If the Pentagon is Washington D.C.’s largest building, then surely the United States Department of Agriculture must be the second largest.
Standing at the end of the USDA building, people at the opposite end of its two-block long, glossy floored halls are mere specks. But these specks oversee a nation-wide staff of 110,000 (one bureaucrat for every 18 farmers) and a budget of $65 billion (U.S.)
The magnitude of this monolith, in a city of giant neo-classical buildings, gives a sense of the importance of agriculture in American politics and policy.
Read Also
Agri-business and farms front and centre for Alberta’s Open Farm Days
Open Farm Days continues to enjoy success in its 14th year running, as Alberta farms and agri-businesses were showcased to increase awareness on how food gets to the dinner plate.
For a Canadian visiting Washington to attend an agricultural reporters conference, it is impressive to see the prominence of farm issues in the most powerful city in the world.
While most Americans live in cities and few of them have a personal connection to the nation’s two million farmers, issues of importance to those who scratch grain from the soil, graze cattle and pluck fruit from trees have not been forgotten by the powerful.
Part of the reason is the nature of the American political system. An elected and equal senate gives the representatives from South Dakota and Nebraska the same clout as their counterparts from New York and California.
In Ottawa, the governing party usually has a large enough majority that it can ignore the opposition’s input and party solidarity means government backbenchers usually follow what cabinet and the prime minister’s office wants.
In Washington, party solidarity is less stringent and passage of bills often requires the support of a coalition of both parties.
So when commodity prices crashed last year, U.S. legislators were working on an assistance package long before their counterparts in Canada. They delivered a $6 billion (U.S.) aid package.
Coupled with regular program spending, Washington spent more on agriculture last year than ever before.
And everyone, from agriculture secretary Dan Glickman to Republican and Democratic congressmen, already conceded the need for additional support this year.
Most expect the government will have another program in place by fall.
Al Tank of the National Pork Producers Council said the reason is politicians believe voters in America’s heartland are not committed to either party.
“They (politicians) are talking about agriculture for one reason – because it is in play.”
The White House is up for grabs and the tone for the presidential election will be set in the Iowa caucus, in what the U.S. TV networks like to call The Heartland. Republicans hold only a six-seat majority in the Senate, Tank said.
“Politics, whether we like it or not, is going to drive this thing a lot more than the impact on farmers.
“Agriculture is going to get a tremendous amount of attention because decisions on who controls a lot of important things in this town are going to be predicated on it.”
Over on Capitol Hill, senator Tom Daschle is one example of the clout of agriculture in Washington.
The South Dakota Democrat leads his party’s senate contingent and is a member of the senate agriculture committee.
While the heartland farm states often go to the Republicans, Daschle thinks they will be hurt by their support of the 1995 Freedom to Farm act, which cut agricultural support just as commodity prices started falling.
“I really think they are going to be up for grabs this time,” he said of farm state seats.
Another personification of farming’s sway in Washington is Larry Combest, a Republican from the Texas panhandle who heads the House of Representatives agriculture committee.
“I want farmers to believe we are the best advocates of American farmers,” he said.
The words are a surprise.
Maybe the voters back in the Texas Panhandle would take him to task on the statement. Maybe he’d say something different to a farming audience.
Nevertheless, for a reporter who often hears Canadian politicians explaining why they can’t afford any more programs and telling farmers they must adapt to the new global marketplace, the attitude in Washington seems different.
And refreshing.
