Agricultural Act of 2014

Agricultural Act of 2014
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Farm Bill of 2014
Full name	Agricultural Act of 2014
Enacted by	113th United States Congress
Signed by	Barack Obama
Signed date	2014-02-07
Public law	113-79
Citation	128 Stat. 649

Agricultural Act of 2014 was a United States federal law enacted by the 113th United States Congress and signed by Barack Obama that reauthorized and revised federal agricultural and nutritional programs, supplanting prior statutes administered by the United States Department of Agriculture and affecting programs including commodity support, conservation, and nutrition assistance; proponents included members of the House of Representatives and United States Senate such as Frank Lucas (Oklahoma politician) and Steny Hoyer. The Act influenced policy debates involving stakeholders like the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, Environmental Defense Fund, Food Research and Action Center, Commodity Credit Corporation, and organizations participating in prior measures such as the Agricultural Act of 1970 and Food and Agriculture Act of 1977.

Background and Legislative History

The legislative path to enactment involved legislative maneuvers in the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, committee activity in the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, negotiations among leaders including John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid, and influence from lobbyists associated with American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, American Sugar Alliance, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and interests represented at the Agricultural Outlook Forum. Floor debates echoed prior disputes traced to earlier measures like the Food Security Act of 1985 and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, with amendments proposed by legislators such as Collin Peterson and Rand Paul. Conference committee negotiations referenced scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, legal analysis by the Government Accountability Office, and policy models deployed by the Economic Research Service.

Major Provisions

The Act restructured commodity support by replacing the Direct and Counter-cyclical Program with new options similar to the Price Loss Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage models, affecting crops such as corn, soybean, wheat, rice, sorghum, and cotton; it maintained and modified the Conservation Reserve Program and strengthened working lands programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Nutrition programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program saw funding changes and work requirement provisions debated alongside anti-hunger advocacy by Feeding America and Share Our Strength. The law continued support for disaster assistance via mechanisms akin to the Livestock Indemnity Program and influenced crop insurance administered through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Research and extension funding through National Institute of Food and Agriculture and land-grant colleges such as Iowa State University, Texas A&M University, and Cornell University were reauthorized, while specialty crop and organic programs interacted with stakeholders including the California Farm Bureau Federation and Organic Trade Association.

Economic and Environmental Impacts

Analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimated budgetary savings relative to baseline projections, while agribusiness firms like ADM (company), Cargill, Bunge Limited, and Archer Daniels Midland Company monitored price-support changes that affected commodity markets tied to exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Conservation provisions influenced land use decisions on family farms represented by Farm Aid and affected migratory bird habitat concerns involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and wetlands governed by precedents such as Ramsar Convention discussions. Environmental groups including the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, and The Nature Conservancy evaluated impacts on greenhouse gas budgets alongside agricultural research from institutions like United States Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Economists at Harvard University, University of California, Davis, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and Purdue University modeled effects on rural employment and commodity price volatility.

Implementation and Administration

Administration responsibilities fell to the United States Department of Agriculture, with program delivery coordinated through Farm Service Agency offices, Natural Resources Conservation Service field staff, and Food and Nutrition Service operations. Rulemaking and guidance involved interagency consultations with Department of Health and Human Services for nutrition linkage, legal review by the Office of Legal Counsel, and oversight by the Government Accountability Office and Office of Inspector General (United States Department of Agriculture). State-level implementation engaged Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and extension networks anchored in institutions like University of Florida and Michigan State University, with grant administration through programs akin to the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and cooperative agreements influenced by National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

Controversies and Criticism

Criticism arose from diverse constituencies: fiscal conservatives such as those aligned with Tea Party movement figures argued against spending levels; environmental advocates like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth contended conservation measures were inadequate; anti-hunger organizations including Bread for the World objected to proposed SNAP restrictions; and commodity groups debated program choice effects among stakeholders such as American Sugar Cane League and National Wheat Growers Association. Legal challenges and compliance disputes invoked administrative law principles reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals and commentary in journals like the Harvard Law Review. Policy disputes intersected with debates on renewable fuels programs, ethanol mandates associated with the Renewable Fuel Standard, and international trade implications addressed at the World Trade Organization.

State and International Effects

State agricultural economies in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, Texas, California, and Florida experienced programmatic shifts affecting producers, processors, and rural communities, while extension and research impacts reached institutions such as Oklahoma State University and North Carolina State University. Internationally, trade partners including Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, European Union, China, and Japan monitored U.S. subsidy and tariff signals influencing negotiations in forums like the World Trade Organization and bilateral talks mediated by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Development agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development and multilateral institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund considered implications for commodity markets and global food security debates highlighted at events like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization conferences.

Category:United States federal agriculture legislation Category:2014 in law