[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the committee 
amendment to fund the Market Promotion Program at $90 million in the 
agriculture appropriations bill now on this floor.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to point out at the outset 
that funding this program at $90 million is a cut of 18 percent from 
last year, and since 1992 it has faced a 55-percent cut in funding. So 
you might say it is a program that has been greatly reduced. It is also 
a program which is of major priority to American agriculture.
  It is a cost-shared program and participating industries must spend 
their own funds to export development before receiving up to 50 percent 
of certain promotional costs.
  And, as I hope to show, it is a program that is vital to being able 
to develop new markets for agricultural products all across this globe. 
In a GATT economy, the only legal tool to assist these products will be 
market promotion. According to USDA data, market promotion expenditures 
for export activities by the world's 11 major agricultural exporting 
nations total nearly $500 million annually. In contrast the U.S. Market 
Promotion Program is being funded at $90 million. If American 
agriculture is to remain competitive in foreign markets, we must insure 
that our growers are given the same support that their foreign 
competitors receive.

  The positive impact of this program on California is dramatic. There 
have been scores of success stories. Exports to overseas markets have 
doubled and tripled. These new markets are providing jobs, jobs for 
longshoremen, jobs in processing, jobs in transportation, and in the 
fields all across this Nation. I believe we need to maintain this GATT-
legal Market Promotion Program in the future. Exports account for 
nearly one-third of total U.S. agriculture production and over $40 
billion in sales. California agricultural exports total over $5 
billion, generate nearly $13 billion in economic activity, and provide 
137,000 export related jobs. A 10-percent increase in agricultural 
exports would help create over 13,000 new jobs in my State alone. I am 
hoping that when GATT is passed by this body, with its favorable 
provisions for agriculture, that we can see agricultural jobs all 
across this great land increase.
  The Market Promotion Program allows independent farmers and producers 
organized access into foreign markets that would otherwise be difficult 
for them to penetrate. By requiring that participants make a minimum 
contribution to receive funds, this program is an ideal example of how 
the public-private partnership can work.
  Most of the companies receiving funds are small. Based on their 
number employees, 61 percent of the firms are defined as small--less 
than 100 employees, 22 percent are medium-sized--100 to 500 employees, 
and only 17 percent are large--more than 500 employees.
  The average 1991 allocation to individual companies under the State 
Regional Trade Groups [SRTG] Branded programs was $50,000. In 1993, no 
firm received more than $270,000.
  This year 71 different commodity groups received funds from the 
Market Promotion Program, directly benefiting approximately 1,600 small 
business in 47 states.
  For my State, MPP funds will help boost exports of almonds, brandy, 
fresh and processed asparagus, dried prunes and prune products, citrus, 
fresh avocados, kiwifruit, canned and frozen peaches, canned pears, 
canned fruit cocktail, pistachios, fresh and frozen strawberries, table 
grapes, fresh tomatoes walnuts, wine, raisins, fresh plums, fresh 
peaches, fresh prunes, fresh nectarines, bartlett pears, raw cotton and 
cotton products, and more.
  Let me give a few examples of how this program has been used.
  In peanuts--not particularly benefiting my State--MPP funds helped 
reestablish a market in Russia for raw peanut kernels and introduce 
peanut butter to Russian consumers, leading to United States exports of 
50 tons.
  For barley, MPP funds helped counter subsidized European Community 
exports of barley in Brazil, leading to United States export sales of 
14,000 metric tons, the first such sales in 20 years.
  Apples--MPP funds helped establish a trade distribution network in 
Mexico, boosting United States export of apples from just 574,000 
cartons to over 4 million cartons in just 1 year.
  Asparagus--U.S. asparagus exports are up 14 percent.
  Citrus--in Hong Kong, MPP funds were used to create highly visible 
advertising regarding United States oranges and grapefruits, leading to 
a 300-percent increase in consumer recognition and a 28-percent 
increase in sales.
  Avocados--MPP funds have been used to heighten the awareness of 
Japanese to the higher quality of California avocados as opposed to the 
lower priced, lower quality from other foreign sources. Between 1990 
and 1993 alone, exports to Japan rose approximately 200 percent. This 
dramatic rise is directly attributable to the cost-sharing assistance 
provided our domestic avocado industry through the Market Promotion 
Program.
  Mr. President, there are numerous successes for small businesses as 
well.
  Caesar Cardini Foods sells salad dressing in 10 countries and had an 
export program of $700,000 in 1993. Yet, in 1991, their exports were 
only $98,400. This small California company uses its $10,000 MPP 
allocation to price their product at break even prices in order to 
enter new markets. This strategy enabled them to increase their exports 
sevenfold in 2 years. These funds have also enabled them to invest in 
marketing their brand in selected countries.
  I can tell you about small producers of organic blue corn chips who 
have permeated markets in Singapore through this program.
  I can tell you about the cut flower industry in America which in 2 
weeks in January 1992 had immediate results. One grower was able to 
fill four orders, another grower shipped two orders, two additional 
growers shipped to Hong Kong, and so on.
  Fresh and processed foods were promoted all over Taiwan beginning in 
November 1991. Fresh fruits and vegetables attained an increase during 
the promotion of 54 percent, and a 125-percent increase within the 
month following the promotion. Grocery items, excluding U.S. beef, 
attained an increase of 185 percent during the month-long promotion, 
and a 44-percent immediately following the promotion.
  Mr. President, I have tried to show that this is a program that works 
for the farmers and growers of America. For my State, where farm 
revenue amounts to about $17 billion, it is a critical way that small- 
and middle-sized farmers and growers can break into foreign markets, 
have an opportunity to promote their crops and, I think in the GATT 
world, it is going to be a program that will have an even greater value 
when quotas, duties, and tariffs are done away with in the agricultural 
commodities world.
  I thank the Chair and I urge a yes vote on the committee amendment to 
fund the Market Promotion Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish to join with my distinguished 
colleague from California in speaking in support of the committee 
amendment, which funds the Market Promotion Program at $90 million in 
the agriculture appropriations bill, and I congratulate her for her 
eloquence, the force of her statement, and reasoning for defending this 
very important program.
  Clearly, the subcommittee was faced with many difficult funding 
priorities, in large part because the Clinton administration's budget 
request made many inappropriate budgetary assumptions--like the 
collection of Food and Drug Administration user fees, the imposition of 
user fees on the meat and poultry industry, implementation of the 
administration's crop insurance reform proposal, and savings from the 
proposed reorganization of the USDA. Each of these budget assumptions 
proposed by the administration require authorizing legislation--which 
has not yet happened.
  In anticipation of the tough decisions that faced the subcommittee 
this year due to budgetary constraints, 18 Senators joined together 
with Senator Feinstein and me in sending a letter to the subcommittee 
requesting full funding for the Market Promotion Program. Because of 
tight budgetary constraints, we thought it important to illustrate to 
the subcommittee that bipartisan support for the program existed in the 
Senate.
  Unfortunately for U.S. agriculture, funding for MPP was zeroes out in 
the chairman's subcommittee proposal. This action left Senator 
Feinstein and me with no choice but to offer an amendment in the 
subcommittee to restore funding for the program. Although the 
authorized amount for the program is $110 million, our amendment funded 
the program at $90 million--the same as the House level and a $10 
million reduction from last year's funding level. The off-set for the 
amendment was a 1.5-percent reduction in the salaries and expenses 
accounts of 27 departments within USDA.
  Funding for the MPP is a $90 million investment in increasing U.S. 
agriculture exports. Exports account for nearly one-third of total U.S. 
agriculture production and for over $40 billion in direct sales. 
Agricultural exports in turn spur economic activity and provide jobs 
for more than 1 million Americans.
  And, as we learned during the debate over the North American Free-
Trade Agreement and the pending ratification of GATT, U.S. agriculture 
stands to gain from free trade and open markets. MPP helps to promote 
U.S. agriculture in new and existing markets.
  During the NAFTA debate, nearly every Member of this body stood on 
the floor of the Senate and proclaimed to be for free trade. Whether 
its selling apples in Mexico or pears to Taiwan--MPP puts free trade 
into action.
  Mr. President, a perfect example of why the Senate must support the 
amendment before us comes today from my own State.
  In 1991, only 3 short years ago, 575,000 boxes of Washington State 
apples were sold to Mexican consumers. With the help of Market 
Promotion Program funds, the Washington Apple Commission began to tell 
Mexican consumers about our apples. Growers used MPP funds as seed 
money, added their own money, and started promoting Washington State 
apples in supermarket demonstrations, billboard advertising, 
participating in Mexico's trade and consumer programs, radio 
advertising, and more.
  Without the Market Promotion Program, Washington State applegrowers 
might not have been as effective in telling Mexican consumers about 
their apples because you cannot simply ship millions of apples to 
consumers who have never seen or tasted the product. First, you must 
sell them on the product, and that is exactly what MPP funds have done; 
3 years later, Mexican consumers purchased 6.65 million boxes of 
Washington State apples, well over 10 times the amount of 3 years 
earlier.
  MPP funds have developed markets across the globe for U.S. 
agriculture. The GATT agreement, in particular, once ratified, will 
result in substantial changes in many existing support and subsidy 
programs when we reauthorize the farm bill next year. GATT will reduce 
export subsidies and trade barriers, but it does allow for nations to 
maintain and increase funding for promotions which are nontrade 
distorting. These GATT legal or green box programs include market 
promotion expenditures.
  Of equal importance, according to USDA, every $2 in MPP funds 
generates $7 in export sales. This ratio is even greater for specific 
commodities that participate in the program. I believe that this 
ratio--a 2-to-7 ratio--is an extremely persuasive argument in favor of 
retaining funding for this program. It is not very often that we 
appropriate Federal dollars and get a return on our investment as large 
and as significant as we do with the MPP.
  I urge Senators to vote for the committee amendment for the following 
reasons:
  The Gorton-Feinstein amendment was accepted in the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee on a bipartisan vote of 7 to 4;
  A similar amendment to eliminate funding for MPP failed by a vote of 
70 to 30 in last year's appropriations bill;
  The 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act instituted reforms to MPP in an 
effort to address past criticisms of the program;
  MPP is a GATT legal program;
  For every $2 in MPP funds spent, $7 in agricultural exports are 
generated.
  In summary, Mr. President, the Senate must vote to retain funding for 
the Market Promotion Program. Funding for the Market Promotion Program 
is, of vital importance, in keeping U.S. agriculture competitive in the 
world market. Without such a program, we give our competitors an 
advantage and U.S. agriculture is the loser.


                        market promotion program

  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I oppose the elimination the Market 
Promotion Program. I believe the Market Promotion Program serves an 
important role by helping domestic producers find and take advantage of 
export opportunities. It helps offset unfair trading practices that our 
producers encounter when trying to make inroads in foreign markets.
  While I do not believe this program should be eliminated, I also 
believe the Market Promotion Program should be reformed to ensure that 
priority be given to small- and medium-size companies that need our 
help in establishing a foothold in foreign markets. To cut funding for 
the Market Promotion Program does not reform the program, it simply 
shrinks the pot of available money for all participants. Without real 
reform, the public and Congress will continue to criticize the program. 
If we continue at the current rate of reducing the MPP moneys, we will 
not need to have this discussion in another year or two.
  Unfortunately, the loser in all this is American agriculture. they 
are trying to be more competitive and respond to the markets by 
developing the value-added products that, many times, make the 
difference between profit and loss. At a time when we are trying to 
finalize the GATT implementing legislation, an agreement that will 
drastically change what we produce and who buys it, we should be 
certain our small- to medium-size companies have the support they need. 
With reform, the Market Promotion Program is one tool that can help do 
just that.
  When I introduced my MPP reform legislation in 1992 there were 
assurances that the program would be reformed. In 1993 and 1994 more 
assurances. There is even a legislative requirement that the Department 
of Agriculture will give priority to small businesses. Here we are 
again asking for more assurances.
  Even though the USDA says they have reformed MPP by giving small- and 
medium-size businesses priority, their 1993 and 1994 allocations are 
virtually identical to previous years--same participants, only less 
money. The pot has shrunk and that is it. That not my definition of 
reform. To reassure Congress and the American people, we need to know 
what criteria the USDA is using to make the funding allocations.
  In addition to making small business a priority, the USDA needs to 
work in tandem with State departments of agriculture to maximize both 
State and Federal promotion resources. At a Small Business Subcommittee 
hearing on Export Expansion and Agriculture Development that I chaired 
at the Port of Philadelphia, I heard of the creative and effective work 
the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is doing with small food 
processing entrepreneurs like Bob Cotten. Mr. Cotten employs 15 people 
and produces specialty pies for export--using all Pennsylvania produced 
or processed ingredients. This is exactly the type of market promotion 
we should be encouraging. In this case the States' involvement made the 
difference in whether Mr. Cotten exported or not.

  Just as there should be more coordination with State Departments of 
Agriculture, the Extension Service could play more of a role in 
identifying small farmers and agribusinesses that have the potential 
for exporting. Since coming to the Senate I have had the opportunity to 
work closely with the Pennsylvania State University on a number of 
fronts, including agriculture and know that the Cooperative Extension 
Service, which receives part of their funding from the USDA and has 
highly qualified personnel in each county, should be utilized in export 
promotion. With exceptional staff, a research base linked with the USDA 
and the Foreign Agricultural Service, it seems to be a resource we 
should be tapping. Extension is a great link to agriculture and 
business.
  One of the points made many times by witnesses at the subcommittee 
hearing in Philadelphia was that it is confusing, frustrating, and 
costly to piece together all these agency trade assistance programs. I 
believe extension can be a tremendous help to small- and medium-size 
agribusinesses by helping them make the initial contact with the 
appropriate agency.
  Mr. President, as I said, I oppose the elimination of funding for the 
Market Promotion Program. But this program needs to be reformed. As I 
mentioned before, if it is not reformed significantly and soon, those 
who oppose this program will surely prevail in the future.


                        food works--common roots

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to clarify an understanding with the 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on a matter 
important to me.
  There is a great program in Vermont which involves a number of issues 
related to nutrition, nutrition education, better health, and 
agriculture.
  Food Works is a Vermont-based, nonprofit, educational organization, 
which provides teaching aids and other materials to elementary schools 
interested in implementing the Common Roots curricula. Common Roots is 
an educational model which integrates nutrition and food preparation 
education, agriculture, gardening, ecology, and diet, health, and 
hunger education with the regular elementary school curricula. Students 
learn math, science, and verbal skills through the practical 
application of small-scale agriculture. The Common Roots model 
currently operates in five schools in Vermont, and one school in 
Upstate New York.
  The Food Works--Common Roots project has received a great deal of 
favorable press attention in Vermont. Common Roots and other innovative 
educational approaches in the State received national attention in a 
New York Times article (September, 1991), which stated: ``As the 
nation's students return to classes, Vermont is expanding an 
experimental program in learning and evaluating mathematics and writing 
skills that some experts believe may revolutionize testing and teaching 
in the United States.''
  Food grown in Common Roots school gardens is often contributed to 
local food pantries or soup kitchens or used to teach the students 
healthy food preparation techniques.
  Funding for the Common Roots project will enable Food Works to expand 
the program into more schools, and assist in the development of a 
graduate training center in order to train elementary school educators 
on how to implement the Common Roots curricula in their classrooms.
  USDA has authority to fund this program under the Extension Service 
or through the Food and Nutrition Service. S. 1614, the Better 
Nutrition and Health for Children Act, as reported by the Senate 
Agriculture Committee on June 22, 1994, contains additional authorizing 
language designed for this program.
  This program should be funded by USDA in the amount of $150,000 for 
fiscal year 1995 in that it is fully consistent with a number of 
initiatives related to nutrition education, better health through 
better nutrition and agriculture. Mr. Chairman, do you agree that USDA 
should fund such a program?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, this program would fit in with a number of 
initiatives that USDA is planning to conduct in fiscal year 1995 with 
money we are providing and Food Works in Vermont should be considered 
for funding by the Food and Nutrition Service of USDA for the purposes 
the Senator described in his remarks.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I realize that we are about to recess 
for the regular party luncheons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Pennsylvania seeking 
unanimous consent to extend the time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
extended not to exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2305, As Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to support the 
amendment offered by Senator McCain and Senator Kerrey which would 
strike from the agriculture appropriations bill the language banning 
food stamp waivers and do so in part because of a plan offered by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which has an application before the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture entitled ``Pathways to Independence,'' where 
there is an effort to utilize cash instead of the food stamps.
  It is structured on a pilot basis to try to deal in an overall 
coordinated way with the problems of welfare. There is an issue as to 
whether the proceeds, or the equivalent of the food stamps, would be 
used for something other than food, like alcohol, for example, which 
would be contrary to the direct purpose of the food stamps. But there 
are strong indications that the potential disadvantage from that kind 
of a diversion would be outweighed by the advantages of allowing the 
States to have innovative programs which would be directed to the 
overall program of welfare.
  The application which is pending by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
was recently submitted under the provisions of the bill. There would be 
a cutoff of such innovative programs which were not granted prior to 
July 1. It seems to me on its face that is an undesirable provision 
without ample notice for States like Pennsylvania to put the programs 
into effect and to have them granted by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  But the overall concept of flexibility for the States to tackle this 
very difficult problem is one which I think ought to be recognized by 
the Federal Government. The specific Pennsylvania program has all the 
indicia of being a good program, and that kind of flexibility ought to 
be promoted by the Federal Government.
  Certainly the problem of dependency and welfare payments and aid to 
families with dependent children, and food stamps--that whole amalgam--
is one of the major problems facing our country today. There is, 
admittedly, a stigma attached to the use of stamps when you go to the 
checkout stand in the supermarkets, and the kind of a program with the 
flexibility as proposed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania I think is 
a good idea.
  Therefore, I support the McCain-Kerrey amendment and wanted to put my 
comments on the Record at this time because I know we will be voting on 
this issue immediately after returning from the luncheon recess.
  I thank the Chair for awaiting my speech, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________