[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9585-S9586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 2036. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
provide equitable treatment for barley producers so that 1996 contract 
payments to the producers are not reduced to a greater extent than the 
average percentage reduction in contract payments for other 
commodities, while maintaining the level of contract payments for other 
commodities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                       barley growers legislation

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week, I was among a group of Senators 
who tried to correct an inequitable payment reduction in farm program 
contract payments faced by barley growers. After considerable time and 
effort we reluctantly came to an agreement on an amendment to address 
this problem.
  At the time, I said it was not the answer to the problem, but rather 
a small

[[Page S9586]]

step in the journey. Unfortunately that journey ended up being a very 
short one that quickly got sidetracked.
  Despite the fact that the Senate agreed to the amendment to provide 
some relief to barley growers, the conference report came back this 
week with no additional funds to deal with this problem. The Senate 
amendment was deleted.
  Instead the conferees referred the issue back to the authorizing 
committee and then provided an unfunded directive to the Secretary of 
Agriculture to deal with the problem. At the time we agreed to the 
Senate amendment, I was concerned that this would be the outcome. 
Another referral and no real action.
  Barley growers deserve more than that. The freedom to farm fixed 
contract payment system has been violated, and the Government is once 
again being viewed as not keeping its word. While the freedom to farm 
bill was not my choice for farm legislation, I believe the promises it 
made to producers constitutes a public commitment that should be kept.
  It appears that the only way that commitment can be met is if 
legislation is introduced to require that such action be taken. That is 
why I am introducing legislation today.
  My bill will give the authorizing committee, the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, a clear opportunity to move forward to resolve this issue. 
It will establish the goal that we had in mind when we sought to solve 
this problem by amending the appropriations bill.
  It would seem to me that the majority leadership of the authorizing 
committees would be the first ones in line to correct this problem. 
They were the ones who developed the freedom to farm proposal, and they 
were the ones who used their projected schedule of fixed payments to 
sell their farm policy approach to American farmers.
  A news release issued November 21, 1995, by House Agriculture 
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts clearly states that the expected market 
transition payments under the Freedom to Farm Program would be 46 cents 
per bushel for barley, 27 cents per bushel for corn, and 92 cents per 
bushel for wheat.
  This news release lists the source of these estimates as the 
Republican staff of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry. These payment projections went unchanged throughout the farm 
bill debate right through the final farm bill conference committee.
  How or why these miscalculations occurred is a moot point. My purpose 
is not to blame anybody. My purpose is to point out that the freedom to 
farm bill sponsors developed these projections and used them to advance 
their farm program proposal. These estimates were the basis of the 
decisions of many farmers and farm organizations in deciding what they 
would support as the farm bill moved through Congress.
  Throughout the farm bill debate, it was clear that these estimated 
amounts might be a few cents off, but nobody expected any substantial 
difference between these estimates and the contract payments.


                miscalculation results in 30-percent cut

  Unfortunately, there was a $39 million miscalculation in the payments 
projected for barley producers. Rather than the original payment rate 
of 46 cents per bushel in 1996, barley producers found out later that 
their payments will be only 32 cents per bushel. That is a full 30 
percent less than the original congressional estimates.
  Our barley producers based their farm plans and cash flow for this 
crop year on the projections that were made last fall. They went to 
their bankers and creditors who made loans based on these projections.
  Frankly, I shouldn't be the one that is trying to correct this 
problem. This problem should have been corrected by those that 
developed the freedom to farm bill and its payment projections. 
However, since North Dakota is the largest barley producing State in 
the Nation, this is of considerable concern to our barley producers.
  My amendment would restore $35 of the $39 million to barley 
producers. This would be about a 10-percent cut from what was 
originally projected. A 10-percent cut is in line with the reductions 
that are expected in other payments for the other commodities.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide equitable treatment to 
barley producers so that contract payments are not reduced to any 
greater degree than they are for other commodities. No other commodity 
has been asked to take as deep a reduction as barley.
  Wheat producers will be getting 87 cents, rather than 92 cents. That 
is a 5-percent reduction. Corn producers will be getting 24 cents, 
rather than 27 cents. That is an 11-percent reduction. Barley producers 
should not be expected to take a 30-percent cut in their payments.
  This is a matter of keeping faith with those family farmers that made 
their plans on the basis of a farm bill that was very late in getting 
passed. It is a matter of fairness to our Nation's barley producers.
  I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Murray, Wellstone, Conrad, Wyden, 
and Daschle have joined me in this effort and will be original 
cosponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of 
legislation to correct the provisions of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 which unfairly penalizes barley 
producers. In one of the most egregious examples of misinformation I've 
ever seen, actual payments to barley producers under the act are 
dramatically lower than the original promises made by proponents of the 
bill. The bill we are introducing today corrects that error and gives 
barley producers the equal treatment they deserve.
  On November 21, 1995, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat 
Roberts released a press statement announcing the estimated market 
transition payments under freedom to farm. The announcement clearly 
stated that barley payments for 1996 would be 46 cents per bushel. 
While the press release does state the figures were estimates, it is 
undeniable that the figures became the basis on which farm group after 
farm group made farm policy decisions. Producers were told they would 
receive this level of payment, or something very close to it, and that 
the payment would be guaranteed. I know this is true in North Dakota 
because in meeting after meeting I heard producers tell me it was their 
belief they would receive 46 cents in 1996 if freedom to farm became 
law.
  Later we find out this is not the case, that the payments to barley 
producers would not be 46 cents, they would be only 32 cents. I 
understand other commodities received some reductions--approximately 5-
10 percent--but none received the 30 percent reduction barley producers 
have little choice but to accept. Opponents of this bill will argue all 
producers were treated the same and that barley producers should have 
been aware the initial figures were subject to change. Well, barley 
producers did know there might be some change, maybe 1 or 2 cents, but 
did not know there might be a 30 percent change.
  It's time we set the record straight and admit that barley producers 
were not treated fairly by the 1996 farm bill. I hope my colleagues 
will join me in correcting this extremely unfair situation.
                                 ______