WEST DES MOINES, IOWA - Jan. 28, 2011 - Iowa Farm Bureau members support many aspects of Governor Branstad's $6.1 billion budget, starting with the $160 million in direct property tax relief to Iowans, an issue that Farm Bureau members have sought from previous administrations and legislatures.

"The Governor, just like farmers, has made several tough decisions in order to correct our budget shortfalls.  We all need to live within our means and our government is no exception," said Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) President Craig Lang.  "Our members across the state agree that small businesses are a key to Iowa's vital economic growth.   Supporting them will help make us more attractive for new employers and their jobs."

Branstad, who was designated as a Farm Bureau Friend of Agriculture in the fall campaign, also noted that strong growth in agriculture provides Iowa with a unique opportunity to fix its budget.  Property tax reform has long been the cornerstone of budget reform heralded by IFBF, because in the past decade, Iowa property taxes have soared by $1.59 billion, or 60 percent.

Branstad said that while tax policy reforms can help Iowa compete for new jobs, a bureaucracy that  "fails to understand the critical relationship between burdensome regulation and job creation" can undo Iowa's economic progress.  IFBF agrees and has long called for measures to strengthen the legislative oversight of Iowa's rule-making process.  "Placing unnecessary regulatory and financial hurdles in front of responsible Iowa farmers impacts the success and diversity of Iowa's important ag sector," said Lang.

Iowa's largest grassroots farm organization has long supported the state's academic and athletic programs.  "Education has always been a top priority for Farm Bureau.  The funding of education is shared between the State of Iowa and property taxpayers, and we stress the importance of the state funding their commitment to education," said Lang.  Branstad's 2012 budget calls for fully funding the school budget, which last year was underfunded by $156 million, leaving local school districts to levy additional property taxes to fill the void.

IFBF members look forward to working with lawmakers and the Governor during this legislative session to give Iowans what they want: a fiscally-responsible budget and a real chance for Iowa's statewide economic growth.

-30-

The Multi-National Force Soldiers Are Located in Sinai, Egypt

SPRINGFIELD, IL (01/28/2011)(readMedia)-- The Illinois Army National Guard's (ILARNG) 2nd Battalion, 123rd Field Artillery Regiment deployed to Sinai, Egypt is not being affected by the riots in Cairo except for the interruption of commercial communication.

The nearly 440 Illinois Soldiers are part of the Multinational Force and Observers, an international peacekeeping force overseeing the terms of the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. The MFO's bases are hundreds of miles away from Cairo, Egypt where the rioting is taking place.

The interruption of commercial communication is affecting ILARNG Soldiers' ability to quickly communicate via email and telephone with their loved ones here in Illinois. Military communication channels between the MFO and the Illinois National Guard are still open and are being used to keep families abreast of the situation.

The rioting is not directed toward the MFO or the ILARNG Soldiers. The Illinois National Guard Soldiers stationed in Sinai are professional, highly trained and able to respond to a variety of incidents. If the situation in Egypt changes the MFO and ILARNG is capable of taking appropriate measures to safeguard American troops.

The 123rd Field Artillery deployed to Sinai in May 2010 and will return home May 2011.

For more information please contact the Public Affairs Office at 217-761-3569 or ngilstaffpao@ng.army.mil.

OMAHA, Jan. 28, 2011 – Speaking today at National Pheasant Fest 2011, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the next general signup for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) will begin on March 14, 2011, and continue through April 15, 2011. This is the second consecutive year that USDA has offered a general CRP signup.

"Over the past 25 years, support for CRP has grown thanks to strong backing from farmers, ranchers, conservationists, hunters, fishermen and other outdoor sports enthusiasts," said Vilsack. "Not only has CRP contributed to the national effort to improve water and air quality, it has preserved habitat for wildlife, and prevented soil erosion by protecting the most sensitive areas including those prone to flash flooding and runoff. Today's announcement continues the Obama Administration's effort to conserve sensitive areas and improve wildlife habitat."

Through CRP, eligible landowners receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible farmland. Land can be enrolled for a period of up to 15 years. During the general signup period, farmers and ranchers may offer eligible land at their county Farm Service Agency (FSA) office. Land currently not enrolled in CRP may be offered in this signup provided all eligibility requirements are met. Additionally, current CRP participants with contracts expiring this fall may make new contract offers. Contracts awarded under this signup are scheduled to become effective Oct. 1, 2011. The general sign-up for CRP will not affect cropped acres for this growing season. Acres will be enrolled in the program in the fall.

To help ensure that interested farmers and ranchers are aware of the signup period, USDA has signed partnership agreements with several conservation and wildlife organizations that will play an active role in USDA's 2011 CRP outreach efforts. They include; Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, National Association of State Foresters, Playa Lakes Joint Venture (Lesser Prairie Chicken/Sage Grouse), and the Longleaf Incorporated Bobwhite Conservation Initiative.

The FSA implements CRP on behalf of Commodity Credit Corporation. FSA will evaluate and rank eligible CRP offers using an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) that shows the environmental benefits to be gained from enrolling the land in CRP. The EBI consists of five environmental factors (wildlife, water, soil, air and enduring benefits) and cost. Decisions on the EBI cutoff will be made after the sign-up ends and after analyzing the EBI data of all the offers.

In addition to the general sign-up, CRP's continuous sign-up program will be ongoing. Continuous acres represent the most environmentally desirable and sensitive land. For more information, visit http://www.fsa.usda.gov/crp.

CRP protects millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion and is designed to safeguard the Nation's natural resources. By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams. Acreage enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-conserving vegetative covers, making the program a major contributor to increased wildlife populations in many parts of the country. Through the 2008 Farm Bill, CRP is authorized for a maximum enrollment of 32 million acres. USDA estimates that contracts on 3.3 million to 6.5 million acres are scheduled to expire annually between now and 2014.

The Senate passed a binding resolution sponsored by Grassley and Wyden today by a vote of 92 to 4.  It is the first time a Senate vote for the reform sought by Grassley and Wyden was on a freestanding resolution, and the change took effect upon passage.  The Standing Order created by the Grassley-Wyden legislation will require senators to make their objections in writing and the objections to be printed in The Congressional Record two days after they are made, whether or not the bills or nominations have been brought up for floor consideration.  Grassley said the goal is to increase transparency and achieve greater accountability.

"Holds are an important right of individual senators as they work to represent their constituents and for the best interests of the country, but the right ought to be exercised in the light of day," Grassley said.  "Disclosure will be good for the legislative process.  The requirements of our resolution will be meaningful in helping to make the public's business public."

Grassley and Wyden started their crusade against secret holds more than 10 years ago and have been joined in recent years by Senators Claire McCaskill and Susan Collins in making an effective case.

Over the years, Grassley and Wyden have made progress but also met opposition.  Leadership pledges to end the practice were disregarded.  In 1997, a Senate-passed Grassley-Wyden amendment to stop the secrecy was gutted by a legislative conference committee.  In 2006, Wyden-Grassley reform legislation passed the Senate as an amendment only to be altered to the point of ineffectiveness by 2007-passed legislation.

All along, Grassley and Wyden have made their own holds public information by routinely putting statements in The Congressional Record whenever they placed a hold.

The text of the floor statement delivered today by Grassley follows here.

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Thursday, January 27, 201

Mr. President.  I'm pleased to see this day come where the Senate will finally have the opportunity for an up or down vote on our freestanding Senate Resolution to require public disclosure of holds.

Senator Wyden and I have been at this for a long time.  We've made progress at times, and we have also had many disappointments where things didn't work out like we had hoped.  It's also been good to have Senator McCaskill join us in helping push this issue to the forefront recently.

Ending secret holds seems like a simple matter, but that hasn't proven to be the case.  Because secret holds are an informal process, it is easier said than done to push them out into the open using formal Senate procedures.  It's kind of like trying to wrestle down a greased hog.  However, after a lot of thought and effort, two committee hearings, and many careful revisions, I think this resolution does a pretty good job of accomplishing our simple goal.

That goal is really just to bring some more transparency into how the Senate does business.  This isn't the only proposal we are considering today related to Senate procedure, and I don't want there to be any confusion.  This proposal is not about altering the balance of power between the majority and minority party; neither does our resolution alter the rights of individual senators.

Over the time I've been working on this issue, I have occasionally encountered arguments purporting to defend the need for secret holds.  However, the arguments invariably focus on the legitimacy of holds, not secrecy.  I want to be clear that secrecy is my only target and the only thing that this resolution eliminates.

I fully support the fundamental right of an individual senator to withhold his or her consent when unanimous consent is requested.  Senators are not obligated to give their consent to anything they don't want to,and no senator is entitled to get any other senator's consent to their motion.

I think the best way to describe what we seek to do with this resolution is to explain historically how holds came into being, as senators have heard me do before.  In the old days, when senators conducted much of their daily business from their desk on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand up and say, "I object" when necessary.  These days, most senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor.  We are required to spend time in committee hearings, meeting with constituents, and attending to other duties that keep us away from the Senate chamber.  As a result, we rely on our respective party's leaders here in the Senate to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual senators by asking them to object on our behalf.

Just as any senator has the right to stand up on the Senate floor and publicly say, "I object," it is perfectly legitimate to ask another senator to object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is requested.  By the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while keeping their identity secret.

If a senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly.  We need have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest as we are elected to do.

Transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is an essential component of our Constitutional system.  Transparency and accountability are also vital for the public to have faith in their government.

As I've said many times, the people's business ought to be done in public.  In my view, that's the principle at stake here.