nation is another Farm Crisis.

The EPA has been a strong supporter of efforts to bolster renewable fuels from the beginning.

I see no reason why the EPA should not continue to support the Renewable Fuel Standard, which has been instrumental in reducing dependence on foreign oil, lowering air pollution and increasing farm incomes.

The federal government passed the 1990 Clean Air Act which required the use of oxygenated fuel in certain areas of the U.S.  Iowa and other Midwestern states embraced ethanol as the best additive to enhance octane and oxygenate fuels. 

Unfortunately, Big Oil convinced many areas of the country, especially on the East and West Coast to use a product called MTBE, which they controlled.  It became evident after a number of years that MTBE was creating massive groundwater pollution and it was banned from use.

At that time, oil companies said that ethanol could not replace the use of MTBE - they were wrong.

Since MTBE was banned and the RFS adopted, the use of ethanol has been increasing steadily for years.

Big Oil is delighted that the EPA has recommended weakening the Renewable Fuel Standard. But their real goal is to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard.

They're wrong again.

It's time the EPA use common-sense and reverse its ill-advised proposed rule that weakens the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Critics claim that the RFS has driven more acres into production and increased fertilizer demand. However, the truth is quite the contrary.

o   Fertilizer use has significantly declined in recent decades thanks to improved technology and precision in farming, and

o   Total cropland planted to corn in the US in the 1930's was 103 million acres and in 2013 it was 97 million acres.

The use of co-products, such as DDGs are also important to livestock production. Big Oil and its allies refuse to acknowledge this quality, high-protein byproduct goes directly into the food chain.

In fact, a modern ethanol refinery produces 17.5 pounds of highly valuable DDGs from one bushel of corn. This has helped increase cattle feeding in Iowa.

I believe Big Oil is wrong about the use of higher blends of ethanol, just as we've proven time after time over the years. The RFS has helped our nation make steady progress since 2005 and our dependency on foreign oil has dropped from 60% to 40%, but the EPA proposal would reverse that progress.

E15, E85 and Blender Pumps can all be part of achieving the important growth envisioned by the RFS.

In Iowa, we recently launched a new program called Fueling Our Future. This program, through the use of CMAQ funding from the US Department of Transportation, provides financial incentives for retailers to install blender pumps with higher blends of biofuels at their stations.

E-30 appears to be the sweet spot for the greatest fuel efficiency.

Retailers in Iowa know the importance of biofuels to our state and have installed several blender pumps, which result in lower cost ethanol blended fuels to consumers.  In some cases in Iowa, E85 can be anywhere from fifty cents to a dollar cheaper per gallon than regular gasoline.  When consumers have the choice, like they do in Iowa, they choose ethanol and other biofuels. The oil companies are preventing fuel choice in other parts of the country and consumers lose, paying much more for fuel.

Since the EPA proposal was first released, there have been encouraging studies and data provided that I believe gives the EPA an opportunity to reverse their approach on this proposal.  Including:

• ·         Data that shows that there is more capacity to integrate biofuels into our nation's fuel supply, and
• ·         Data that shows that RIN activity did not affect prices at the pump.

Today we will have a chance to hear from farmers, business leaders, consumers who embrace choices at the pump, and elected officials who support the benefits of biofuels.

The EPA's decision will affect their lives and their futures. I know it will have a big impact on Iowa and other states in our region.

I urge President Obama, Administrator McCarthy and the EPA to listen to the people of Iowa and the Midwest, and continue to support a robust and strong Renewable Fuel Standard --- as they have in the past.

Thank you all for participating in today's forum and we look forward to hearing your comments throughout the day.

###

Today I would like to continue the discussion about the destruction of the Senate as a deliberative body and continue to echo the call of the distinguished Minority Leader for a return to a functional Senate.

I don't intend to dwell on the use of the so called "nuclear option" related to filibusters.

The majority leader's claim that the Senate's dysfunction is related to some unprecedented use of filibusters has been thoroughly debunked.

This claim is directly refuted by the very source he's pointed to, the Congressional Research Service, and has been debunked by fact checkers in the media.

Yet, the Senate is dysfunctional, beyond a doubt.

To get to the bottom of how and why the Senate is not functioning, we must have a clear understanding of just how it is supposed to function.

There is no better source for this than the Federalist papers.

I have referenced the Federalist Papers before on this subject, but it is worth going into more detail about what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they created the Senate.

Federalist Paper 62, which is usually attributed to the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, begins to lay out the rationale for how the Senate is to operate.

He mentions that the number of members and the length of terms are different between the House and Senate before saying:

"In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from the want of such an institution."

In other words, Madison is going to tell us the purpose of the Senate starting with the problems a republic would face without a senate and how the Senate is designed to correct these problems.  As we hear from Madison about how our legislative process is supposed to work, I would encourage my colleagues to think about major legislation that has been considered in Congress in recent years.

In fact, arguably the most major bill that has passed in recent years, President Obama's Health Care Law, serves as one example.

When that law was considered, one party held the Presidency and House of Representatives with a supermajority in the Senate.

That means they could run the Senate like the House without the need to compromise with the minority.

We are now dealing with daily problems caused by the way the Health Care Law was written, which is something to keep in mind as Madison describes the problems the Senate was designed to prevent.

Here's the first problem Madison discusses:

"First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. --

In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. --

It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. --

This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. --

I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government."

In other words, having a second chamber of Congress, designed to operate differently from the House, makes it less likely that a partisan agenda that doesn't reflect the views of Americans will pass.

That is not a function the Senate currently performs as it has been run on purely partisan terms since 2007.

For example, you'll recall that the President's healthcare proposal did not enjoy widespread public support, yet it passed the Senate along strictly partisan lines with little input sought or accepted from the minority party.

In fact, before a final bill could be passed reconciling the House and Senate bills, a special election was held in the liberal state of Massachusetts resulting in the election of an opponent of the proposal.

Instead of moderating the proposal just a bit so it could attract even one Republican vote, the House passed the draft Senate bill then used a budget tool called reconciliation to ram another bill through the Senate with a simple majority to change items in the first bill.

That's not how Madison intended the bicameral Congress to work.

Here's Madison's next point:

"Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. --

Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. -

But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. --

All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. --

It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration."

In other words, if you have just one legislative chamber with a large number of members, it is likely to make laws hastily based on a partisan agenda without thinking through all the long term consequences.

A hastily passed partisan agenda that ignores the long term consequences -- doesn't that remind you of the healthcare law?

Remember how then-Speaker Pelosi said the House had to pass the bill to find out what was in it?

They were in such a rush, they couldn't be bothered to read it.

The Senate is intended to be smaller, more deliberative, and less partisan.

Imagine if the Senate had been allowed to operate in a deliberative fashion and craft a truly bipartisan healthcare proposal.

If that had happened, we certainly could have come up with something more workable than the current law.

Madison continues his explanation of the rationale for the Senate:

"Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation.--

"It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. --

"It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. --

"What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate? --

"A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. --

"Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. --

"I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. --

"The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first."

That's a long quote, but Madison is essentially saying that the House is to be composed of a representative slice of American citizens, while the Senate is supposed to be composed of individuals that have more experience and approach public policy more thoughtfully.

I'm sure that many people might question whether the individuals in the House or the Senate match those descriptions today, but it is true that the rules of the House allow for new ideas to be quickly translated into legislation.

By contrast, the process in the Senate has historically been slower and more deliberative to refine those ideas into laws that can stand the test of time.

Note that Madison complains about all the "repealing, explaining, and amending laws" that have had to be passed by the unicameral legislatures that were common in states in the early days of our Republic.

Our early experiences with passing bills quickly without thinking things through led to the understanding that we should take our time and get it right the first time.

That's what the Senate is supposed to do.

The failure to allow the Senate to take the time to examine and revise legislation results in bad laws that don't work.

We now have a situation with the Health Care Law where the President claims the authority to unilaterally suspend or reinterpret parts of the law that are clearly unworkable.

That is very similar to the embarrassing situation Madison refers to of a constant stream of "repealing, explaining, and amending laws", except the President is doing all the repealing, explaining, and amending unilaterally.

Our constitutional system is not designed to pass a lot of legislation quickly, and that can be frustrating, particularly to a majority party anxious to enact its agenda.

Still, our deliberative process is a design, not a flaw.

Based on experience, the Framers of our Constitution determined that it was better to get it right the first time than to subject the American people to the upheaval of laws that need to be constantly amended or repealed.

The House was designed to act quickly, but not the Senate.

The fundamental problem is that the current majority leader is trying to run the Senate like the House and it is not designed that way.

Sure, when they had 60 votes, it was possible to ram legislation through the Senate without any deliberation, but that's no longer the reality.

When the majority leader brings a bill to the floor, he routinely blocks amendments and then rapidly moves to end consideration of the bill.

That means that the Senate is presented with a measure as a fait accompli and has to take it or leave it.

In other words, the majority leadership wants their agenda approved no questions asked or nothing at all.

The fact is, if the majority leadership just allowed the Senate to deliberate, we could get a lot more done than we have been doing.

Sure, we might not get as many laws passed as they would like.

The full Senate, through its deliberation, may alter legislation somewhat from how the majority leadership would prefer.

Still, we would be able to accomplish some important legislation.

But no, that's not acceptable, we're told.

For all the talk about getting things done, the majority leadership has demonstrated repeatedly-- with cloture motion after cloture motion-- that it would rather grind this body to a halt than allow the slightest alteration to their agenda.

The latest message from the majority leadership is that they will respect the right of senators to offer an amendment only if they have certain assurances about the final outcome.

The senior senator from New York implied that's the way it used to be done.

We'll, I can assure you that in the 33 years I've served here, it's never been done that way.

I've managed a lot of bills over the years, and if I had tried to impose that requirement, I'd have been laughed at, to say the least.

Since when did duly elected senators have to negotiate for the right to represent their constituents?

An open amendment process should be the default situation, not something that is granted at the sufferance of the majority party leadership.

We must get back to regular order.

That means an open amendment process without preconditions or special limitations on what amendments will be allowed.

Cloture shouldn't even be contemplated until after a substantial number of amendments have been processed.

That was the standard practice when the Senate got things done.

Again, Madison describes a Senate that is to represent all Americans, not just one party.

It was designed to be more thoughtful and deliberative, and yes slower than the House.

The Senate's purpose is to make sure that Congress passes fewer but better laws.

We saw what happened when the Senate was controlled entirely by one party while the voices of the minority party and the citizens they represent were ignored.

We got a deeply flawed health care law, and the American people are paying the price.

Yet, the majority leader insists on running the Senate like he still has 60 votes and refuses to compromise.

That's not how the authors of our Constitution intended the Senate to work, and it isn't working.

The Senate is facing a crisis and the only way to solve it is to restore the Senate as the deliberative body envisioned by the authors of the Constitution.

-30-

The ethanol and biodiesel industries bring tremendous value to Iowa and the nation.  Iowa is number one in the nation in the production of biofuels, producing more than 4 billion gallons annually.  It's improved our economy, environment, and national security.

The federal government made a commitment to homegrown, renewable energy when Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005 and 2007.  But, a rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency undermines the commitment. This misguided proposal could cost jobs in Iowa and across the country.  If allowed to take effect, it will increase our dependence on oil and protect the hold that Big Oil has on our country's fuel supply.

The public comment period on this proposal is closing on January 28.  I've talked personally with the EPA Director, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, and the President's staff.  I encourage everyone to go to EPA.gov and voice their concerns.  It's time for supporters of clean, homegrown, green energy to rally and let the Obama administration know that its proposal is short-sighted and irresponsible.

Iowans can also join me next week at a hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standard hosted by Governor Branstad and Lt. Gov. Reynolds.  This hearing is a great opportunity for Iowans to show support of the RFS and attest to its importance.

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said today that Connor Gillette, Neil Harte, Seth Horsley and Peter Meyers have received appointments to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point for the 2014-2015 school year.

"Admission to the service academies is highly competitive and a great honor," Grassley said.  "Students work very hard to earn this kind of opportunity.  I wish Connor, Neil, Seth and Peter well and thank them for their commitment to serve our nation."

Gillette is the son of Katie and Graham Gillette of Des Moines.  He will graduate in May from Theodore Roosevelt High School.  Gillette participated in swimming, rugby, water polo, National Honor Society and Best Buddies.

Harte is the son of Lyudmila and Willis Harte of Iowa City.  He will graduate from City High School in Iowa City in May.  Harte participated in cross country, track and field, Model United Nations and National Honor Society.  He served as president of the Chinese Club, as well as staff writer and opinion editor for the student newspaper, Little Hawk. Harte also serves in the Iowa National Guard.

Horsley, of Carroll, is the son of Kristina and Duane Horsley.  He is a graduate of Carroll High School.  Horsley participated in football; swim team; chorus; show choir; the fall musical; Big Brothers and Big Sisters; student senate; National Honor Society; North Highland Weightlifting Club; and Family, Career and Community Leaders of America.

Meyers is the son of Laura and Joel Meyers of Reinbeck.  He will graduate from Gladbrook Reinbeck High School in May.  Meyers participated in football, weight training, basketball, track, soccer, student council, National Honor Society and church youth group.

Gillette, Harte, Horsley and Meyers were among the 55 Iowans Grassley nominated this year for appointments to the U.S. service academies.  Information about seeking nominations can be found on Grassley's website.

For more than 200 years, these academies have educated and trained individuals to lead and command the U.S. armed forces.

-30-