Each year, the legislative committee of MFA's corporate board makes a trip to Washington, D.C. The trip corresponds with an annual event designed by the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. NCFC coordinates the event in order to help those of us in farmer cooperatives visit with political leaders and make the views of our memberships known. It's a good, smart practice, one we'll continue. 

The legislative committee for MFA's corporate board of directors consists of Lester Evans, chairman (Lebanon, Mo., District 13); David Cottrill, vice chairman (Albany, Mo., District 1); Ted Sloan (Hamilton, Mo., District 4); and Tim Lichte (Lexington, Mo., District 5). Because of the death of his father, Tim was unable to attend. I'm sure all of you join us here at MFA in offering heartfelt sympathy. To fill in for Tim, Randy Ludwig (Jackson, Mo., District 14) attended. Each of these individuals is a practicing farmer or rancher representing Midwest agriculture.

This is an opportunity we take each year to thank our senators and representatives for what they do for agriculture. We don't have a specific agenda; we simply want the opportunity to visit face to face. Since our legislative committee represents all areas of Midwest agriculture, it is a good opportunity as well for those same senators and representatives to hear how those "outside the Beltway" view the world, especially from agriculture's perspective. The MFA board's legislative committee brings real-world experience to Washington.

These gentlemen, as part of MFA's 14-member board of directors, are reflective of agriculture in MFA's territory, from dairy, to beef, to row crop, to swine. They are real farmers who bring a practical approach to Washington. There is value in our legislative committee stopping in to visit with our elected officials. I know that from experience. I know it from listening to our board members and from listening to the elected officials with whom we visit.

Our elected officials want to hear concerns from the individuals they are charged with representing. We have a number of excellent people who represent the interests of agriculture and understand its significance to the security of the United States. Those individuals inhabit both sides of the aisle.

The first day we had an appointment with Senator Kit Bond. His agriculture staff member, Brian Klippenstein, hails from a cattle operation in Maysville, Mo. Brian was very helpful and informative. We appreciated his candor and analysis. From there, we visited with Senator Jim Talent, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, Congressman Ike Skelton (who made a special point to see us and talk to us in-depth), Congressman Sam Graves, Congressman Kenny Hulshof and Congressman Roy Blunt. Congressman Blunt's ag staff went so far as to take the MFA legislative committee on a behind-the-scenes tour of the Capitol.

One topic that came up several times is the Farm Bill, which expires in 2007. Everyone assured us that the Farm Bill will not be raided prior to its expiration. After 2007, of course, everything is negotiable. Just in the last few years, the House and Senate appropriations committees and subcommittees faced significant pressure to alter funding provisions around which farmers have structured business plans. Specifically, committee members received pressure to alter the marketing loan program, direct and counter cyclical payments, and conservation programs.

Among the highlights of the conference were a briefing at the White House given by Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, an update from Chief Agricultural Trade Negotiator Allen Johnson and the NCFC Congressional Reception which took place in the U.S. Capitol just steps from the Senate floor.

One item was especially apparent to me during the Washington trip. Everyone talks about polarization but it's nowhere more evident than in Washington, D.C. We seem to have two antagonistic parties. One speaker (a Democrat) constantly pointedly criticized the other speaker (who was a Republican) even though he had enough facts to simply present his side of the argument without slamming his opponent and his opponent's motives. It works the other way as well.

The impression was of constant conflict. Which speaker and what assertions are believable? Many times opponents use the same data to argue opposite positions. My imperfect strategy is to check who is arguing in favor and who is arguing in opposition and make a decision. But the best strategy is to read different magazines or visit different web sites, both for and against, and develop my own opinion. At some point, and not just in Washington, we have to realize that agendas shouldn't drive decisions. Many topics and many very serious issues confront this nation. We can all disagree how to address those topics and how to solve those problems without resorting to destroying the opposition.

The future of our country has always been linked to debating a subject, submitting to majority opinion and supporting the country's decision, whether in trade issues or in war. The currently popular scorched-earth approach to political and business issues as well as to the war in Iraq gives trade levers to our competitors and aid and comfort to our enemies. We are all Americans. It's time to understand our responsibilities.