While Congress is seemingly held hostage by the campaign season, agricultural organizations around the country are voicing concern over the one thing that withstood this year’s drought only to be left sitting on the table—the farm bill.

About two weeks ago, Congress adjourned so members could go home and campaign. Just after they left, on September 30, the 2008 farm bill expired. This wasn't exactly an oversight. By the end of July—before the August recess, that is—the full Senate and the House Agriculture Committee had both passed farm bills. But before the House committee's full farm bill was ever scheduled for a floor vote, the House Republican leadership put forward an alternative one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill. The extension never made it to a vote either, but its disaster provisions certainly got some folks all hot and bothered.

There are five main agricultural disaster assistance programs that fall under the Farm bill (see next article for an explanation). Eligibility for these programs often requires an agricultural disaster declaration for the producers county, followed by almost a yearlong wait while the crop price, revenue, and payments are determined. Because of this mechanism, the 2008 farm bill's coverage of disaster production losses ended September 30, 2011, but the processing of those claims is ongoing. While 2012 disaster losses are presently uncovered, no one would yet be expecting any payments for those losses, and there is nothing preventing Congress from covering those losses in future legislation.

Still, the prospect that those losses might not be covered is unsettling for farmers who have faced record crop losses and feed prices this year as a result of record drought. Presumably this anxiety was what drove the House leadership to put forward the one-year stopgap, which would have extended the disaster assistance programs. However, conservation programs would have been severely cut to "offset" the extension of disaster assistance, according to a National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition article. The absurdity of this exchange was not lost on a number of constituencies.

“We recognize farmers need aid in this emergency drought situation; however, sacrificing the very programs that help mitigate the impacts of drought and other disasters is extremely shortsighted,” NSAC quoted National Association of Conservation Districts President Gene Schmidt as saying. “While we can’t control the weather, long-term conservation planning is our best defense in protecting and preserving our natural resource base for the future. I think everyone would agree that it’s better to continue to invest in conservation now, than to be forced to pay the escalated costs of repair down the road.”

Nonetheless, after drought conditions worsened through the first week in August, the House passed a standalone drought assistance bill. That new bill still contained $639 million in conservation program cuts, even though 71 percent of farmers reject supporting short-term drought assistance via cuts to long-term conservation efforts, according to an early September Cultivate Impact–National Farmers Union poll. On September 7, 13 organizations sent a letter urging the Senate leadership not to bring the House bill up for a vote and to instead address drought relief in the context of a long-term farm bill.

The one thing Congress did manage to pass before the current recess was a continuing resolution allowing the government to keep operating after September 30. According to Drovers CattleNetwork, this means that most USDA programs, including crop insurance, the Conservation Reserve Program, and food stamps will continue at current levels until March 27, 2013.

Drovers also points out that farm bill renewal is often delayed (the 2002 farm bill was expired for more than seven months before the 2008 farm bill was passed). And, ironically, farm programs might fare better under the automatic budget sequestration scheduled to begin in January than if Congress directly cuts programs during the November lame-duck session.

"The general consensus is that the amount of money available for farm programs will decline regardless of whether the new farm bill is approved in the lame-duck session or with a new Congress in 2013. … A report from the Office of Management and Budget indicates that the actual reductions in agriculture department funding would be about $8 billion over 10 years, far less than under either the House or the Senate proposed farm bills."