The current $284 billion Farm Bill, which was approved in 2008, expires on Sept. 30, 2012. Around $210 billion goes to programs like food stamps and school lunches, while slightly more than $70 billion subsidizes commodity crops and funds agricultural research, rural development and energy.

The Farm Bill, which is rewritten every five years, is always a hot topic, but this year, it might be on a tighter schedule than normal. Fears that the congressional “Super Committee,” which is tasked with cutting more than $1 trillion from the federal budget over the next 10 years, might make drastic cuts to agriculture programs have spurred agricultural interests to take matters into their own hands.

As reported by our sister site, The Minnesota Independent, a letter signed by Agricultural Committee members Frank Lucas R-Okla., Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., proposes making $23 billion in cuts to agriculture. The committee hope to propose the cuts in detail by Nov. 1, in order to safeguard agriculture from further cuts brought on by the “Super Committee.”

One of the industries most affected by Farm Bill legislation is Big Sugar, which lines the campaign coffers of lawmakers across the country in an effort to shore up support for sugar subsidies.

According to AgWeek, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., recently spoke to the the American Sugar Alliance via video teleconference and offered an assurance that the debt cieling-reduction bill wouldn’t cut farm subsidies in the short term. If the “Super Committee” doesn’t come up with a deficit reduction proposal by December, however,  farm programs will be affected.

Via AgWeek:

“Agriculture spending is not included in the first stage, but if there is a sequestration agriculture would be included because those cuts would be across the board,” Conrad said.

Conrad also told the cane and beet growers that the sequestration would not have a direct effect on the sugar program because the sugar program is operated on a no net cost basis to the government, but that if other farm programs have to take cuts there will be pressure to change the sugar program as a matter of fairness.

People “argue that sugar should take a hit even though it is a no cost program,” Conrad said.

In the past, during tough budget times Congress imposed a fee on sugar growers to run their program.

Conrad said he does not know whether the deficit reduction process under the joint committee will include writing the new farm bill this fall rather than waiting until 2012. Conrad said that it is more likely that the bill will be written in 2012, but added, “I personally do not believe we are advantaged by waiting.”

But while Big Sugar’s lobbying arm is extensive (continual campaign donations are made to both Republicans and Democrats) and powerful, not everyone is on their side. In fact, two House Republicans — Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., and Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill. —are actively seeking to reform sugar policy with their bill, the Free Market Sugar Act (H.R. 1385), which would repeal the sugar price support program.

“The Super Committee should not perpetuate this egregious subsidy, which costs consumers billions of dollars each year,” wrote the two in a recent blog post published by The Hill. “Sugar policy should be thoroughly reformed in the next Farm Bill in order to protect consumers, small businesses, and workers in sugar-using industries nationwide, not by the Super Committee.”

The cuts would come in the Farm Bill, which expires next year. The committee members hope the voluntary reductions, which they propose to put together in detail by Nov. 1, will inoculate agriculture from further cuts from the congressional super committee.

The letter is signed by Agricultural Committee Senate Chair Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), House Chair Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and ranking member Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

“We are currently finalizing the policies that would achieve $23 billion in deficit reduction and will provide a complete legislative package by November 1, 2011. Deficit savings at this level is more than any sequestration process would achieve and should absolve the programs in our jurisdiction from any further reductions.”

Mary Kay Thatcher, director of Public Policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation told American Agriculturalist that nutrition and crop insurance programs will probably be mostly safe.

“There aren’t really specifics as far as how much cuts are coming to commodities versus conservation versus nutrition,” Thatcher said. “Certainly the word on the street has been fairly significant that the committees are recommending elimination of direct payments and moving toward more of a revenue loss program but nothing in writing that spells out those kinds of details.”

Some House Republicans have proposed higher cuts of up to $50 billion, according to Agriculture.com. Earlier in the month, two congressional Republicans proposed to cut $40 billion from agriculture, including steep cuts to farm subsidies, conservation and nutrition.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), for instance, started telling residents of Standish, Mich., things that “really scared the heck” out of them after the Obama administration considered moving Guantanamo detainees to the federal prison there. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) boasted about shutting down the Senate over an administration plan to move the detainees to the federal prison at Leavenworth, Kans. Both the Standish and the Leavenworth plans were dropped. But now here’s a real live aspiring terrorist — indeed, Hoekstra tweeted that the Northwest incident was “a terrorist attack” even though it failed — going to a real live federal prison on actual American soil and … nothing. It’s almost like these guys are hypocrites who don’t think through what they say before they find a bank of cameras.

Brownback joins Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) in an anti-Sotomayor Dust Bowl trio.

“Judge Sotomayor has indicated through past rulings and in her writings that she believes the judiciary should take an activist role and make laws, instead of upholding the law,” Brownback said on the Senate floor yesterday, echoing the concerns of several of his Republican colleagues. “As Chief Justice [John] Roberts said, a justice should be an impartial umpire, not a player in the game. I am afraid Judge Sotomayor wants to be more of a player than an umpire.”

Brownback is not seeking a third term in the Senate, but has filed paperwork that lays the groundwork for a run to replace Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as governor of Kansas. A vote against a perceived liberal nominee will probably only help him in his solidly red state.