LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Congress’ “Super Committee” didn’t quite live up to its name, as it failed to make recommendations on budget reductions to bring under control spiraling U.S. debt. While its actions were closely watched by many who had a stake in its outcome, those in agriculture have a special interest.

The committee was to consider reductions in the 2012 farm bill, a move seen by some as a way to keep deeper cuts from happening later – and by others as an out-and-out attempt to secretly pass the bill without its normal period of extensive debate. 

Recommendations by the House and Senate agriculture committees were made to the committee that totaled $23 billion in cuts. Those recommendations will now take the traditional route as the bill will likely see action after the first of the year.

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, was quick to agree that’s the way it’s supposed to be, last week after it was announced the committee could not reach any agreement.

“Today’s announcement by the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction means that a farm bill will now be written in regular order, as it should be,” he said in a statement. “In recent weeks, the chairs of the House and Senate agriculture committees have worked on a farm bill proposal, largely without my input and the input of the other members of the two committees.”

That’s not the message sent by those chairs after last week’s announcement. Republican Rep. Frank Lucas and Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow, chairs of the House and Senate agriculture committees respectively, said in their own statement: “We are pleased we were able to work in a bipartisan way with committee members and agriculture stakeholders to generate sound ideas to cut spending by tens of billions, while maintaining key priorities to grow the country’s agriculture economy.”

Roberts added, “I know that Chairwoman Stabenow and Chairman Lucas have worked hard to put together a recommendation to the Joint Committee. However, this process was not the way to write the farm bill.”

Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, said the summary of the recommendations sent to the Super Committee looked like a complete rewrite of the farm bill, to her, and this attempt was unprecedented as far as the way farm bills have handled in the past.

“They were bypassing the entire normal procedure that allows people to have input into federal agricultural policy five years at a time, and there was no reason for it,” she said. “Cuts had to be made, that was the purpose of the Super Committee, but it very easily could have been a situation where the Ag Committee agreed with the Super Committee as to how large the cuts were, set a budget for bill and then write it through the normal process.

“The existence of the Super Committee itself wasn’t a good reason for trying to write the farm bill in it.”

It’s hard to say how many of the $23 billion in proposed cuts will carry forward but, according to the document sent to the committee by Stabenow and Lucas, had the committee succeeded, direct payment programs would have been eliminated. The recommendations also called for crop insurance programs to be strengthened, a simplified the risk management program and an end to farm payments to individuals with an adjusted gross income of more than $950,000, just to name a few.

Jeff Harper of the Kentucky Farm Bureau (KFB) said when looking for reductions, the direct payment programs will have the biggest target – but farmers often need those supports.

“There has to be some sort of safety net for our farmers. There’s too much risk, and whether that’s through strengthening or propping up crop insurance, our farmers have to have some sort of safety net to continue to provide the food and fiber that our nation and this world depends on,” he said.

Harper added it is obvious the conversation in Washington right now is about bringing spending under control, but called the farm bill a drop in the bucket when it comes to the federal budget.

“When you look at the total federal government, and especially if you really dig down into the agricultural portion of the farm bill, it is such a minute portion of the entire federal budget that if they eliminated all farm programs, it wouldn’t have any type of effect on any of this federal deficit,” he said.

Harper thinks, however, by the time this farm bill makes its way to the president’s desk it will contain some type of direct payment cuts. If that is the case, he said some type of structure still needs to be in place.

“If Congress thinks that the direct payments need to be eliminated, we would still advocate some sort of framework because, yes, commodity prices are good right now and yes, according to the USDA, they’re forecasting that farm receipts are going to reach an all-time high,” he said. “But, I can also remember $2 dollar corn, and while none of us want to go back to that, we are still going to try and advocate at least a framework even if there’s no funding, because if you lose that framework or the program, the chances of ever getting back anything that’s similar, it would be a long shot.”

Harper noted now the farm bill goes back to a more normal order of discussion. Congress will have to meet the Sept. 30, 2012, deadline, when the current bill expires.