According to the story, Harkin pushed through an exemption for the sewage treatment plant so that it could receive federal funds even though it would only serve Agriprocessors and not the surrounding community.  Most of the sources quoted seemed to agree that the meatpacking plant, which was by far the biggest employer in Postville, would not have survived without the exemption.

The money, nearly $8 million, came from an environmental program from which Agriprocessors normally would have been disqualified. The grant and loan were used to build a sewage-treatment plant that serves only the meatpacker.

The environmental program, run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is designed to help small towns improve their sewage systems. The new sewage-treatment plant is technically owned by Postville, but it doesn’t serve the town’s residents. Department administrators say that fact usually would have prevented it from receiving money from the program. But Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, used his influence to exempt the project from those rules in 2004.

Harkin was reelected by a wide margin last month, and, should he decide to run again, he does not face another election until 2014.

The real story is not that Harkin helped the plant secure funding for the sewage treatment plant, but rather that the funds included a loan that Postville finds itself unable to pay back.  The Iowa Independent’s Lynda Waddington wrote about that three weeks ago, when Sen. Chuck Grassley said he would push to extend the USDA loan’s payment terms to make the debt more manageable for Postville.  “You can’t get blood out of a turnip,” Grassley said at the time.

There are also the very real environmental concerns that made the sewage treatment facility necessary in the first place, and those are still not completely resolved.  In October, a cow’s skull, a hide, and two dismembered legs were found in the plant’s wastewater lagoon, though the Iowa Department of Natural Resources did not assess a fine at the time.

Tom Vilsack interviewed outside Mineos pizza in Pittsburgh (Photo: Vilsack for President/Flickr)

On matters of agriculture, Vilsack was a pragmatic centrist, content with incremental changes and reluctant to take steps to significantly disrupt the status quo. When he successfully ran for his first term as governor in 1998, the generally pro-Republican Farm Bureau decided not to oppose him, choosing instead to endorse both him and his opponent. That was an impressive feat for an underdog Democrat running for governor — especially for a trial lawyer who had never farmed a day in his life.

He has clearly thought about what he would do in his new position. In an interview with a Minnesota college newspaper just before Election Day, Vilsack said Agriculture is “a department that impacts every American.”

In the interview, he cited the international food crisis as an opportunity to use America’s “soft power.” He suggested promoting renewable energy was part of the job. “How do you accelerate the research and development that gets you to second-generation bio-fuels?” he asked.

He also mentioned the school nutrition program, saying “you have to be focused on whether we are doing right by our children in schools across America in terms of nutritious food that we subsidize and we provide in school lunch programs.”

He even spoke of controlling forest fires which, it turns out the Agriculture Secretary has a role in.

While he was governor, Vilsack remained largely above the fray of ongoing feuds over the placement of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) near rural communities. Groups on the left who would like to give local communities stricter control over where the CAFOs are allowed felt betrayed by their governor’s unwillingness to help, but his stance kept agribusiness interests relatively quiet.

Vilsack’s most noticeable impact on rural Iowa did not involve changes to agricultural policy or stricter environmental regulations, but rather tax credits and business incentives. His economic development efforts — most notably the Iowa Values Fund, which was designed to create grants, loans, and tax incentives for businesses who choose to locate in the state — have been credited for short-term successes in many corners of the state, but critics in his own party argued that they amounted to corporate welfare.  In any event, the long-term benefits remain difficult to measure.

Vilsack was a pragmatist by necessity. For all eight of his years at Iowa’s helm, he faced a Republican-controlled legislature.  His allies on the left say his record might have looked different if Democrats won control of the statehouse a few years earlier.  He chose not to run for a third term in 2006 despite his relative popularity, opting instead to explore a presidential bid that quickly flopped.

As a presidential candidate in a crowded Democratic primary, Vilsack, who served as chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council until only months earlier, seemed to move farther to the left on environmental issues, embracing an ambitious but seemingly arbitrary requirement that, by 2020, all new power plants constructed must be carbon-free. His campaign even bought carbon credits to offset its campaign activities.

Vilsack also subtly tempered his enthusiasm for corn-based ethanol over the course of his candidacy, shifting to a more tenable position in favor of all forms of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, using corn ethanol merely as a “transitional fuel.”

From the few glimpses we have gotten of Vilsack’s federal agricultural policy positions, it is clear that he supports stricter limits on farm subsidies than Congress was able to pass in the 2008 Farm Bill. That puts him in line with the President-elect and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Perhaps unfortunately for Vilsack, it will likely be another four or five years before Congress passes the next farm bill, and that is longer than a typical cabinet secretary has to wait.

In the interim, Vilsack will be tasked with many administrative and regulatory responsibilities, and he seems intent on pushing other policy goals in line with the Democrats’ agenda.

Expect the incoming Secretary of Agriculture to achieve tangible results that are easy to explain, because that is Vilsack’s style. He will immerse himself in a few specific issues, come up with a few policy ideas, and set to work building a political consensus, diluting the original ideas when necessary.

Don’t expect Vilsack, a consummate pragmatist, to turn America’s food system upside down anytime soon.

“He knows production agriculture, and he knows the changes we need to ensure its profitability and future, including for young and beginning farmers and ranchers,” Sen. Tom Harkin said in a statement.

Iowa’s Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a statement that he was pleasantly surprised by the Vilsack pick.

“This comes as a surprise since about three weeks ago Gov. Vilsack stated that he was not in contention for the job, but it sure isn’t a surprise because of his qualifications. As Governor of Iowa he had a firsthand look at the role of agriculture in our global economy,” Grassley said. “I’m happy for him, happy for Iowa and this is welcome news for agriculture.”

Tom Buis, president of the National Farmers Union, told the Washington Post that Vilsack was a “great choice” who “has an understanding of the challenges and opportunities that exist in rural America.”

Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, told the New York Times that Vilsack’s understanding of the biofuels industry would serve him well in his new position.

“The big issue for him and any incoming secretary is going to be biofuels, that’s the sector that right now is in such a volatile position,” said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that is a leading critic of federal farm subsidies. American farmers, Mr. Cook said, are “hitched to both the food system and the energy system, both of which are oscillating.”

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, a Republican, said Vilsack’s pick would be good for Iowa.

“It’s nice to have an Iowan in this job,” Northey said. “He understands what’s going on in agriculture. He’s a quick study, and I think Iowans will have good access in the USDA.”

Of course, not everyone will be pleased with Obama’s pick. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a Minnesota-based non-profit organization advocating for organic and sustainable agriculture, pointed to Vilsack’s support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, his ties to The Monsanto Co. and his support of corn and soy based biofuels as reasons why he isn’t qualified for the position.

Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocates across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack’s history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to formally announce the Vilsack pick at 10:45 a.m. today in Chicago.

Democrats failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to bring the bill to a vote, with the final roll call at 52-35.

Voting “yes” were 40 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 2 independents.

Voting “no” were 4 Democrats and 31 Republicans.

Grassley said the legislation is simply “throwing good taxpayer money after bad to companies that have dwindling assets.”

“There was a serious attempt to find a bipartisan agreement on this matter, but it was unsuccessful and the Democrat leadership decided to push ahead with the flawed House proposal which did not require the unions to renegotiate their contracts by a date certain, deal with a change in leadership, or curb compensation for corporate executives or union leaders,” Grassley said in a statement.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin sided with the majority of Demcorats and voted to consider the House bill.

General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have said they can’t last the year without federal aid. The White House is now considering using funds from the existing $700 billion rescue program for financial firms to aid the automakers, saying it would be “irresponsible” to further weaken the economy by letting the Detroit car companies fail.

Grassley posted a YouTube video explaining his vote:

Once the nation’s largest supplier of kosher meat and an economic boon to northeastern Iowa, Agriprocessors’ failure is now threatening to saddle the town of Postville with obligations to repay a federal loan. Documents filed this week in a New York bankruptcy court reveal that if the company doesn’t resume payments on a 20-year U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan the city took on its behalf to build a sewage-treatment plant, the city could likely owe the more than $4 million in debt that remains. Agriprocessors had been paying nearly $25,000 per month on the loan, but is now more than $100,000 behind on payments.

The treatment plant, constructed several years ago as part of a settlement of environmental complaints against Agriprocessors, was paid for with a $3.3 million federal grant and the USDA loan.  Although the company has returned to limited poultry production under the supervision of bankruptcy trustee Joseph Sarachek, and possible buyers are under consideration, Agriprocessors remains unable to meet even its current monthly obligations.

Sen. Charles Grassley hopes the Department of Agriculture won't try to collect a loan payment from the town of Postville next month.

Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said in his weekly conference call that he hopes the Agriculture Department will not demand payment immediately.

Noting that “you can’t get blood out of a turnip,” Grassley indicated he would be willing to go to bat for Postville, but not at the risk of having taxpayers pick up the tab for the potential buyers — individuals Grassley believes would reap direct benefits from the facility.

Grassley said Postville should not be unduly worried about the upcoming payment that is due in January.

“I don’t think they have to be worried about it because I think the USDA is — without making any decisions — just doesn’t have to push anything in January against Postville,” he said. “Now, whether the people at the USDA feel the same way that I’ve told you about this, I can’t say at this point.”

Sen. Tom Harkin has intervened on behalf of producers and auction barns that have not been paid for livestock sold to Agriprocessors.

In a letter released Dec. 1, Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin began correspondence with Ed Schafer, the U.S. secretary of agriculture, on behalf of producers and auction barns that have not been paid for livestock sold to Agriprocessors.

According to the letter, Harkin, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, received “numerous calls” from interested parties.

“These producers and auction barns are already in most instances operating at a loss due to low market prices, and if they go unpaid for their livestock or poultry, their own prospects for remaining in business are greatly reduced,” Harkin wrote.

Harkin urged the USDA to enforce the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which provides payment protection to these entities.

“It has become apparent that the USDA has allowed this company to operate insolvent, causing further financial injury to producers and auction barns [and] jeopardizing their own operations,” Harkin said in a prepared statement. “USDA should step up its actions immediately and make clear that unpaid sellers of livestock and poultry receive what they are owed, as the law requires, and not be tangled up for perhaps a long time in bankruptcy court proceedings.”

The letter closed with a request for the USDA to hold public hearings in Iowa so that the producers and auction houses could know their rights and learn how to become involved in the bankruptcy proceedings, if necessary.

While there were some Iowa auction houses who were still allowing Agriprocesssors to purchase livestock as usual, others moved the company to a “cash-only” basis within weeks of the massive May 12 immigration raid. In his letter to the USDA, Harkin admitted that he does not know how many producers or auction houses have been affected by non-payment.

Marvin Waterhouse, manager of Manchester Livestock Auction, told Iowa Independent this summer that he had decided to move Agriprocessors, which had typically been a slow-paying client before the raid, to cash-only status.

“I informed them that they would need to pay up front,” Waterhouse said. “It was nothing against them personally, it’s just that I need to protect my business. If something else were to happen, I simply couldn’t afford to be left holding an unpaid bill.”

Waterhouse explained that businesses come to the auction and make purchases. Although some companies arrive with checkbook in hand, most are invoiced the same day as the sale and pay within 24 to 48 hours. It was not unusual, he said, for Agriprocessors to purchase $100,000 of livestock during an auction.

Agriprocessors, facing a $35 million lawsuit from First Bank Capital Investments, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in early November. The plant’s former chief executive, Sholom Rubashkin, remains in federal custody pending a trial on a host of bank fraud and immigration-related charges. In total, seven members of plant management are facing federal charges.

Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge traveled to Postville last week and faced uncomfortable scrutiny from local residents for not visiting the community in the wake of a May immigration raid that saw roughly half of the plant’s employees detained, criminally convicted and deported. The purpose of Judge’s visit was to announce a $700,000 state aid package for former workers and the assignment of three AmeriCorps volunteers to the community.

Harkin was asked to lead the group’s efforts on prevention and public health. Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were also asked to be a part of the effort.

Doctors and business and consumer groups are gearing up for an effort to improve care and bring about 46 million uninsured people into the system, something Obama and Clinton made centerpieces of their presidential campaigns.

And lawmakers on Capitol Hill are lining up to try to lead what is expected to be a long but high-profile legislative campaign.

Sen. Tom Harkin met with supporters at a pre-election rally in Cedar Rapids.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, while predicting national Democrats would pick up seven seats in the U.S. Senate, was in a forgiving mood toward Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

“[Lieberman] happens to be a friend of mine,” Harkin said during a pre-election rally in Cedar Rapids Sunday evening. “I happen to like Joe very much. But, I suppose, there has to be some discipline. We can’t have someone going off and doing things like Joe has done.”

Lieberman, who has caucused with the Senate Democrats since being re-elected to his Senate seat as an Independent, actively supported the presidential bid of Arizona Sen. John McCain and vice presidential bid of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary for his seat in 2006 — largely due to his support for the Iraq War — and the former Democratic vice presidential nominee has been playing both sides of the political aisle ever since. In September he was a much lauded speaker at the Republican National Convention where he harshly criticized the Democratic ticket.

“[Whether or not Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats] is something to be decided later on,” Harkin said. “I don’t want to get into that right now, although it is something that will need to be decided. … But, you know, sometimes it is better to forgive and forget. Quit dwelling in the past. Leave the past behind us. Let’s look to the future. And, in that case, maybe Joe will stay with us in the Democratic caucus. We just don’t know yet.”

Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who serves as Senate Majority Leader, announced that he would be speaking with Lieberman in the days following the election to discuss the matter. Since that announcement, most U.S. Senators have remained mute on the topic and have taken a wait and see approach.

Lieberman was able to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee largely because he, along with Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, caucused with the Democrats and helped the group maintain a thin 51-49 majority. Lieberman has also voted with the Democrats on most issues. The main exception to that rule of thumb has been legislation concerning the Iraq War. As a part of the gentleman’s agreement between Reid and Lieberman, the Connecticut Senator does not attend party meetings when war policy is the primary topic.

With six seats in the can for the Democratic majority, as well as three others remaining up for grabs, it could be that Lieberman won’t be the hot commodity he has been.

“Well, if we discount Joe Lieberman and we pick up seven seats, that would give us 57 Democratic Senators,” Harkin contemplated prior to Tuesday’s election. “You need 60 to break a filibuster. What I’m telling you is that there are always five or six or seven moderate Republicans who will vote with us to break a filibuster.”

According to Harkin, there have been 90 filibusters in the past two years.

“On any one of those, in which we’ve had a vote, we’ve always gotten four or five Republicans who don’t want to plug things up,” he said. “So, we don’t need 60 because there are enough moderate Republicans who will work with us to get the job done.”

The new make-up of the Senate combined with the fact that Vice President-elect Joe Biden will break any tie votes definitely benefits the Democratic caucus, but that configuration won’t take place until January. Until then, if the Democrats press too much, Lieberman could decide to leave the caucus which would place the Senate in a 50-50 split with current Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.

In further paradox, Lieberman, while publicly supporting the McCain-Palin ticket, has made significant monetary contributions toward the election of Democrats. As the Washington Post reports, Lieberman gave Biden $5,000 to help retire the Delaware Senator’s campaign debt. He also provided more than $145,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and $5,000 each to Colorado Democratic U.S. House candidate Mark Udall and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Hours after Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was announced as president-elect, Lieberman issued his congratulations.

“America remains a nation of extraordinary opportunity and the American people are a people of extraordinary fairness,” Lieberman said in the prepared statement. “Now that the election is over, it is time to put partisan considerations aside and come together as a nation to solve the difficult challenges we face and make our blessed land stronger and safer. I pledge to work with President-election Obama and his incoming administration in their efforts to reinvigorate our economy and keep our nation secure and free.”

The analysis was part of Todd’s state-by-state election coverage, where he looked at the campaign of 2008 from the perspective of all 50 states.

He went on to compare Iowa’s GOP to other state parties that are struggling in Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia — all presidential battleground states.

Todd’s assessment:

Iowa: What has happened to the Iowa Republican Party? Just two years ago, the GOP held four of the five House seats. Now, if the wave hits hard enough, the party could be down to just one seat (the always conservative 5th District). The state GOP’s health can be summed up by the lack of a challenge they’ve given to the usually vulnerable Tom Harkin. In fact, Iowa is similar to a lot of battleground states where McCain is struggling; the state’s Republican infrastructure is just a mess. See also: Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, to name a few.

Harkin told Iowa Independent that he was one of a few senators acting as a kind of a political “godfather” for Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage who is taking on convicted felon U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, in what is a tight race that could give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority.

“It’s going very well for him,” Harkin said of Begich. “I think we’re going to pick up that Alaska seat. I think people just recognize that, you know, only five senators in the history of this country have ever been convicted of a felony. This is not going to sit well.”