One expert, G.A. “Art” Barnaby, a Kansas State University extension specialist in risk management, told the Associated Press in September that he expects nearly $25 million in crop insurance claims to be filed and underwriting losses on taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance of $15 billion.

Also in September, Congress departed Washington for the stretch run of the campaign trail, having failed to reauthorize or even extend the legislation authorizing the federal crop insurance program. Instead, the legislation was allowed to expire and added to the list of things to be done after the elections.

The risk-sharing agreement between the USDA and the private companies is spelled out in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement, which plays a large role in determining program costs. The current SRA (completed during the summer of 2010) reduced the crop insurance program by $6 billion over 10 years by, among other means, putting a hard cap on administrative and operating (A&O)expenses paid to agents for administering policies, and a cap on agent commissions of 80 percent of the total A&O per state.

Read the sidebar “Farm Bill Roots.”

In 2012, the crop insurance program also was targeted for cuts, although it has so far survived relatively unscathed. The Senate passed its version of the farm bill in late June by a 64 to 35 vote, after debate in which Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., offered an amendment to cut an additional $5 billion from the budget baseline of the program, which would have resulted in reductions of A&O funds by 37 percent. NAMIC encouraged its members during Senate floor consideration to ask their senators to vote against Gillibrand's amendment. With their help, the amendment was defeated; however, the Senate did adopt one amendment that increases premiums for crop insurance policyholders with an adjusted gross income of more than $750,000 a year.

The Agriculture Committee passed the House version of the farm bill in July by a vote of 35-11 after a marathon markup session. Heading into its abbreviated September session, it was expected that Congress would, at minimum, address two “must-do” pieces of legislation: a spending bill to keep the government running into next year and the House version of the farm bill. Doing so would have allowed for the members of the House and Senate to meet in conference during the month prior to the elections and negotiate the differences between the two bills, setting the stage for a swift up or down vote in each chamber when lawmakers returned.

As it turned out, the conventional wisdom was half right. The government has been funded through March of next year, giving either the Obama or Romney administration time to hammer out a longer-term spending deal with the House and Senate.

The farm bill, however, was left to expire at the end of September, despite an 11th-hour push by a bipartisan coalition of members of the House Agriculture Committee.

Related: Read Charles Abbott's column, “Drought Brings Record U.S. Cost for Crop-Insurance Subsidy.”

Congress has seen a number of issues get bogged down in committee crossfire, but members of the agriculture committees in the House and Senate have worked together to push for passage of the legislation. Similar to other legislation, the farm bill fell victim to partisan politics and the heightened wariness greeting every dollar of federal spending. The impasse generally has revolved not around other programs governed by the legislation, such as food assistance, that have been either cut too drastically or not drastically enough depending on your side of the aisle.

The senators and congressmen who have worked to advance this legislation are largely from farming states. They understand the need for a robust farming industry and, more specifically, a strong safety net for the industry in crop insurance, and they have constituents who rely on the programs the farm bill provides for. Members of House Agriculture Committee rallied supporters to ask their representatives to push for a vote on the floor. Additionally, they sought to bypass House leadership with a “discharge petition” that would have automatically moved the farm bill to the House floor if 218 members of the House had signed on. Unfortunately, time ran out.

Related: Read “IQ: Provision Could Raise Crop Premiums, Cap Subsidies.”

After the November elections, Congress will return for a lame-duck session jam packed with “must-do” items that were put off until the votes were counted but requiring action before the end of the year. In addition to the farm bill, Congress still has the “fiscal cliff” composed of a raft of tax provisions, the Medicare “doc fix” for physicians' payments, and the sequestration cuts.

If Congress fails to act by Jan. 1, the entire government system relating to farming will reportedly revert back to the levels of the permanent farm bill passed in 1949. For some farmers, this would mean a drastic uptick in the price of their crops, while others—mainly those whose crops were added to government programs in the past 63 years—would see little or nothing from the government. For crop insurers, the government would no longer have a role in covering against crop losses, leaving the private market to fend for itself on a risk that is impossible for the marketplace to absorb.

For now, there is breathing room. Although the farm bill and its component programs have expired, they are still funded through the end of the year. Congress could adopt a short-term extension for the farm bill, maintaining it for one year as opposed to the standard five-year extension, although few have expressed support for this except as a last resort.