Farm subsidies, alternative fuels and nutrition are at the top of the list of the constantly changing 2008 farm bill being discussed in Congress, but the No. 1 concern is the president’s threat to veto if there isn’t enough subsidy reform.

“It’s not everything the president wants, but it’s moving in the right direction,” Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said. “This bill is important for so many Minnesota farmers and producers it would be a mistake to veto it.”

An extension on the 2002 farm bill was afforded Congress Thursday — to last until May 16 — giving the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate more time to iron out details and make the new bill as appealing to the president as possible. This is the sixth extension to the 2002 bill, which originally expired in September 2007.

President Bush’s main concern is what he called “bloated” farmer subsidies. Subsidies, meant as a safety net, are given to farmers on top of the income from production. Many people cry foul when wealthy corporate growers get the subsidies, rather than average family farmers.

Coleman said he talked with the White House Wednesday and Thursday, and he made it clear it would be a mistake to veto the farm bill.

“You don’t kill a farm bill because you don’t get everything you want. In the end, it’s about compromise,” he said.

Early last week, the House and the Senate agreed on a tentative $300 billion framework for the farm bill, according to Rep. Tim Walz’s office. Currently the bill is being debated in conference committee due to many unresolved issues.

The conference committee is hoping to reach a compromise between the administration, the House and the Senate, with the goal of passing the farm bill and placing it on the president’s desk this week, according to Walz’s office.

However, the president is still threatening to veto unless the bill includes what he wants.

“It’s either his way or no way,” Walz, a Democrat serving on the Agriculture Committee, said. “That’s making it very difficult.”

When it comes to reforming the farmer subsidies, farmers in 2009 with nonfarm income more than $750,000 will not receive subsidies, Walz said Thursday. Each consecutive year, the income cap to receive subsidies will drop.

However, the Bush administration suggested an income cap of $200,000 for farmers receiving subsidies.

Any farmers with an income more than $950,000 are phased out of subsidies in the current bill, and Walz said the new bill has closed loopholes.

Another reform in the bill comes in the form of direct attribution of farm subsidy payments so no “double-dipping” is done, Coleman said.

“We think we’ve done a good job of adding some of the reform we could get,” Walz said, adding some of the farmers are using the extra income for conservation enhancements.

Both Coleman and Walz said more reform has been made to the subsidy section of the farm bill than there ever has been before, but it still isn’t good enough. Walz said President Bush is looking for fiscal responsibility.

“Nobody here is buying that, and that includes the Republicans,” he said.

While subsidies are the hot topic with the farm bill, Coleman said 65 percent of the bill is for food. That includes a $10 billion boost for nutrition.

Walz said there is more new money for the nutrition program than the other parts of the bill put together. This includes more funding for food banks and food assistance programs.

The recent farm bill also includes legislation making it the largest commitment to conservation any Congress has made, Coleman said.

Several billion dollars, according to Walz, are going into renewable fuels with incentives for cellulosic ethanol — which uses more of the corn stalk than alcohol from the kernel.

The 2008 farm bill includes beginner farmer/rancher legislation to help new operations get started and a fresh fruit and vegetable initiative for school meals.

With all the parts and pieces adding up, Walz said he thinks the farm bill is a good bill, and it should go through. Both sides of the aisle have worked together making bipartisan efforts to get the bill through, Coleman said.

Both congressmen said the numbers are there to override a presidential veto, if it comes to that.