Defending the Senate farm bill

From The Wall Street Journal this morning, a defense of the Senate farm bill:

Regarding "Amber Waves of Green," Review & Outlook, March 13: The bipartisan Senate bill won one of the highest votes in Senate history on a farm bill precisely because it reforms farm programs, invests in national priorities and does not raise taxes.

First, even after accounting for our new, fiscally responsible approach of pre-funding agriculture disaster assistance rather than relying on emergency spending, the Farm Bill -- contrary to the impression left by your editorial -- actually reduces spending on disaster assistance, commodity programs and crop insurance, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of total Farm Bill spending. The savings from reforming farm programs are used to feed the hungry, conserve our natural resources and boost bioenergy production so that we are less reliant on foreign oil.

Second, as Senate members of the conference committee negotiating the final Farm Bill, we think any new spending must be fully paid for without raising taxes. That's why we, along with our colleagues from the Senate Finance Committee, are proposing a number of spending cuts that are acceptable to the administration. In addition, we are looking at proposals from the president's own budget plan to collect a very small amount of taxes that are already owed but are not being paid. Since the president is opposed to tax increases, it follows that non-controversial loophole closers from the administration's budget are not tax increases.

Our goal is a workable Farm Bill that can win passage through the Congress. It will take compromise. The bill that passed the Senate contained the start of important reform, and it was a fiscally responsible bill that invested not just in America's food and fiber, but also in energy, nutrition and conservation. We hope the final Farm Bill mirrors the sensible, bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.)
Washington

(The writers are, respectively, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee)