Murray is from Milbank, South Dakota, and graduated from South Dakota State University and Drake University School of Law. She served as both Chief Counsel and Policy Advisor to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry for then Chairman Pat Roberts during the 2018 farm bill and as Senior Counsel on the House Agriculture Committee for Chairman Frank Lucas on the 2014 farm bill. Murray also worked at the National Corn Growers Association as a Director of Public Policy on biotechnology issues and was a political appointee of President George W. Bush at the USDA.  She helped lead a breakout session during the 2022 KFB Annual Meeting about the farm bill, its history, and what to expect as a new bill is set to be debated in the current Congress.

KFB: While we know that discussions about a new farm bill have been going on for some time now, with a September deadline for a reauthorization of the bill, are we still early in the discussion process or late to the dance?

Murray: I think that many would have said this is very early in the process because of the election that happened last November. Of course, I think folks are aware that hearings have started on the Farm Bill. With that said, in one way, the calendar says we're not early. September 30, 2023, is, in congressional days, around the corner. On the other hand, committees won't be formed on either side, I don't believe, until February likely. We're in a weird dichotomy where, again, the calendar days continue to go by, so time is of the essence. But, where Congress is from an organizational standpoint, organizationally, it still is early.

KFB: Speaking of Congress, more and more we see that we have congressional folks that are removed from the farm. Does that make our job as advocates just a little bit more difficult, or should we just be a little bit more tenacious in getting our message to them?

Murray: I think the American Public, as well as more members of Congress, are getting further and further removed from what I would consider as traditional production agriculture. I think that means, in terms of advocacy, it takes effort and education. Some of those messages are going to be the same today as they were even 10 years ago about the importance of production agriculture and what that does for consumers and those consumer-facing issues. So, to answer the question, I think yes, certainly, the discussion can become a bit more educational than perhaps it used to be in Congresses gone by.

KFB: When we start breaking down the contents of this bill, the Nutrition Title, primarily the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has to be one that more people are familiar with. Do you think that is the case and is it important that it stays in this legislation, as opposed to being pulled out as some lawmakers have wanted in the past?

Murray: There have been efforts in the past to take SNAP out of the farm bill. I think we saw that those efforts did not pan out and didn't work in what eventually became the 2014 Farm Bill on the House side. That particular portion of the bill means that every farm bill has a lot of relevance to many more American households than a bill that would exclude the SNAP Program. American agriculture is a very important, but maybe unseen and unsung, part of Americans' daily lives. It's food on the table, it's food security for our great country. It's incredibly important that the SNAP Program remains in the farm bill. When we ask what does this bill do that touches a lot of folks who are not involved in production agriculture? Absolutely, SNAP is the number one program, by far, that reaches into those households and affects non-agricultural congressional districts.

KFB: Often we hear a lot about the cost of crop insurance in the farm bill, yet farm families are no different than anyone else when it comes to the need for insurance, especially in a year like 2022 when drought occurred at the worst time for many corn growers. What are your thoughts on the issue?

Murray: In South Dakota, we're part of the Western Corn Belt, but our story sounds very similar to what was experienced in Kentucky. In speaking for some of the larger corn-producing counties in South Dakota, the dry weather became an issue there in July. With the heat units plus the lack of moisture, it became very apparent as that month wound down those yields were going to be pretty terrible. So, crop insurance needs to be there for producers. This is part of a safety net that merely exists to get that producer back in the field next spring and make it so that he or she can look ahead to what they can produce next year. It's not meant to do anything past that.

KFB: But it seems as though each time a farm bill is up for reauthorization, there are those conversations in Washington about cutting the budget for crop insurance, among other things in the bill. How do we emphasize that this is not acceptable?

Murray: While my growers, and I believe Kentucky's producers of all grain types, really do utilize crop insurance in the way it was intended, the long and the short of it is, producers simply want to be able to farm and want the government to stay out of their business. They want the ability to go in and make market-based decisions.

Let's be honest, modern farming operations are incredibly sophisticated. My brother still farms, and his farm is nothing like my father's farm. These are incredibly sophisticated risk management operations and farm families are managing their risk like any other small business. That is part of the message that's important to get through to members of Congress.

KFB: Another topic that is getting a great deal of attention is conservation. What are your thoughts on this title of the farm bill?

Murray: I think the conservation title is by far the most difficult title to resolve in a farm bill and I don’t see that changing for the 2023 bill. The conservation title and the different philosophies that exist between both parties and, frankly, between the House and the Senate are going to take work.

That said, the good news is, this again is just my opinion, but everything I've read really leads me to believe that the leadership on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capital are working hard to send signals that they want a bipartisan Farm Bill, that they are working towards that, and that, as ag leadership, that's their goal. That's a huge thing. There are going to be very different philosophies at play in those negotiations in conference eventually at the member level. That's important when those members consistently signal that they want a bipartisan bill and that's what they're working towards. That's a very strong message.

KFB: We don't often hear the word "bipartisan" when it comes to Congress. Can we expect this new farm bill to be bipartisan and possibly be on time?

Murray: I still believe that bipartisan work and attitude will prevail. Again, time is running short on whether (passage) will happen by September 30th. Honestly, I would think likely not, but there's nothing wrong with going a little past September 30th or even doing a short-term extension. I think the real question is, whether there is the will, either somewhere around September 30th or shortly thereafter, to get a bipartisan bill. Those are the signals I'm seeing so far. That said, I think the real challenge is for the next Republican House Speaker to bring a bill to the floor that gets a majority of the majority vote-wise.  I’m still not sure how that happens, but one step at a time.  Committee leadership is sending the right signals, so we should all work on getting our priorities in the farm bill.”