By Ellyn Ferguson, CQ Staff

For weeks, Southern lawmakers and Senate Agriculture Committee leaders have tried to resolve a rift over the treatment of rice and peanuts in the five-year farm bill.

The bill (S 3240) could reach the floor as early as this week without an agreement. If that’s the case, the polite discussion about closed-door talks could give way to tense floor debate.

It’s unclear whether dissatisfied Southern senators led by Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and possibly allies in other regions could threaten passage of the bill that would reauthorize agricultural, conservation, nutrition and other programs. They want alternatives to a new revenue protection program — known as the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) plan — that is the centerpiece of the farm bill’s financial safety net for farmers. The plan would function as a free supplement to crop insurance to cover “shallow losses” of 11 percent to 21 percent revenue declines from five-year price averages.

Rice and peanut growers have been the most prominent in fighting the ARC plan, saying it would disproportionately benefit corn and soybean producers in Midwestern and Plains states. However, representatives for sorghum farmers also say the revenue plan would not work well for them.

If the Senate bill bogs down, that could spell trouble for House Agriculture Chairman Frank D. Lucas, who is aiming for a mid- to late-June markup of his committee’s bill. If the Senate farm bill passes, Lucas, R-Okla., said House leaders would be ready to pencil in floor time for his measure.

Until then, Lucas said, “they are skeptical about the Senate.”

House leaders are not the only ones who wonder if Congress can produce a final bill by Sept. 30, when the current farm law (PL 110-246) expires. Observers remain doubtful because of a tight legislative calendar and a contentious atmosphere. The most optimistic say there is a 50-50 chance there will be a farm bill this year. Senate action in the next week or two will raise or dash hopes about prospects for both chambers producing bills and going to conference to work out a compromise.

Regional fights are a staple in developing farm bills, but rice growers opposed to the ARC plan say their dissatisfaction goes beyond agricultural policy. In testimony last month, Texas rice grower Linda Raun cited the renewable-fuel standard, which was created under energy legislation (PL 110-140) in 2007.

Raun said that by mandating commercial use of largely corn-based ethanol, the standard guaranteed a market for corn growers and kept their market prices high. She also said the bulk of federal crop insurance policies were largely devised for conditions that corn and soybean farmers face, but not those for rice growers.

“All I ask is that rice farmers not be left out in the cold,” she said.

Lucas, a farmer and rancher from western Oklahoma, seems to share Raun’s assessment that the renewable-energy policy gives an edge to other crops.

The House Agriculture Committee is expected to heed Raun’s call to include target prices as an option for farmers. Rice growers say target prices are more responsive to their market conditions than the Senate’s revenue protection plan. Payments are triggered when market prices fall below a pre-set level. Lucas said he believes target prices will pay out only in times of significant price fluctuations and represent a better approach than the Senate proposal.

“Under the shallow-loss [program], the way I understand the crafting, there’s a high probability that even in the best of times it will pay out pretty consistently. So, I can’t blame my friends for trying to craft that [shallow loss], but some of us don’t have the renewable-fuel mandate,” Lucas said.