Page 66 - Farm Bill Series_The 7 Things You Should Know

But it was the new AMP program that generated a lot of Southern smiles. The inclusion of AMP
“is indicative of new ranking member Thad Cochran’s influence,” noted Alabama Farmers
Federation National Legislative Programs Director Mitt Walker after the bill was released.

Even before the massive “Agricultural Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013” bill was officially
released, Midwestern senators were already buzzing about the proposed new programs for rice
and peanuts. They realized the importance of getting Southern votes on the floor if the bill was
going to pass again, but that it might work to remove other commodities from the AMP program.

Although similar in concept, the AMP was not exactly the same as the House Agriculture
Committee’s Price Loss Coverage (PLC) in their version of the 2012 farm bill. For example, the
PLC pays on planted acres up to total base on the farm; it includes reference price increases and
yield updates for all commodities. In the House version, corn and beans would get a 38 percent
increase over the 2008 levels. In addition, no special base acre accommodations would need to
be made in PLC because the existing total base on a farm simply serves as a cap on total
payments.

The 2013 chairman’s mark also included the same limitation on premium subsidy based on
average adjusted gross income (AGI) as last year’s bill. Beginning with the 2014 reinsurance
year, the provision would reduce the federal payment of the crop insurance premium by 15
percent for farm businesses with AGIs above $750,000.
On May 14, 2013, the Senate Ag Committee marked up the newest version of the farm bill. The
markup was perhaps the most public discussion of the regional and philosophical rifts that had
been bubbling up over the already torturous course of the new farm bill.

Chambliss described the package as a “balanced approach” versus the prior year’s bill.
But Midwestern corn and soybean interests wanted more changes.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., offered an amendment that would limit the AMP program to only rice
th
and peanuts. He described the AMP program as “a 20 century Commodity Title program for
st
21 century production agriculture (which) offers only minimal reforms.”
Thune pointed out that “AMP leaves target prices, now called reference prices, the same for all
commodity crops, the same as they were in the 2008 farm bill, but does substantially increase
rice and peanut target prices from the 2008 farm bill levels. Under AMP the rice reference price
is $13.30 per hundredweight and the peanut reference price is $523.77. Also, under the AMP
provisions in the chairman’s mark peanut bases and yields are allowed to be updated and only
the rice yields are allowed to be updated. Rice bases are kept at the 2008 farm bill levels because
rice has been under-planted for the past five years,” according to a FarmPolicy.com unofficial
transcript of the committee markup.

Roberts agreed, noting that “this is not a reform bill. This is a rearview mirror bill.”

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., suggested that the program would be subject to a World Trade
Organization challenge, similar to a Brazilian cotton case.

But they didn’t have the votes to win on Thune’s amendment and it was defeated by a voice
vote.

64 www.Agri-Pulse.com