By Ellyn Ferguson, CQ Staff

For years, farm-state lawmakers and agriculture groups relied on the threat of costly 1930s and 1940s agricultural laws taking effect to prod Congress to produce new farm bills to avoid a break in policy.

So far, the possibility of a so-called permanent law taking hold seems to have had little effect on the House, where leaders are reluctant to bring a House Agriculture Committee bill (HR 6083) to the floor for a vote. The Republican Conference is divided over the bill’s proposed $16.1 billion in reductions over 10 years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Conservatives want larger cuts, something most House Democrats would oppose.

This week, Republican leaders pushed the farm bill to the sidelines — and down the list of priorities — when they decoupled a one-year extension of the expiring legislation from a drought-aid bill.

They find out Thursday if the strategy was enough to win bipartisan support for a new $383 million disaster bill to provide assistance to cattle and sheep producers and tree farmers, including some, but not all, fruit growers. A number of conservation groups and several major farm groups object to the bill tapping the popular cost-share Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program to offset the cost. The bill (HR 6233) had been scheduled for a vote under the suspension calendar, but leaders were not sure they could get the required two-thirds majority and instead will bring it up under a closed rule.

The decision to move a drought-aid-only measure raises questions about how the House will deal with the farm bill and whether Congress can produce a five-year bill that sets policy for agriculture, nutrition, conservation, research and other areas. The current farm bill (PL 110-246) expires Sept. 30.

The House returns Sept. 10, leaving little time for action on the committee farm bill or an extension. But even if Congress does not act, old laws setting high crop subsidies would not kick in until May or June when the first crops are harvested, according to the Congressional Research Service. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, could continue unaffected because it receives mandatory funding. Five conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, also would continue through fiscal 2014 because Congress extended their life in a 2012 spending bill (PL 112-55).

Overall, CRS writes, “The commodity support provisions of permanent law are so radically different from current policy — and inconsistent with today’s farming practices, marketing system and international trade agreements — as well as potentially costly to the federal government that Congress is unlikely to let permanent law take effect.”

Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, agreed there’s wiggle room for Congress even under the threat of permanent law.

But even though Congress may have a grace period after Sept. 30, Peterson said lawmakers need to act as quickly as possible to give farmers clarity about the direction of policy. The House Committee bill and the Senate-passed farm bill (S 3240) would end annual direct payments that are made regardless of economic conditions and shift farm programs to insurance-like plans and make federally subsidized crop insurance a more prominent risk-management tool.

Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said her goal “remains getting a five-year farm bill and using the August recess to work with colleagues in the House and the Senate to come to some policy agreement. I believe all four of the Ag committee leaders are very sincere in wanting to work together and get a five-year farm bill. ”

Stabenow said she would like final action on a farm bill sometime in September, but her ranking Republican, Pat Roberts of Kansas, said they may have little control over when Congress acts.

“I don’t think it’s possible at this point to pick a particular time. There’s not much time left. I want to do a farm bill,” he said.

Roberts said the House GOP’s difficulty in winning support for a one-year farm bill extension was not necessarily a bad omen for the farm bill.