July 23, 2014

Farm Bill a Top Priority for Senate Leader Harry Reid

Late last year, Congress was unable to pass a new five-year renewal Farm Bill, but a short term Farm Bill fix was recently approved. On January 1, 2013, Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 to avert the "fiscal cliff," and on January 2, 2013 President Obama signed the Act into law (Public Law No: 112-240). The "fiscal cliff" deal was primarily enacted to avoid automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, but it also included provisions extending portions of the 2008 Farm Bill for nine months through September 30, 2013. Agriculture Committee leaders negotiated the Farm Bill extension which included current farm subsidy programs, including the milk program in its current form.

Although the temporary suspension gives some farmers a reprieve for the short term, long-term plans are on hold until a more permanent solution is put in place. Congress has until the next fiscal year to come up with a five-year extension, which gives legislators until October 1st and the clock has started ticking.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) demonstrated his commitment to working on a new five-year Farm Bill by reintroducing last sessions Senate Farm Bill in the new 113th Congress (S 10 – Text has not yet been received from GPO). Last session, the Senate Farm Bill passed with bipartisan support. In his statement, Majority Leader Reid indicated that the Farm Bill is on his top priority list, and he called on the Senate to pass the legislation quickly.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) supported Reid’s move stating, "Majority Leader Reid has demonstrated that the Senate will once again make supporting our nation’s agriculture economy while cutting spending a top priority." Senator Stabenow indicated she is committed to convening for markup as soon as possible.

Last session, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate Farm Bill cut agricultural spending by approximately $25 billion over 10 years, while the House version pushed for more cuts and found approximately $35 billion in savings. Both bills called for the elimination of a farm subsidy of direct payments to farmers, but to maintain a social safety net for farmers both bills also increased support for other types of subsidies, such as government sponsored crop insurance. The major issue to be addressed in the Farm Bill is the Food Stamp Program which is the biggest driver of Farm Bill spending. Both the Senate and House bills called for modest cuts to food stamps.

As of this writing it remains unclear what Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and his caucus plan to do. We will continue to monitor and report on substantive developments surrounding the Farm Bill as it progresses through the legislative process.


About the Author

Laura L. Riske Michael Best Friedrich Law Firm
Director, Government Affairs

Laura Riske is the Director of Government Affairs for Michael Best & Friedrich. She has an impressive track record in delivering bottom line results in public and private business sectors. Ms. Riske has more than 20 years of experience and proven success with identifying and defining legislative business problems, developing solutions through research and analysis and implementing strategic political plans on behalf of clients.  Ms. Riske’s work has focused on lobbying, coalition building, relationship development, project/issue management, fundraising, acquisition...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.