WASHINGTON -- Without an agriculture trade deal in hand, some policy leaders are beginning to talk on Capitol Hill about simply extending the current farm bill for a few years rather than writing a new one.

"Any extension of the current farm bill will likely include a continuation of existing programs, but it also means a delay for introducing new program ideas for the next farm bill," said Ray Gilmer, director of public affairs for the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association. "The uncertainty caused by the apparent failure of the [World Trade Organization] agricultural negotiations gives lawmakers a reason to keep the status quo."

It's too early to make the call, said Keith Williams, spokesman for Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R- GA), who is in favor of writing a new bill. The current farm bill runs out in September 2007, and the Senate and House committees are still holding hearings and gathering input from producers and ranchers. There will have to be some changes to the farm bill in order to comply with court rulings, he said, but nobody knows what it will look like.

Mr. Williams said that the next farm bill would have to accommodate a series of changes since the popular 2002 bill was enacted. "There's no big budget surplus anymore," he said. Also, the impact of increasing energy demands on crop prices will need to be considered. "Some time next year, we will need to make a business decision" about how to proceed on the farm bill.

But the powerful American Farm Bureau Federation is calling for an extension of the farm bill for at least a year after the Doha Round of World Trade Organization trade talks were suspended. "By extending the current farm program, with minor changes to take into account recent trade rulings, we will move forward with the kind of policy that helps ensure U.S. farmers have the support they need to survive in today's contentious global trading environment," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau. "We will encourage leaders from both houses of Congress to work together toward an extension of our farm law." The United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association said that a one- year extension will not work.

"We are on record opposing an extension," said United's Robert Guenther. "The farm bill must be rewritten now to better reflect the state of U.S. agriculture. It should not be based on the needs and wants of six or eight commodities."

There's no guarantee that a one-year extension would offer enough time to restart trade talks anyway, he said.

United has been working with other produce groups to develop a wish list for changes to the next farm bill and plans to lobby for these produce-friendly program changes during the next year. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns told reporters July 24 that he heard the voices of those seeking reform in subsidy policy during the USDA-sponsored forums. "Keep in mind, 60 percent of U.S. farmers receive virtually nothing from the farm bill," he said at a Geneva press event. "Ninety-three percent of the subsidies go to five crops: corn, wheat, rice, cotton and soybeans.

"This is a situation where every four or five years we get an opportunity to examine farm policy," he continued. "I believe it's important for all farmers to examine farm policy."

Though some farmers are happy with the 2002 bill, Secretary Johanns said that the louder voices wanted changes. "No one should get locked in to whether to extend it or not," said Mr. Williams.

The Senate Agriculture Committee will proceed on writing a five- year farm bill and continue weighing all the possibilities, he said.