WEST DES MOINES, IOWA - Dec. 6, 2013 -  Farm and family are two vital components in Carol Miller's life. Miller works with her husband, Randy and their son, raising livestock, corn and beans on their farm outside of Ankeny.  Her dedication to family and farming has earned her Iowa Farm Bureau's 2013 Woman in Agriculture honor, a yearly tribute that recognizes one woman who demonstrates outstanding leadership abilities in the promotion of agriculture. The announcement was made at the 95th Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) annual meeting in Des Moines on Dec. 4.

The award is another way for Miller to show other women interested in agriculture that farming is a viable and successful career path.

"Today, we have fewer farmers and fewer women make farming their primary career, especially since many choose to work off the farm for various reasons," said Miller. "I feel blessed that I could make farming and family the focus of my life and share that with others.  Farm Bureau has given me the opportunity to participate in numerous programs and be a spokesperson for agriculture, providing farming information to the general public."

Miller has been an active participant on the Polk County Farm Bureau executive board and held every available position including: treasurer, secretary, vice president, president, and currently serves as voting delegate.  In addition, Miller served as chair of the IFBF State Credentials Committee during the annual Summer Policy Conference and also served on the Sustainable Funding Conservation Committee.  She is also a member of the Iowa Farm Bureau's Speaker Corps program and Ag Leaders Institute.

Farm safety is an important cause for Miller, and she works diligently with various groups to promote safety while striving to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities.  In partnership with the Iowa State Patrol and Polk County Sheriff's Office, Miller founded the rural road safety program, 'Share the Road, Stay Alert and Stay Alive.' In an effort to bring more information to the general public and non-farmers, Miller has been instrumental in the 'Continuing Ag Information Series.'  Miller also enjoys working with students and stays actively involved in Ag in the Classroom and the Dollars for Scholars program to provide students college scholarships.

Miller's award recognition includes a $250 cash prize and up to $500 to cover expenses for an Iowa conference for women.

- 30 -

Gronau, Podhajsky and Rozenboom re-elected as district directors to board

WEST DES MOINES, IOWA -- Dec. 5, 2013 - Craig Hill of Milo was re-elected president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) at the organization's 95th annual meeting in Des Moines.  Delegates also re-elected three district directors to the board.  They include Doug Gronau of Vail, Nick Podhajsky of Traer and Calvin Rozenboom of Oskaloosa.

Hill's service to the Iowa Farm Bureau started at the county level. He was involved in various positions with the Warren County Farm Bureau board of directors. In 1989, he was elected as the District 8 representative on the state board of directors. He then served as the organization's vice president from 2001-2011 before being elected president.

As president, Hill serves as chairman of the board of FBL Financial Group, Inc., and serves on the American Farm Bureau board of directors. In addition, he serves on the Rain & Hail LLC board of directors.

Throughout his years on the IFBF board, Hill has been involved in a variety of projects. He was instrumental in the development of Revenue Assurance, a revenue-based crop insurance for corn and soybean farmers.  He also served as the first chairman of the Iowa Ag State Group, which consists of representatives from all sectors of Iowa's agriculture, and on the U.S. Grains Council. Hill was also appointed to Governor Vilsack's Strategic Planning Council in 1999 to help Iowa prepare for the future of our state in 2010.  In 2003, the AFBF named Hill to a 23-member national committee, Making Agriculture Productive and Profitable (MAPP).  The committee develops policy options for Farm Bureau to consider.

He and his wife, Patti, have two children.  Their son, Adam, is involved on the family grain and livestock operation.  Their daughter, Abbie, is an associate attorney with Gross & Welch in Omaha, Neb.

Gronau represents District 4, which consists of 11 counties in west central Iowa.  He was elected to the position in 2001.  Prior to his election to the board, he was vice chairman of the internal study committee.  Gronau has served in numerous Crawford County Farm Bureau leadership capacities.  He has served on several statewide environmental committees representing IFBF and was also a member of the IFBF Speaker Corps.  He has also been appointed to the Farm Bureau Life Insurance Board of Directors.  He currently serves on the Leopold advisory board.

Podhajsky represents District 6, which consists of 11 counties in eastern Iowa.  He was elected to the position in 2011.  Podhajsky was a 2010 Iowa delegate representative for the American Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting and has served in many other elected positions in his county Farm Bureau office, including president and county voting delegate.

Rozenboom represents District 8, which consists of 10 counties in south central Iowa.  He was elected to the position in 2001.  Before that, he was very active in the Mahaska County Farm Bureau where he served as president and vice president.  He has also served as chairman of the IFBF swine advisory committee and as a member of the IFBF resolutions committee.  He was also a member of the AFBF swine advisory committee.  He has spent six years on the board of directors of CRWRC, an international relief agency which currently serves in 28 countries, primarily providing community development, health education, literacy services and disaster relief.

Nine delegates were elected to represent Iowa at the AFBF annual meeting in San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 12-15, 2014.  They include : IFBF President Craig Hill, Vice President Joe Heinrich of Maquoketa, Doug Boland of Williamsburg, Cal Rozenboom of Oskaloosa, Dallas Johnston of Kent, Dave Kronlage of Dyersville, Gary Rayhons of Garner, Paul Gieselman of Morning Sun, and Dan Chism of Emmetsburg.

Dave Seil of Gowrie (Webster County) was elected to a three-year term on the IFBF internal study committee.   The internal study committee serves as a liaison between the county Farm Bureau voting delegates and the state board of directors.

-30-

About Iowa Farm Bureau

The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation is a grassroots, statewide organization dedicated to enhancing the People, Progress and Pride of Iowa.  More than 153,000 families in Iowa are Farm Bureau members, working together to achieve farm and rural prosperity.  For more information about Farm Bureau and agriculture, visit the online media center at www.iowafarmbureau.com.

Educational Seminars on Conservation, Niche Farming Gather Standing-Room-Only Crowds

WEST DES MOINES, IOWA - Dec. 5, 2013 -Diverse farmers from across the state gathered in Des Moines this week to celebrate the successes of 2013, while finding new ideas to keep next-generation agriculture thriving in Iowa.

"The 95^th annual Iowa Farm Bureau theme, 'Generations of Innovation,' focused on key areas of conservation and niche farming because we know agriculture needs new ideas....creative approaches to bring the next generation of renewable energy to the world; it will bring advances in seed genetics which help us grow food despite turbulent weather, or advances in livestock, food safety and conservation.  It will take innovation to keep farming 'green and growing' for the future," said Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) President Craig Hill during his address to members.

The IFBF meeting featured several educational seminars for Farm Bureau members.  "Innovations in Conservation" showed farmers options to help them implement Iowa's Nutrient Reduction Strategy.  Jeff Pape, a farmer and chairman of the Hewitt Creek Watershed Council, says he's seen a lot of progress in conservation in northeast Iowa and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing has encouraged success.  "Farmers have learned from each other and participation among farmers in the watershed has nearly doubled over seven years.  A lot of knowledge is passed back and forth over the fencerow. When we first started this project, some people said there was nothing in it for them. Now they're participating in it because they've learned there's a measureable benefit to their land, their crops and their watershed," said Pape.

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey encouraged farmers to put one new conservation practice in place on their farms next year, and share with neighbors and non-farmers the importance of persistence. Pape agreed.  "Soil and water metrics have improved because of the nutrient reduction efforts. We have fish back in the stream.  But you don't fix a stream for a water quality issue in three years. This is a forever project. It won't end."

IFBF's Next Generation Innovation session also drew big crowds.  IFBF's Farm business Development Manager Nathan Katzer travels the state and sees a lot of 'gold mine' ideas, just waiting for encouragement and the right kind of guidance.  Niche farming is wide open.  "Many families in the state of Iowa can consider (specialty ag) as a way to get the next generation involved, as a way to add a business to give the younger generation the time and the challenges to grow themselves as a leader, as a manager, as a financial planner ... to be the active farming producer that the family needs to have a successful farm transition," Katzer said.

Andrew Pittz returned to his family's sixth-generation Missouri Valley farm to begin the nation's first commercial aronia berry farm.  Pittz says the encouragement he received from Farm Bureau may surprise some folks, because they don't realize how diverse Iowa Farm Bureau farmers and members really are.  Pittz likes sharing his story and exceeding people's expectations of agriculture.  "Sometimes it makes sense to be conventional in agriculture and sometimes; it makes sense for your farm to be organic," Pittz said. "For us, competing in this market, we are taking on multi-national corporations ...so it really makes sense for us to be organic on the marketing side. And it really pays off in the market place."

The 95^th annual Farm Bureau meeting also featured a lively presentation from keynote speaker Dr. Jay Lehr.  Lehr, a futurist, economist, author and competitive athlete, told Iowa farmers that while agriculture will continue to lead the state's economy for generations to come, there will be no shortages of challenges to overcome.  "Agronomy is so much more complex because of weather changes, adaptation of pests, microbes in the soil that change the soil; the number of variables that determine what your soil needs and only those who embrace innovation and technology can keep up and know how to keep us sustainable and growing.  Because of global economic growth, Iowa agriculture will become even more critical and diverse.  One example is Smithfield being bought by the Chinese and in my view, it's a good thing because we'll be exporting more hogs. I think in five years they're going to be buying our corn, too, which will also help our farmers here," said Lehr.

For a more detailed look at the presentations from the 95^th Iowa Farm Bureau annual meeting, visit www.iowafarmbureau.com.

 

-30-

About Iowa Farm Bureau

The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation is a grassroots, statewide organization dedicated to enhancing the People, Progress and Pride of Iowa.  More than 153,000 families in Iowa are Farm Bureau members, working together to achieve farm and rural prosperity.  For more information about Farm Bureau and agriculture, visit the Newsroom page on the IBF website at www.iowafarmbureau.com.

December 2, 2013

In an opinion piece posted Friday, Senator Harkin responds to some of the criticisms following the Senate's vote to change the rules.  On The Huffington Post blog, Harkin says that the framers never envisioned a 60 vote supermajority.

Harkin first introduced a proposal to reform the rules in 1995, as a member of the minority party.  In addition to advocating for his proposal, he also supported the Merkley-Udall "talking filibuster" proposal and the concept that those who wish to obstruct should at the very least be required to come to the floor to debate.

Senator Harkin's column can be found here or below.

 

For more information, please contact Senator Harkin's Press Office at (202) 224-3254.

The Framers Never Envisioned a 60 Vote Supermajority

In the wake of Senate action last week to restore the Senate practice that nominees receive an up or down vote, there has been a great deal of hyperventilating about whether the rules change is consistent with the intent of the Founders and what it means for the future of the Senate.

Some have called it "tyranny."  Others, a "naked power grab."  In reality, the action taken by the Senate last week is consistent with both the Constitution and the Senate rules and two centuries of Senate tradition, and is fully aligned with the intent of the Founders as well.

Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison indicated in the Federalist Papers a clear belief in majority rule, with Hamilton stating that "the fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."  Nonetheless, the Founders left the matter of House and Senate procedure undetermined in the Constitution, choosing instead to let Congress determine its own rules.  Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the Rules and Proceedings Clause, states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."

That is exactly what the Senate did. In fact, the original Senate rules placed no time limit on debate, but also allowed any Senator to make a motion "for the previous question," which permitted a simple majority to halt debate on the pending question and bring the matter to an immediate vote.  This motion for the previous question was eliminated in 1806 at the suggestion of Vice President Aaron Burr, largely because it was deemed superfluous.

Even with the elimination of the motion to end debate, filibusters were hardly a defining part of the Senate.  Across the entire 19th century, there were only 23 filibusters.  And from 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules to end a filibuster, until 1969, there were fewer than 50, less than one per year.

Eliminating the filibuster on some nominations will not change the basic nature of the Senate as a legislative body.  In fact, it is largely a restorative move, returning the Senate to its historical norms, when Senate giants like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster carried the day through the force of their ideas, rather than by manipulating rarely used Senate rules that allowed a small minority to block the will of the people.

Nor will this latest reform turn the Senate into the House of Representatives, as some have charged.  The Senate will continue to differ from the House in significant ways.  Senators will continue to be elected very six years, rather than every two years as in the House of Representatives.  Senators from the smallest states will continue to have the same power in the Senate as Senators from the largest states.  And the Senate will continue to operate in most instances based on unanimous consent, unlike the House.  In addition, the reforms enacted by the Senate pertain only to nominations, which are themselves solely the province of the Senate.

That is not to say that I would not support changing the filibuster with respect to legislation as well.  If the Senate were to take that step, however, it would be critical that the changes preserve the rights of the minority to offer relevant amendments and to have extended debate.  That the minority should be afforded certain rights within the Senate is without question.  But the minority should not have the ability to block legislation.  When this happens it creates a situation, says James Madison in the Federalist Papers, in which, "the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.  It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority."

The fact is that the filibuster is not, and never has been, the sacrosanct soul of the Senate that some are now making it out to be.  The framers never envisioned that a supermajority of 60 votes would be required to enact virtually any piece of legislation or to confirm nominees.  Indeed, the Constitution was very clear about where a supermajority was needed.  There were only five instances in the original Constitution: ratification of a treaty, override of a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of the Constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a member.

Moreover, reform of the filibuster stands squarely within a tradition of updating the Senate rules as needed to foster an effective government that can respond to the challenges of the day.  The Senate has adopted rules to reform the filibuster in numerous circumstances, such as war powers and the budget.  And prior to action last week, since 1917, the Senate had passed four significant reforms concerning the filibuster.

An oft -repeated Republican talking point over the past week is that Senate Democrats were "breaking the rules to change the rules."  This may be a catchy talking point, but that doesn't make it true.  As I already indicated, the original Senate rules actually included a means to end debate by a simple majority.  And the Constitution itself specifies that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."  As Senator Robert Byrd, probably the greatest authority on Senate rules in American history, and himself a staunch opponent of filibuster reform said, "At any time that 51 Senators are determined to change the rule . . . that rule can be changed." That is precisely what the Senate did last week.

Finally, some have argued that the rules change carried out last week by the Senate was enacted simply so that Democrats can carry out their agenda.  While this may be true in the short-term, those with a longer view of history know that, eventually, Republicans will come to power, and they too will then have the ability to carry out their own agenda.  This is not only obvious, but appropriate.  Democratic elections should have consequences.  When the American people speak, whether they express a preference for Democrats or Republicans, those who win a majority at the ballot box should have the ability to carry out their agenda, and then be held accountable to the public.  This is as true today as it was nearly 20 years ago when, as a member of the Senate minority, I first introduced a proposal to reform the filibuster.

The fact is that reform of the filibuster is not a Democratic or a Republican issue.  Rather, at the heart of the debate is a single, simple question -- do we believe in democracy?  Do we believe that issues of public policy should be decided at the ballot box or by the manipulation of arcane and archaic Senate rules?  Those who oppose any change to the filibuster rule, those who oppose the principle of majority rule, in reality are fearful that the people's choices and wishes will be translated into action here in Washington.

The Senate rules reform carried out last week was not about a power grab or about the agenda of Senate Democrats.  Rather, it was a vote of confidence in democracy and the good sense of the American people.  Our union has endured for more than two centuries because the American people have had the good sense to elect to Congress those whom they deem most capable of carrying out their wishes, and to remove those who fall short.  The American people do not fear democracy, and neither should their elected representatives in Congress.