Page 68 - Farm Bill Series_The 7 Things You Should Know

The Gibbs amendment -- largely supported by corn and soybean interests and ruled in
order by the Rules Committee - would set target or “reference” prices for all crops at 55
percent of the five-year rolling Olympic average. He argued that the change will make the
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) option more market-oriented.

It was considered one of the biggest threats to the commodity title that Lucas had carefully
crafted with the support of many Southern farm groups. And Lucas was so steamed up over the
fact that the Rules Committee had allowed the Gibbs amendment to be considered that he asked
House Speaker John Boehner to intervene.

Asked why the Gibbs amendment was withdrawn, Lucas carefully avoided any specifics.

“Let’s just say Mr. Gibbs is a wise and practical member. He knows that ultimately the
final language will be put together in the conference committee. He understands
maintaining a good rapport to still be a part of the process…. which is better than making
the chairman mad.”

But a clearly frustrated Gibbs – who believed the PLC program was not good farm or fiscal
policy – did not want to reveal details of the conversation when Agri-Pulse caught up with him
during the farm bill debate. Instead, he offered this statement:

“I worked with the Speaker’s office throughout this process. As you know, this is just one step
and we still have two more steps after a farm bill passes the House,” Gibbs noted. “The
withdrawal of my amendment was only decided after an agreement by the chairman to work with
the growing number of Republicans and Democrats that support changing the PLC program. You
will see changes to target prices before this is all over, and everything I’ve done, and will do, has
been directed at passing a long-term, equitable and market-oriented farm bill.”

After the amendment was withdrawn, Lucas promised to work with Gibbs in the conference
committee to see enacted an “equitable and market-oriented farm bill”. But leaders from the
American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower
Association and U.S. Canola Association didn’t waste any time hiding their disappointment.

Gibbs was never named to the conference committee, but those arguing for his amendment
didn’t give up. Increasingly, corn and soybean growers relied on Chairman Stabenow to provide
the type of "balance" they wanted in the bill.

Ultimately, the farm bill failed in the House by 195-234 – not because of regional divides but
because of a mix of political factors driving a wedge between fiscal conservatives and more
moderate factions of the GOP. But regional differences on the commodity title remained –
including differing perspectives on ARC, PLC, payment limits, planted versus base and more.

After that, it took an almost herculean effort to finally pass a bill in the House – albeit without
the nutrition title, conference with the Senate and then gain approvals from both chambers in a
fashion that President Obama would be willing to sign on Feb. 7, 2014. The final commodity
title package includes the ARC program favored by corn and soybean growers - available at the
farm and county level (rather than crop reporting district) and the PLC program favored by
Southerners. Growers would have the option to pick one of these options. Payments would be
calculated on base, rather than planted acres.

66 www.Agri-Pulse.com