So the FarmFest is a distant memory. But it was the first debate between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. It was in solidly Republican territory and this is probably the sole reason that Norm agreed to it. Here are the lies Norm told:

• Nancy Pelosi is responsible for high gas prices.
• Norm tried to position himself as an environmentalist.
• Norm tried to claim that he has been for maintaining and improving our transportation infrastructure.
• Norm tried to claim he's for energy independence when he's supported Bush's energy policy.
• Norm insinuated that he has supported renewable energy.
• Norm repeated the Drill Here, Drill Now lie. More drilling won't lower gas prices.
• Norm lies about Al's position on the gas tax. Al is not for a gas tax increase.
• Norm claims that nuclear power is alternative energy.

Read on to examine them in-depth:

Do you believe in energy independence. Why or why not?

FRANKEN: Yes, I do believe in energy independence for The United States and I think we’ve gone the wrong way in the last seven and a half years. While George W. Bush has been president our dependence on foreign oil has gone up almost every year. We’ve gone the wrong way because we’ve gone to oil. And more and more oil and Norm Coleman is in the pocket of oil. Norm Coleman has gotten more contributions from big oil than any other politician in the history of Minnesota. We need to make rural Minnesota the epicenter and engine of the new renewable energy economy. That means biofuel, that means ethanol. That means biodiesel and the next generation of biofuels, cellulosic ethanol and it means having wind and wind credits that you can use, that farmers can use on earned income. This is win win win win if we go to renewable energy.

COLEMAN: I don’t think that anyone doubts that this is a problem we spend over 750 billion dollars into thugs like Chavez, and tyrants like Ahmadenejad and that’s a disgrace. It’s an economic security, a national security issue. The answer is in the room! The way it works the corn growers, the soybean growers, 2005 the energy bill that I voted for that I got blasted for by one of the folks here on the stand here. The bill that by the way created the first recruitment of RFS. 10.5 billion dollars. We’ve been reaching for the sky for the renewable fuel revolution that we’ve been seeing. In 2007 now we’ve got 31 billion gallons. But here’s the key you gotta do it all, and that’s where we’re in disagreement here. What we gotta do by the way is tap into more domestic production. Open up 85 %
of the outer contintental shelf that’s off limits.

The 2005 energy bill was a joke. Norm is only for energy independence if it means that his buddies in Big Oil can drill all over the Outer Continental Shelf and continue to get huge subsidies and tax breaks. Norm is for renewable energy alternatives like solar, wind and wave technologies like he's for bipartisanship. Rarely and only if there is nothing else going.

I rate this answer as a great big stinking meadow muffin of Norm-speak^TM.

A follow up question on the government's commitment to energy independence:

COLEMAN: As I said before, this really is a national security issue and the federal government does national security that’s what we’ve been doing. We had a talk a before about the 2005 bill, establishing a renewable energy standard, upping that in the 2007 bill. We gotta open up the outer continental shelf. We got shale oil, as I said before we got more shale oil than there is in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear you’ll see we’ll have to do a lot of loan guarantees because it takes a lot of money, and10 years for nuclear to come on line. Battery technology, tax incentives, renewable. And by the way one of the things that I did is take the tax incentives from big oil and move them over to renewable. We did it with biodiesel, we’re gona create a new sugar to ethanol program that I championed and some said it couldn’t be done and then we’re gona move to cellulosic. We have billion dollars for renewable fuels, biofuels research in the farm bill of 2008 that I supported and worked on. We have a major role to play. And it centers on research and opening up opportunity. It’s just not being held hostage is the key to do that.

FRANKEN: When I started this campaign I called for an Apollo program for energy policy and that means what we did after Sputnik, which was a massive investment in R&D. Do you like the leadership you’ve had so during the last 7 and a half years? While Norm Coleman has been senator, the cost of oil has tripled. The cost of gas has doubled. And he’s talking about doing the same old same old. We need massive investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. And that will be a win win win for rural Minnesota. We’re talking wind, we’re talking biomass, biofuels, we’re talking rail. We’re talking electric hybrid cars for the rest of our fleet. We need to have a massive investment in renewable energy and the winner will be rural Minnesota.

The problem with bio-fuel is it takes 1.4 barrels of it to make 1 new barrel. It's very inefficient. Consequently, more and more farmers are switching their crops to corn (mostly) which they sell for fuel production. The impact on our food production capacity could become devastating.

Once again, Norm opposes any investment into wind, solar and wave technologies. I rate this a stretch of the truth.

Why do you think you can represent Minnesota Agriculture in Washington D.C.?

COLEMAN: Thanks for asking, I want 60 seconds by the way. I have to say that the price of gas has just about doubled since Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the house. Both Mr. Franken and Ms. Pelosi are wrong when they oppose opening up new sources of energy and they are wrong when they oppose expanding nuclear energy now. The reason that I believe I can is because I have. I’ve been on the Ag committee for 6 years. I’ve been in this state for 30 years. I’ve traveled the state in the AG’s office trying cases in Slayton and Mannevile and Cleef River throughout this state, listening. The reason I have is that I’ve listened to folks coming into my office and saying we need a renewable fuel standard, we produce them,

FRANKEN: I grew up in Minnesota. I will stand up for Minnesota farmers. Norm Coleman hasn’t always done that unfortunately. In the 2006 budget bill he voted to cut co-payments from 45% to 34% and it cut 3 billion dollars in spending the Ag bill. It made the baseline of the Ag bill, and it made it harder to pass. He voted for CAFTA. I would not have done that. And jeopardize the sugar beet industry and the sugar beet farmers I talked to and the ethanol plant managers I talked to are skeptical about whether the sugar ethanol program will be able to be implemented. The economics just aren’t there. He so loved Minnesota farmers by delaying COOL, and all these votes were what President Bush wanted him to do. I will stand up for Minnesota farmers. I will be someone you can trust. I will be someone who if I tell you I’m going to vote a certain way, I will. And if I change, I’m not gonna come back and tell you I know what’s better for you the way Norm Coleman did for the sugar beet growers.

Norm blames Nancy Pelosi for the gas price hikes. This is an outright lie. It has been the Bush Administration's energy policies that Norm has repeatedly voted for that have gotten us into the mess we are currently in.

It seems that we've had some difficulty getting this last Farm Bill past, with a more urban congress. What does that portend for the next farm Bill?

FRANKEN: I couldn’t disagree more. I think that the farm bill is a good deal for taxpayers. Let’s remember that %70 of this is for nutrition and on the commodities program this is something when times are good we save money. We saved 25 billion dollars on the 2002 bill, and when times are hard it’s a safety net so that we have our food security in this country, and we need that. It’s part of our national security. Again, unfortunately Norm Coleman voted to cut farm spending by three billion dollars in 2006 budget, he undercut milk producers. That is money out of their pockets. The milk payments at that time, and it made this bill harder to pass because it made the baseline 3 billion dollars lower. Why did he do it? Because president Bush wanted it. Why did he vote against COOL? Because the Special Interests wanted it. Why did he vote for CAFTA because President Bush and the Special Interests wanted it. This guy hasn’t been working for you he’s been working for president bush and the special interests.

COLEMAN: I think the demographics are clearly against us so I believe in Ben Franklin’s motto I believe hang together or we most assuredly will hang separately. That’s why I’ve been a leader in this senate for bring people together and working with the rice folks and the cotton folks. And the crop folks in our state, and bringing people together with a common vision. The farm bill is the best dollar by dollar buy that this country can get. We spent less than one quarter of one percent of the federal government going out to our producers. we’ve got the safest most affordable food supply in the world, and the reality than is that I played, unlike the other folks here, played a role in making that happen. So we overrode two presidential vetoes on the farm bill. We overrode a presidential veto on the water bill and a message, you know the reason that I have consensus is that my livestock folks and my poultry folks in other states we have concerns. So Colin Peterson is a good agreement bringing people together, not one against the other. I voted for inaudible by the way because most of the other crop folks here said we needed it, and then what I did was work with sugar to provide a sugar ethanol program, and most important preserve the second tier inaudible in the farm bill. We have the strongest sugar policy this country’s seen in 25 years and I’ve been a proud champion of that, and the producers and growers will know that.

This is a bit rough of a question for Norm. Al's right that Norm has often voted against the interest of farmers. So Norm brings up his mantra of "bringing people together to get things done." It's better than answering Al's point ... mainly because he can't. Surprisingly, Norm doesn't lie in answering this question ... just avoids discussing the truth about his record that Al raises.

Immigration question

FRANKEN: Well, we need comprehensive immigration reform. Now there are many farmers that rely on guest workers to get their cows milk and their crops. Washington is unable to get its act together, and we have two shots at it and they didn’t do it. Still Minnesota dairy farmers are wondering who’s going to milk their cows. Now I want comprehensive immigration reform, I think that the 12 million or so who are here. The one’s who have been working should be put on a path to citizenship. They should be required to follow the laws. They should be required to come out of the shadows, and required to become citizens. We need comprehensive immigration reform so that farmers know that they’re going to be having a guest worker program, and that ice isn’t going to raiding them.

COLEMAN: In order to deal with it the very first thing we have to do is secure our borders. Nations have to have secure borders and so we do that, and at the same time we then deal with the folks that are here who should be able to come out of the shadows. Where I disagree with my DFL opponent, I don’t think it should require a path to citizenship. We’re a country of laws there are folks who are waiting in line throughout the world to come here, but people should have the opportunity to work, and so what you do is set up a secure ID program. A condition of that is you make sure folks are obeying the law, that they’re learning English and paying their taxes. But the problem is if you don’t secure the border what happens is you do that for 15 now and then x number of years now you got 15 more and that does create a whole range of issues for many of our communities. Secure the borders, guest worker programs make sense, but then by the way, hold the employers responsible. Why is somebody who doesn’t have one of those secure cards you’ve got a problem. We won’t have the ability right now to do that because someone gets a number they get a social security number they tell you that’s a valid number, they don’t tell you that’s being used in New York and Chicago. It’s a simple concept, secure borders, guest worker program, no path to citizenship, hold the employers responsible who are hiring workers into the program.

Wow. Amazingly, Norm was once again within the realm of the truth.

How would you increase jobs in rural areas?

COLEMAN: I’ve been, when I was the mayor I used to say what’s the best thing I can do for kids? Well the best thing I can do for kids today is make sure mom or dad has an opportunity for a job. On the micro level I got a CDGD grant for inaudible Minnesota, and they opened up opening a soy bean oil processing plant. That’s micro, but government does infrastructure. I’ve been a champion of infrastructure. I’ve got my own bipartisan rural renaissance bill, and we’re getting close to getting it into the farm bill and into the extenders package, Mark Prior from Arkansas being a partner in that. Putting in money for grant money, for bonding money to develop infrastructure. The whole value added opportunity that’s what it’s about. The renewable revolution and the work that I did, we did, we turned your message to provide that opportunity to transform the economy in rural Minnesota.

The things we have done with trade, these are questions that are longer than sixty seconds, but the trade opportunities that has increased. My livestock folks, by the way, are hurting right now. They’ve got some challenges with input costs. In the end, those things are trade, value added, infrastructure, that’s what I have done in my six years as a US Senator.

FRANKEN: People are hurting in rural America. Young people are leaving the communities. One thing we have to do, I think, is fund education. The federal government passes all these unfunded mandates and I think that’s a disgrace and that’s hurt rural education. I called for an Apollo program on renewable energy and energy efficiency when this campaign started. It proves...when you build wind turbines and wind farms in communities, young people stay, we know that. So we need to invest in that.

We need loan forgiveness programs and doctors and nurses and teachers to rural communities and that we can do . But basically, people are hurting because the Bush-Coleman economy has driven this economy into a ditch. And Norm Coleman was riding shotgun the whole way with Bush. You’ve seen the results of what we’ve had, the last seven and a half years, and that we need a change in this country and I’m gonna bring a change.

Norm claims that he's been a champion of infrastructure. Holy horsepuckies! This couldn't be further from the truth. The Republicans are the reason the I-35W bridge fell down in Minneapolis and the roads are in absolutely horrid condition. They have underfunded our infrastructure.

Once again he tries to play himself off as a environmentalist who is trying to grow a renewable economy and create jobs in a green sector. This is simply not true. Norm dismisses wind, solar and wave technologies. He thinks Nuclear and Clean Coal are the wave of the future.

Norm certainly makes up for being truthful in the prior two questions by telling some real humdingers in this one. In comparing Franken and Coleman, isn't there a clear difference? Norm waffles and blathers his way through the answer without providing any concrete examples of what he's done. Franken on the other hand is clear, concise and makes sense.

How to help the livestock industry?

COLEMAN: Animal agriculture is the foundation and underpinning of our rural economy. There’s just no question about that, and I mentioned in my previous answer that livestock, livestock folks are facing some real challenges today. Input costs are going through the roof, and credit out there, squeezing of credit, a real challenge. So what do we do? Part of it, by the way, expanding markets is part of it, and so I have worked with our livestock folks to open up…Korea. We should get the Korean deal through. We’ve got to deal with some auto issues I gotta deal with, but those are expanded market opportunities with livestock. In the farm bill, the [EQUIP] program. The federal government should be a partner in working with farmers to reduce the costs of the things they can do to be better environmentalists, and farmers are the ultimate environmentalists.

They live on the land, they want to pass it on to the next generation. And so trade, [EQUIP], a range of things, I just have to say one thing, get back to Apollo. You can’t have an Apollo program for energy independence if you don’t go all the way. And you’re not committed to an Apollo program if you’re not going to open up more drilling in other areas and if you’re not for expanding nuclear. You can’t just go halfway. And by the way, our livestock folks are part of a renewable revolution.

FRANKEN: Livestock producers are in a really tight squeeze and it’s because of the cost of feed and the cost of energy, and I think there’s a number of things that we can do to help livestock producers right now. I think we can open CRP lands to haying and grazing. I think we can have section 32 purchases by the USDA to take some of the meat off, to keep the price up, keep the meat off the market. I’d like to see emergency assistance to…I don’t think that when this farm bill was written

12 months ago, that we could have foreseen how volatile commodities would be and how high the input costs were, largely because of energy, and again Norm Coleman has taken more money from the oil companies. I’m not against off shore drilling, but this kind of oil…relying on an oil economy has gotten us where we are. We need renewables and we need to help our livestock farmers, producers right now.

See? Don't you see how much Norm cares and how deeply concerned he is about his reelection this issue? So Norm wants to expand markets? Maybe South Korea where they were protesting in the streets because they don't want our mad cow beef? Great idea, Norm. This is Norm-speak^TM. The Koreans don't want our meat so Norm'll force it upon them.

Didn't Norm nicely segway from gas-bagging about environmentalism to getting his killer line in? The "Drill Here, Drill Now" line? Impressive example of Norm-speak^TM.

Long meandering question

Here's what Al and Norm tried to answer:
I’m a free trader, I believe, I don’t think we can solve our problems by restricting trade. I believe we have a global economy, but we have to adapt to it and as I said earlier, I think one of the main things we have to do to adapt to it is pay for our healthcare with a national sales tax. As far as the hog producers, unfortunately most of the hogs now are owned by big business. The person who feeds them is just a hired man and I don’t know what we could do to change that. If you want to have exports, you have to have imports. So I’m for free tradde and I can’t offer the hog producer anything other than that.

FRANKEN: I know the importance of trade and opening markets. We are seventh in the country in terms of exports. We export $3 billions worth of agricultural goods from this state. But we also have to be careful when we sign onto trade agreements that we’re not endangering entire agricultural sectors as we did when Norm voted for CAFTA. That was not a good deal. That was opening up six countries with a combined economic market of Columbus, Ohio. And at the same time threatened an entire agricultural sector, the sugar beet industry in this state. We have to have trade deals but we have to make sure that certain of our values are protected, that our labor is protected, that our farmers are protected and that again, our values are protected. This is… I will vote for trade bills that will help our farmers and I will not vote for trade bills that will put our farmers at risk.

COLEMAN: By the way, one thing we need to do for our hog producers and our livestock folks, is make it very clear that manure is not hazardous waste. We need to make that very, very, very clear. The reality is, as I talked about before, our livestock and our [inaudible] producers, when you’re getting so stressed with the high input costs, the high costs of fuel, what you need to do, one of the answers is expanding markets. No question about that. And these, they have to be fair, and they have to be free. Our negotiators sometimes have a striped shirt on, like they’re referees, and they should be wearing our jersey, they’re supposed to protect our interests. And in the end when trade agreements are done, we need to make sure that they’re enforced. But clearly you have to move forward and we have opportunities for that. And I’ve been supportive of that. We could debate CAFTA, many times, but the fact is our hog producers wanted to move forward with CAFTA and our livestock wanted to move forward with CAFTA. And so I do what I always do, how do you find the common ground. With sugar, protect the second tier tariff. That was key. With sugar, sugar to ethanol. At the same time, open up those markets. So it’s part of the solution but it has to be done in the right way.

I knew that Norm supports vast manure pools without any regulation (can't hinder the free market, right?). His answer is purest Norm-speak^TM. He cannot tell the livestock farmers that he sold them down the river. He can't tell them that he supports selling them down the river. So he goes on and on and on and on saying virtually nothing.

Another long farm bill question

On the implementation phase with this new farm program, looking back, what changes would you make in this current farm bill and I’d add that caveat, it has to be something that could pass this closely divided Senate?

FRANKEN: Well, I don’t think the Senate will be that closely divided after this election frankly. But, first of all, I want to congratulate Colin Peterson on this farm bill. But when it was being written, I don’t think anyone could see the volatility we’d have in our products and I don’t anyone could see the high input costs. So I think what I’d probably do is increase some of the support for certain commodities and have an emergency program for livestock producers. Something along the lines of the feed cost adjuster that’s in the milk program, do something like that for those producers. I also would have liked to see a much bigger energy title. In this bill, because again, I think we have to have massive investment in renewable energy.

COLEMAN: First of all I am very very proud of this farm bill, I... and by the way we have over a billion dollars, a billion dollars in biofuels and I think that is a tremendous commitment and I also by the way take great pride and I am glad that Mr. Franken has recognized what we did with the Milk Program, we raised reimbursement 45% and put in a feed adjuster fee which I was one of those who worked very very strong on that because of what I heard from folks here. In addition, there are some challenges we are having right now with implementation. Dean's right on this Acre Program. It presents an opportunity to be looking at the real cost today, whats that? What are real commodity prices, what are real crop prices today? If we go back to, if you look at where we are at with loan rates, if we go back to 3 dollar corn, we are in deep trouble. Deep deep trouble. And so the world has changed, and so one we have to do this implementation, the question is now whether the USDA is going to be looking at this year, 2007-2008 or go back before that we need to look at the cost this year but in addition we need to look to the future. We need a safety net, the safety net has to be relevant to the prices we are seeing today.

When Norm votes for something, he doesn't just vote for it, he takes credit for it. While he probably did some work to get it past, he probably wanted the Farmfest attendees to think it was far more than he probably did. A stretch of the truth, but no lies in this response.

How can you convince your congress and the American people to get more favorably inclined toward nuclear power?

COLEMAN: The French are not braver than we are and over 85% of their energy is nuclear. The reality is that I think we already have a bipartisan consensus in Congress for nuclear. In the 2005 Energy Bill we put in place a system that has accelerated the whole process of approving nuclear applications and nuclear facilities. There are 17 that i think are going to be done pretty... they are going to happen, now it takes about 10 years and in part there is a cost issue and the federal government is going to be probably stand behind some kind of loan guarantees to get there. But the nuclear energy is cost efficient and safe and doesn't pollute the air and so we need to look forward and this is an area where there is a difference in myself and Mr. Franken. You can't say you are for nuclear energy and say well we got to wait to figure out what we are going to do with the waste. It means you are not going to do it. You will still be debating this 10 years from now. The French reprocess waste, I am a believer in technology, but nuclear energy has to be an important part of our environmentally friendly robust energy program which will make us less dependent on foreign oil.

FRANKEN: I took a lot of guff during the process of getting the DFL endorsement because I said I want to keep nuclear on the table and I do want to make sure that we can dispose of the waste properly. The French do get 80% of their electricity, not their energy as Norm said, from nuclear. And they dispose of their waste by recycling it, and we have been against recycling it because it creates plutonium which can be used as... you know, nuclear weapons. So I think that it's a great possibility, now, nuclear reactors come in one size: extra large and we have to be careful about the economics of this too. But I am not against nuclear, I just want to make sure that we have the capacity to store and monitor the waste that we have stored and I believe that there our engineers can do that and that this could be part of our energy portfolio.

All I can say is that at least Al doesn't consider nuclear power alternative energy like Norm does. Oi.

What is your position regarding the Conservation Reserve Program?

COLEMAN: One of the great things in this Farm Bill is it's commitment to conservation. Biggest commitment that we ever made in the history of this country, building on what we did in 1962.. 2002. Part of that commitment is to retain the CRP, 39.2 million acres. So I think that it is important, farmers are, by the way, the original conservationists and environmentalists. I think we face some challenges today and those challenges are one that I think we would actually probably agree with on this panel. You can do conservation and you can still meet the needs of the livestock folks and the other folks are having today and so you should be able to open up some of that land for grazing. There have been court cases that have challenged that, some administration officials have not been as clear, I think we need to be very clear on that.

In the end, I mean I look at it in a way that we get to cellulosic where we use the saw-grass and we are using land that is set aside for conservation, we are also using it for energy. We are not there yet. I am a strong supporter of CRP, I am a strong supporter of the conservation provisions in the farm bill but I think we have to at times of crisis that we are facing saddled with incredible skyrocketing input costs, cost of fuel, and the challenges that the livestock folks are facing, that we have to find some way to do both and I believe we can do both and stay true to conservation interests while helping those who have the need.

FRANKEN: Of course I like the CRP program very much. I went Pheasant hunting with Colin Peterson in CRP land. It was my first time hunting. My staff gave me a briefing and said shoot this, and it was a picture of a roosting pheasant. Not this, Collins a picture of Collins and mission accomplished. I think we need to allow grazing on CRP because livestock producers are in a squeeze right now, and I think we should up the rental land rate on CRP land because of the high price of food. These, and I agree with Steve I talked to people who walked the prairie grasses there and they would rather have grazing than having to burn the grass every two years so I think that’s a win win.

There goes Norm again. Trying to sell himself with Norm-speak^TM as an environmentalist. No outright lies, though.

Another long rambling infrastructure questions

I would like to move to an issue that hasn’t been talked about, transportation – our infrastructure –specifically the lock and dams on the Mississippi River. This is an issue that I have worked with the corn grower, soybean growers and the Mississippi River Resource Alliance for over ten years – half the money has been raised through taxes on the fuel the tug boats burned on the Mississippi and yet here we sit there and the tolls are spilt apart and the locks and dams so that they can go through – why can’t this infratsturcture – this basic infrastructure updated. A lot of things we need fertilizer, feed, fuel go up the river. A lot of corn, soybeans go down the river.

FRANKEN: There is an economics professor at St. Cloud that says the three things the build prosperity are infrastructure, education and R & D. We need infrastructure – locks and dams – this is about getting product to market. Now speaking of getting product to market – I grew up in the early part of my childhood in Albert Lea – my dad started a quilting factory there – we failed two years later and we moved to St. Louis Park. Years later I said to my dad why Albert Lea. He said well the railroad went through Albert Lea – that’s why we picked Albert Lea and I said why did the factory fail? He said it went through Albert Lea but it wouldn’t stop. I know about captive rail and I want our farmers to be able to get their product to market and that means supporting Jim Olberstar’s Bill to get the surface transportation board to be less tilted to support the railroads and more tilted to support our hardworking farmers in this state.

COLEMAN: Look the reality for our producers is that the further you are from the market, the more it is going to cost you – it is an interest cost – it reaches into your pocket and makes it hard to feed your family. There is some news about locks and dams. The good news first is that we passed the Water Resource Development Act – we passed the Water Bill by the way over the Presidential veto – we passed so we got authorization so we have to move forward with actual funding but this is one of those things that government has to do. We have to do infrastructure and if we do infrastructure then the American spirit and the spirit in this room can make a difference – you also have to look at transportation and I have by the way supported bonding for transportation. I think folks are going to use the roads in ten to twenty years could be paying part of it so that we can get it done and start today. And by the way we have got to look at the gas tax. Mr. Franken says that we should be raising the gas tax, I disagree. And part by the way the gas tax and the other part you got there is that we are going to be driving less – using less money coming in from that so we have got to find some other ways to fund infrastructure but infrastructure is the responsibility of the government. When we do it well, we promote growth, we promote the economy, we promote a better quality of life.

Norm misrepresents Al's position on the gas tax. Al has said that it needs to be on the table as an option.

Norm then talks about supporting our infrastructure. Something he and his Republican colleagues haven't done. When they have done it, they've done it by bonding. This means they're on the 'buy now, make our children pay for it later' plan. This is answer has Norm-speak^TM oozing out from under and around it. Quite smelly.

Closing statements

FRANKEN: Before I start, I am against increasing the federal gas tax. Norm Coleman knows that, I am surprised he said that. I want to thank everybody here for being here. I want to thank you for inviting us. Farming is vital to the wellbeing of our way of life and to our country. It is a treasured way of life for so many Minnesota families and the cornerstone of our strong rural communities. It is also an enormous part of Minnesota’s economy and an essentially part of our national security. That’s why it is so important that Minnesota has two Senators on the Ag Committee and why I am so disappointed that one of them, Norm Coleman hasn’t always stood up for farmers when they needed it. Ask livestock producers about the way he voted for KOOL.

It is an opportunity for rural communities in rural Minnesota to become the epicenter of a renewable energy economy. I want to go to Washington to invest in Minnesota and to be a partner that you can count on. I look forward to – thank you for letting me speak to you and I look forward toward doing it for many years to come. Thank you.

COLEMAN: I think more than anyone else the folks in this room know the difference between talk and results. I think what I’d ask people to do is step back and ask the fundamental question. What is it that any of us have done in our lives to merit the humbling opportunity to serve in the US Senate. I spent seventeen years in the Attorney General’s office and I tried cases in Breckinridge, and Thief River and [] throughout this state. I was mayor for eight years and worked with folks on both sides of the aisle to build up, not just across city, but across Minnesota. I’ve been a United States Senator, on the Senate ag committee working with the folks here, producing a farm bill, that by the way, is an extraordinary bill, overriding two presidential vetoes. Producing a water resource development act, overriding a veto. Producing two major energy bills that created a renewable fuel standard that unleashed the renewable revolution. I’d ask folks to talk to the dairy producers. Mark Glasser is here from [ATHY?] talk to…who’s been a champion for the milk program in the United States Senate? I have. Talk to the sugar producers. Who’s been a champion of producing, by the way, the strongest sugar policy we’ve seen in this country in twenty five years, in our farm bill. What I have done is I’ve learned that you don’t come to it yourself.

You listen together, you get things done. We face some big challenges right now, energy is one of them. You’re not going to solve the energy crisis with a tire gauge. You’ve got to put it all on the table. You’ve got drill, you’ve got to conserve, you’ve got to do clean coal, you’ve got to do nuclear, you’ve got to do conservation, you’ve got to do it all. You do it all, and if you do that, in the end you can make a difference. I’m serious about expanded domestic production, my opponent is not. And finally, the answer to these challenges they don’t lie in partisan rhetoric or angry outbursts, they lie in bringing people together. The Senate Agricultural committee is a bipartisan oasis. And in a Washington that already suffers from too great a partisan divide, I’ve learned that there are some issues too big for one party to solve. I brought that philosophy to that table as a US Senator, I humbly ask for the opportunity to continue to represent you and to ensure a bright an glorious future for rural Minnesota. Thank you and God bless.