GILFILLAN — Click here to see a slideshow of Farmfest 2007



A political forum at Farmfest Tuesday was like an agricultural version of the old Schoolhouse Rock cartoon: How a farm bill becomes a law.

The House, the Senate and the White House were all represented and played out the classic Washington battle between the legislative and executive branches. There were implied veto threats, conflicting versions of who was really looking out for farmers and promises that a good farm bill could still be completed this year if the other sides act reasonably.

“Well, that was pretty good,” one elderly farmer laughed after watching the 90-minute discussion/debate/political drama.

The sparks flew mostly between U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, representing the Bush administration, and Democratic Congressmen Collin Peterson of Detroit Lakes and Tim Walz of Mankato. Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and Walz, a member of the committee, are fresh off of getting a new five-year farm bill passed by the House.

The bill that ultimately becomes law will have a major impact on the lives of farmers and other Americans, setting the rules for farm subsidies and providing funding for school lunch programs, conservation efforts, food assistance for the poor and the Women, Infants, Children nutrition program.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good,” said Peterson, who’s in his first year as chairman of the committee. “The more people look at it, the more they’re going to like it.”

The bill was good enough to earn praise from Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who each serve on the Senate Ag Committee.

“He’s done an extraordinary job on this farm bill,” Coleman said of Peterson. “... My template in the Senate is going to be what Collin Peterson did in the House.”

The Senate is expected to craft its version of the bill this fall, but the Bush administration will need to be consulted because the president is already issuing veto threats about the House version.

“I’ll tell you without hesitation that the president wants a farm bill,” Johanns said. “... But we do want a farm bill that makes sense.”

The president wants producer payments limited to those with incomes of $200,000 or less and he won’t agree to the tax provisions added to the House bill to help cover the cost of the $256 billion spending bill, Johanns said.

“This bill was building a lot of support,” he said. “That support evaporated in about 24 hours.”

That was primarily because of the taxes on foreign-owned companies that have U.S. subsidiaries and because of the process used to add the tax provision, Johanns said.

Walz said the provision simply closes a loophole in tax law that Bush’s own Treasury Department saw as such. The additional revenue was necessary because Democrats have instituted budget rules, known as PAY-GO, that require any spending increases to be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts in other areas.

“You can call it a loophole,” Johanns said. “I’m going to call it a tax increase, because it is.”

But Peterson said the current tax law gives foreign companies tax advantages over American firms. In addition, the revenue from the provision will keep the legislation from driving up the national debt.

“Nobody else has offered an alternative,” Peterson said. “... The reality is, if we’re going to pay our bills and we’re going to get this deficit going in the other direction, we can’t just do it on spending (reductions).”

Johanns and Coleman said the tax debate was probably moot because the Senate bill is unlikely to have that provision. It takes 60 votes — not just a simple majority — to get legislation over procedural hurdles in the 100-person Senate, and they predicted 60 senators wouldn’t agree to the foreign-corporation tax measure.

“I don’t think you could get 60 to agree it’s Tuesday,” Walz said.

Despite the differences, however, there was plenty of agreement at the forum — particularly between the lawmakers and the audience. Applause from the crowd of about 1,500 came frequently when the provisions of the bill were recited and was particularly strong when people said it would continue the basic policies of the current farm bill, passed in 2002.

“What we heard from farmers is they like the farm bill they have and want to keep it going,” Peterson said. “That’s basically what we’ve done.”

Klobuchar talked of the importance of having a strong renewable fuels component not only in the final farm bill but also in other legislation being developed in Washington. And she said she still believes that a permanent fund needs to be established for farm disaster aid rather than forcing special legislation to be passed for every drought, flood or other crop disaster.

While the arguments seemed to be the most entertaining part of the forum for the crowd, the panelists praised each other in the final moments.

Walz complimented Johanns for coming all the way from Washington to sit on a panel where he was outnumbered by Democrats. Johanns returned the compliment to Walz and Peterson.

“Obviously we have disagreements about certain issues,” he said to the farmer-dominated crowd, “but they’re working very, very hard for you.”

And Coleman, in his final thoughts, offered optimism about a compromise farm bill getting done this year.

“We have some differences, but they’re not that great,” he said. “We can figure it out.”

Johanns agreed, saying it’s long-standing tradition to have big battles over the five-year agricultural policy bill.

“We’re going through a very normal process for a farm bill,” he said.