WASHINGTON — Tucked away in the pages of the last-minute legislation Congress hastily passed last week to avoid the “fiscal cliff” was a one-year extension of select provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill.

Without congressional action, subsidies for dairy farmers would have reverted to 1949 levels, which could have pushed the price of milk to $7 a gallon. The bill also extended direct payments and crop insurance, but did not fund other programs, such as those for disaster relief and biofuel development.

Some in the farming community welcomed the bill’s exemption of the first $5 million of estates from taxes, a major issue for family-owned farms that are often passed down from generation to generation. But many complained that the nation’s agriculture policy needs to be updated. During the last Congress, both the Senate and House of Representatives developed five-year bills, but neither received a vote by the full House.

“Extension of the 2008 farm bill … is little more than a stopgap measure,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman in a statement. “We are glad that a measure is in place for most of this year, but we are disappointed that Congress was unable or unwilling to roll a comprehensive five-year farm bill proposal into the fiscal cliff package.”

Jerry Kozak, president of the National Milk Producers Federation, called on the new Congress to finish the work started by the last.

“We need to spend the coming months figuring out how to move farm policy forward. The status quo is not an acceptable outcome, either for farmers or taxpayers,” Kozak said. “The renewal of current programs doesn’t offer dairy farmers a meaningful safety net.”

Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, the only member of the House Agriculture Committee from the Pacific Northwest, told The Bulletin last week that the inclusion of the farm bill extensions was part of the reason he voted against the fiscal cliff legislation.

It does nothing for specialty crops and continues direct payments that most people feel are onerous, he said, saying it added “insult to injury” to local farmers and ranchers.

“If you’re in agriculture in Oregon, this is not a good bill,” he said.

In a note to his supporters, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, listed the extension of the farm bill as one of the reasons he supported the fiscal cliff legislation.

“The plan provides for a one-year extension of the 2008 farm bill at no additional cost to the taxpayer,” Walden wrote. “This prevents a doubling of milk prices brought about by the farm bill’s expiration.”

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, said last week in a letter to Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he would not work on a new farm bill until he had a written commitment from leadership that the bill would receive a floor vote.

“At this point, however, I see no reason why the House Agriculture Committee should undertake the fool’s errand to craft another long-term farm bill if Republican leadership refuses to give any assurances that our bipartisan work will be considered,” Peterson wrote. “You and your leadership team seem very content with simply extending the 2008 farm bill year after year without making any effort at reform, achieving savings and efficiencies or improving the farm safety net for rural America.”

Geoff Horning, executive director of the Agri-Business Council of Oregon, said that historically, the majority of farmers and ranchers in Oregon have not had access to subsidies available for farmers in other regions who grow corn, cotton, soybeans or wheat.

“We’re a huge specialty-crop state,” he said. “There’s a significant level of frustration that it’s taken so long to get a (new) farm bill (enacted).”