[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.


    Committee Amendment on Page 86, Line 9 through Page 88, Line 12

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the committee 
amendment on page 86 of the bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate, as I 
understand the order, is there is 15 minutes of debate time between now 
and the vote on the committee amendment which relates to the Market 
Promotion Program. If it has not already been stated, our intention is 
to divide that time evenly between the proponents and opponents of the 
amendment.
  Let me say that I hope the Senate will vote in favor of the committee 
amendment. This may be a little confusing to some; the committee 
chairman is opposing the committee amendment. The amendment was 
originally offered in our subcommittee by the distinguished Senator 
from Washington State [Mr. Gorton]. His proposal is to fund this 
program at $90 million, which is $10 million less than the funding 
level for the current fiscal year. The President's budget asked for 
funding to be continued for the program at $75 million for this year. 
But the opponents of the program want to zero it out completely.
  And so if you are for zeroing out the Market Promotion Program, you 
will vote against the committee amendment. If you are for supporting 
the committee position, which is to fund the program at $90 million, 
the same level as contained in the appropriations bill from the other 
body, then you will vote for the committee amendment.
  Mr. President, at this time, if he wishes time, I would be pleased to 
yield 2 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from 
Washington State [Mr. Gorton].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington [Mr. Gorton], for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program of the 
Department of Agriculture is a modest program in comparison with many 
of the functions of that Department. It is, nevertheless, a vitally 
important program for literally thousands of agricultural entrepreneurs 
across the United States in dozens or perhaps hundreds of different 
commodity-producing fields--all of those that relate to agriculture and 
agricultural exports.
  Agricultural exports are a huge--$40 billion a year--business in the 
United States of America. To promote those programs is vitally 
important. This program, for example, in my own State of Washington has 
helped multiply by 10 the number of boxes of apples exported to Mexico 
in a single 3-year period.
  If we accept the committee amendment, we continue that program with a 
$10 million cut from last year. If we reject the committee amendment, 
all of this money goes back into the bureaucracy of the Department of 
Agriculture, not for the Market Promotion Program, not to help American 
agriculture, but simply into the bureaucracy itself.
  That is the choice, Mr. President--whether we wish to continue an 
effective program, whether we continue a program consistent with the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at a time at which that will cut 
down on our agricultural subsidies, or whether we wish to leave this 
money entirely to the discretion of the bureaucracy in the Department 
of Agriculture for its own benefit rather than for that of the 
agricultural community of the United States.
  I urge a vote in favor of the committee amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Murkowski is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I wish to state for the Record my strong support for 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Market Promotion Program [MPP]. I 
am no fan of subsidies that only serve to increase prices, but that is 
by no means the case here.
  The Market Promotion Program is a highly successful and cost-
effective program. It has been instrumental in the Alaska seafood 
industry's tremendous achievements in the export market in recent 
years.
  If the Market Promotion Program suffers from all the problems, 
ailments and abuses that the sponsors of this amendment seem to think, 
then they should either fix it in authorizing legislation or move to 
repeal the program altogether. But this attempt to strangle the program 
in the appropriations process is wrong, out of place, and unfair to the 
hundreds of small American companies that depend on it to counter the 
unfair practices of their foreign competitors.
  The intent of the MPP is to help fund additional market promotion 
activities undertaken by U.S. industries and producers--but only as a 
means of leveling the playing field in foreign markets where U.S. 
products suffer from unfairly subsidized competition.
  Let me point out that this is not a free ride--the private-sector 
participants share the costs with the Federal Government. Its value 
lies in the ability to increase promotion purchasing power, and thus 
effectiveness, over and above what the private sector can do by itself.
  MPP's cost effectiveness is a matter of record. According to figures 
I received last year, every dollar spent for MPP-backed promotion 
results in an average increase in U.S. sales of $2 to $7. And those 
dollars return to circulate throughout the Nation's economy, helping 
maintain stability and stimulate growth throughout the country. In 
other words, this is one program that truly pays its own way.
  Let me offer some solid examples from my own State of Alaska. The 
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute [ASMI] has participated in the MPP 
since 1987. Before entering the program, the Alaskan salmon industry 
was suffering great difficulty competing in Europe and the Pacific rim, 
where Alaskan salmon faced--and continues to face--unfair competition 
from heavily subsidized farm-raised salmon from Norway, Japan, Canada, 
and elsewhere.
  Using MPP funds, ASMI has been able to develop a promotional campaign 
to differentiate Alaska salmon as uniquely natural and wild--despite 
significant price disadvantages in comparison with subsidized foreign 
products. The campaign results have been impressive by any standard.
  In Japan, our foremost market, Alaska increased its exports by 17 
percent in 1992 and another 12 percent last year, bringing the market 
share for Alaska salmon to a full 61 percent, despite heavy competition 
from alternative sources.
  Exports to the United Kingdom have increased over 200 percent since 
MPP supported marketing efforts began there, leading to an astounding 
73 percent market share in 1993.
  In France, MPP funding has helped ASMI turn around a downward spiral, 
changing the minds and hearts of French importers and consumers, and 
helping Alaska exporters post increases in both volume and market 
share. Alaska is now France's No. 2 supplier, next to heavily 
subsidized fish from Norway's salmon farms, as well as South America.
  Finally, in Australia, MPP-assisted promotions led Alaska to an 
unprecedented 55 percent share of the salmon market, which has 
previously been dominated by Canadian exports.
  The MPP is an effective mechanism to counter unfair trade practices 
and subsidized competition by our foreign trade partners--and rivals--
such as the members of the European Economic Community, which spends 
billions of dollars each year to protect and increase the market share 
of its agricultural producers.
  This program has been a great success according to the rules 
established for it. I strongly support its continuation, and vehemently 
oppose any further cuts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and thirty-five seconds.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the remainder to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program [MPP] is one 
of the most profitable U.S. assistance programs we have, returning 
anywhere from $2 to $7 for each $1 spent.
  In my State, the MPP has provided invaluable help to the Alaska 
seafood industry in battling foreign fish subsidies and improving 
foreign markets for Alaska seafood. Despite the massive subsidization 
and promotion of foreign farmed salmon, for example, the MPP has helped 
Alaska salmon exports to grow significantly in recent years to a number 
of the countries which import large amounts of seafood.
  We continue to need the help of the MPP in foreign markets.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service recently reported that while 
commercial fish landings off the United States set a record in 1993--
10.5 billion pounds total, the total value of this catch was $200 
million lower than the value of 1992 catch of 9.6 billion pounds. This 
is an important and concerning statistic in my State, where roughly 50 
percent of these 10.5 billion pounds of fish were harvested.
  The MPP can help us get better prices and create bigger markets for 
our seafood in foreign countries. Despite the proven benefits of the 
MPP, in each of the past few years we have faced challenges to the 
program in the Senate.
  The MPP program went from $200 million in fiscal year 1992, down to 
$148 million in fiscal year 1993, and last year down to only $100 
million. This year, we are trying to keep it alive at $90 million.
  In the letter that 19 other Senators and I sent to the chairman of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in May, we explained how 
the MPP has passed GATT and NAFTA tests, while a number of U.S. export 
assistance programs have been found to violate these agreements.
  We also explained that previous concerns about the use of the MPP for 
brand-name promotion have been addressed in the past year:
  A provision in last year's Budget Reconciliation Act requires the MPP 
to give small-sized entities a priority over branded promotion;
  The House report accompanying the fiscal year 1994 Agriculture 
appropriations bill directs the Department of Agriculture to encourage 
smaller and medium-sized participants in allotting MPP funds.
  Mr. President, I close by emphasizing that this is an important 
program to continue not only for our State but for all seafood 
producing areas in the country. It is one of the agriculture programs 
of great benefit to the seafood market of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

  Mr. President, the House has $90 million in this program. If the 
committee amendment is defeated, as I divinely hope it will be, we will 
go to the conference with the House of Representatives and probably 
come out with about half of that, $45 million.
  So first of all, my colleagues, you are not going to kill the program 
by voting against the committee amendment.
  No. 2, I have a deep, abiding interest in small business of this 
country. I was a small businessman. I am chairman of the Small Business 
Subcommittee in the Senate. If you are going to do this, it ought to be 
directed at small business.
  You tell me--and I invite the people who promote this program--what 
in the name of all that is good and holy are we doing subsidizing Hiram 
Walker, McDonald's, Burger King, Pillsbury, Gallo Wine, Sunsweet 
Prunes, Sunmaid Raisins? Go down the list of the people who are going 
to get this $90 million. It looks like the Fortune 500.
  Do you think if Gallo Wine saw an opening to sell wine someplace 
where they could make some money with that they would say, ``I would 
immediately like to open this billion-dollar wine market in Japan, but 
I am not going to do it unless the Federal Government gives me $2 
million to do it with?'' When you vote for the committee amendment, 
that is what you are saying.
  You talk about corporate welfare. I invite my colleagues to look at 
the General Accounting Office report. No correlation could be found 
between the increase in exports and the Market Promotion Program. One 
after another of the promoters of this thing have stood up and said, 
``This is wonderful.'' Look at how much our exports have grown in the 
last 6 years. They have grown in the last 6 years, and this program 
according to the GAO had absolutely nothing to do with it.
  You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. They 
said something that I have always believed; that is, the people who are 
getting this money would spend it anyway. We are indifferent about 
spending. We put up $90 million. So they say, ``I think I will go see 
if I cannot get $1 million of that.'' ``Oh, yes. Here is $1 million to 
teach the joys of McNuggets to the Japanese.''
  Mr. President, it is not as though we are doing nothing for exports. 
This is just redundancy on top of redundancy. Do you know how much the 
U.S. Government is spending this year to promote exports, including 
agricultural exports? One billion ``smokes.'' Yet we are going to pile 
another $90 million on top of that for the biggest corporations in 
America to say, ``Oh, please. Take this money, and export raisins to 
Japan.''
  I have to repeat that raisin story. They take the dancing raisins, 
and put them on Japanese television. It scared the Japanese children to 
death. They look disheveled, and shrunken. There was a big debate in 
Japan. ``Are they potatoes, or are they chocolates?'' Well, they were 
dancing raisins. But the Japanese never got the message.
  Do you know what else? The Japanese under that program paid $1,583 to 
Sunmaid a ton; $1,583 a ton for those raisins. And what do you think it 
cost ``Uncle Sugar'' to finance it? About $3,000 a ton. That is what 
you are defending here; that kind of junk.
  Mr. President, I applaud my distinguished colleague from Nevada for 
his effort to kill this program. I strongly urge my colleagues to break 
out in a spate of common sense, sanity, and rationality, and kill 
something. For God's sake. Thirty-three of you are running this fall. 
Would you not like to go home and report something that you voted 
against?
  So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote against the 
committee amendment with a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the committee 
amendment to restore $90 million in funding for the Market Promotion 
Program.
  The purpose of the Market Promotion Program is a worthy one. One of 
the best ways to help U.S. farmers and businesses is to help them 
market their products abroad.
  Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the Market Promotion Program 
is the best mechanism to provide support to our export efforts in a 
time of budget austerity. The Agriculture Committee has held oversight 
hearings on the Market Promotion Program that uncovered a number of 
problems with USDA's management of the program. I am not convinced that 
those problems have been adequately addressed.
  During the budget reconciliation process last year, we attempted to 
mandate some reforms of the program. We sought to better target the 
program so that it would provide assistance to small businesses that 
really need the help, not to large multinational companies to subsidize 
their advertising budgets. We tried to make sure that firms would not 
get money to do the same thing year after year.
  It is not clear that USDA ever received the message that the usual 
way of doing business just is not good enough. When I look at USDA's 
allocations of MPP funds for the current year, I see little evidence 
that USDA has reordered priorities to address the concerns expressed by 
this Senator and many others.
  Finally, I oppose the committee amendment because it pays for MPP by 
making an across-the-board cut in a large number of other programs. 
Some of those programs are already underfunded, and these additional 
cuts are unwarranted. If the MPP is truly worthy of funding, it would 
be far more appropriate to identify particular programs that should be 
cut to pay for it.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to add my support to the effort of 
Senators Bumpers and Bryan to terminate the Market Promotion Program. I 
am proud to be associated once again with these two colleagues, who 
make repeated attempts to rout out waste in the Federal budget and 
whose efforts have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars: Senator 
Bumpers, most recently through his success in terminating the 
supercollider, and Senator Bryan in our successful joint effort to 
terminate the wool and mohair subsidy.
  The taxpayers know, and so do we, that there is still a great deal of 
room to cut the budget without gravely harming our ability to meet 
pressing national needs. There are many programs that have outlived 
their original purposes but which are staunchly defended by the 
entrenched interests that benefit from the programs. There are many 
others that never served a legitimate national interest but were 
initiated only to satisfy powerful political constituencies.
  That is the reality, Mr. President, and when we deny it we succeed 
only in making people cynical about their elected officials. Our 
constituents see these programs ridiculed on ``60 Minutes'' and on the 
evening news. And they feel ridiculed themselves, because it is their 
hard-earned money that pays for these programs. The amounts may not 
matter as much as the idea that the Government is careless with tax 
dollars. They understandably believe that we should not raise taxes or 
eliminate programs that help those who truly need our help before we 
have cut all the expenditures that are unnecessary or wasteful. One of 
the programs which most deserves to be terminated is the Market 
Promotion Program.
  The Market Promotion Program [MPP] was created in 1986 to increase 
exports of agricultural products. Despite the fact that agriculture 
constitutes only 10 percent of U.S. exports, it receives 74 percent of 
all Federal export promotion dollars. Since 1986, the program has given 
scores of private companies--foreign and domestic--$456 million to 
advertise their products overseas. MPP funds have been used to promote 
such well-established brands as Blue Diamond, which has received $35.7 
million since 1986; Pillsbury, $9.3 million; and Dole fresh fruit, $8.2 
million.
  The U.S. taxpayers paid for a failed media campaign by the California 
Raisins to introduce Japanese children to the dancing raisin--which 
failed because the dancing, shriveled raisins frightened the children. 
More importantly the California Raisins already had the dominant market 
share in Japan.
  MPP money has been used to attempt to peddle Ernest and Julio Gallo 
wine to the French; to advertise Japanese-made underwear, manufactured 
it is true with American cotton, in Japan; to promote McDonald's 
chicken McNuggets worldwide; and to sell Campbell's V-8 juice in Korea, 
Japan, and Taiwan.

  Most of the companies receiving MPP funds are major firms with 
millions of dollars in profits. Taxpayers cannot be blamed for feeling 
that they are simply reimbursing companies for advertising they would 
have run in any case. M&M/Mars, which received $785,000 in 1992, has an 
annual advertising budget of $272.4 million. The Washington Post asked 
Mars why it bothered to apply for Federal funds. The company spokesman 
compared the program to a mortgage deduction. ``If it's available, you 
would certainly take advantage of it,'' he said.
  What adds insult to injury in the case of the MPP is the fact that 
the Department of Agriculture could do much more for exports of high 
value-added agricultural products--products made from basic far 
commodities--if it simply ceased spending billions of dollars 
supporting high domestic prices on those commodities. If peanut prices 
were not held artificially high, United States-made peanut butter would 
be cheaper. So, too, would be products made from cotton, sugar, rice, 
and milk. Over the next 5 years, the American taxpayer will spend $46 
billion on these price support programs.
  As long as the U.S. economy was growing strongly, it was relatively 
easy for Congress to ignore failed programs and simply add programs 
that we hoped would work better. However, in these times of high 
deficits and a staggering national debt, we cannot afford to continue 
to fund wasteful programs when we have so many current priorities and 
so little money to fund them. We must force the system to respond to 
changing circumstances.
  President Clinton is the first President in over a decade to 
demonstrate real leadership for cutting back some of these programs. 
But the cuts he proposed have been subject to endless attacks from the 
special interests, who insist that someone else's programs be cut 
before theirs. Even in Congress, where Members of both parties chide 
the President for not cutting enough, many of the cuts the President 
has proposed have been whittled away by Members protecting their 
parochial interests.
  In light of the $220 billion annual Federal deficit and $4 trillion 
national debt, we can no longer be swayed by special interest pleading. 
We must face the touch choices. If we take a bold step now, we can 
restore some integrity to the Federal Government and its budget 
process. The madness must end. And to end it, we each must be willing 
to vote to eliminate programs that we know are not in the national 
interest.
  I hope that this amendment, which will eliminate the wasteful MPP 
Program, will be approved, and that its approval will signal that the 
Senate recognizes that there is much more that can be done to cut the 
deficit if we are willing to make touch choices.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee amendment 
to fund the Market Promotion Program [MPP].
  I have been troubled by the debate on this issue. The program has 
been characterized as corporate welfare, and nothing else. Mr. 
President, I reject that characterization, because the program is far 
more than that.
  It is true that there have been some abuses in the program in the 
past that have led to large corporations receiving funding for foreign 
market development in cases where they were clearly able to finance 
those efforts on their own. It is for this reason that I have supported 
efforts to reform this program, as was done through the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993. However, while I have supported efforts to 
reform the program, I do not support efforts to eliminate the program 
all together.
  Despite the past abuses, this program serves a valid purpose. That 
purpose is to help U.S. farmers and food companies compete in foreign 
market, especially where the huge export subsidy programs of other 
nations have made it difficult for U.S. products to compete abroad. And 
I think that it has been successful in achieving that goal. Export 
market expansion in recent years for many U.S. agricultural commodities 
can be attributed, at least in part, to assistance under the Market 
Promotion Program.
  The new GATT agreement underscores the need for continuation of this 
program. While the GATT agreement reduces the overall level of export 
subsidies nationwide, it proposes to make an across-the-board cut for 
all nations, allowing nations like those in the European Union to 
continue to subsidize exports at significantly greater levels than the 
United States. In other words, even if the GATT agreement passes, 
markets will continue to be distorted in a way that hinders U.S. 
exports into certain markets. For this reason, we need to continue 
programs like the Market Promotion Program to help create a more level 
playing field in international markets.
  Mr. President, in my State of Wisconsin, one in every five jobs are 
dependent on agriculture. And Wisconsin agricultural exports total over 
$1 billion, supporting over 27,500 export-related jobs. A 10 percent 
increase in agricultural exports from my State, would help create an 
estimated 3,000 new jobs. This is not corporate welfare, it is an 
effort to maintain and increase markets to help farmers and to create 
jobs in the food and fiber industry of my State.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the committee amendment to 
restore funds to the Market Promotion Program.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today with mixed feelings toward 
the amendment offered by Senators Lugar and Leahy which would give the 
Secretary of Agriculture the right to close the Agriculture Research 
Service facilities recommended for funding in the Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee report for fiscal year 1995.
  Let me begin by stating that I commend the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee for continuing to seek ways 
to limit unnecessary spending at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Their efforts in this area has been aggressive, thoughtful, and most 
importantly mindful of the American taxpayer.
  Their leadership and strong efforts led to the formulation of 
legislation passed by the Senate earlier this year to reorganize the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. I supported that legislation and I look 
forward to supporting the chairman and ranking member in their efforts 
to further streamline and reduce duplicative programs at the Department 
of Agriculture.
  While I will support this amendment, which among other actions could 
effectively close the USDA Peanut Production, Disease, and Harvesting 
Unit in Suffolk, VA, I want my colleagues to know that I believe a 
terrible mistake will have been made if the Secretary of Agriculture 
decides to do so.
  Mr. President, I want my colleagues who are following this debate to 
understand that this is not a not-in-my-backyard plea. I believe that 
the Suffolk unit should remain open on research and scientific grounds, 
and if debated independently could stand on its own.
  As the chairman of the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Bumpers, clearly knows, I have cosponsored with him legislation 
to discontinue the development of the space station Freedom. This has 
not been a popular proposal in my beloved State of Virginia because 
there is clearly an economic interest for some in the development of 
the space station. However, I recognize that these are difficult 
budgetary times and difficult decisions must be made.
  With respect to the Suffolk ARS Research Unit, the research conducted 
at this facility is specialized for problems geographically unique to 
Virginia and North Carolina peanut growers. Virginia is more 
susceptible than other peanut growing States to an early frost which 
directly affects the flavor and quality of the finished product. In 
addition, Virginia soils are more susceptible to the disease 
sclerotinia blight which can devastate peanut yields. In brief, 
Virginia and North Carolina growers are dependent upon the Suffolk unit 
for the development of an early maturing, sclerotinia resistant variety 
of peanut.
  I have been informed by the Secretary of Agriculture that the 
administration intends for this research to be conducted at facilities 
in Dawson, GA. I intend to again make the Secretary aware of climatic 
and geographic barriers which will prevent satisfactory scientific 
results for Virginia and North Carolina growers of Virginia-type 
peanuts.
  Mr. President, there are numerous arguments which can be made to keep 
the Suffolk unit open. In fact, I have made Senator Bumpers aware of 
many of them and he graciously, and fairly I might add, accepted them 
and included funding for the Suffolk unit in the report language to 
this measure.
  I cannot, however, justify to the American taxpayer the necessity for 
keeping these other research facilities open. While some of them may 
merit continued funding, as I believe the Suffolk unit does, those 
arguments must be made with the administration and the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
  I pledge to the growers of the Commonwealth of Virginia that 
following this vote I will continue to work diligently with the 
executive branch to keep the Suffolk unit open on its own merits.
  Therefore, although I strongly believe that the Suffolk unit should 
remain open, I will vote for the Leahy-Lugar amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support the Market Promotion 
Program. I urge my colleagues to support the subcommittee's amendment 
funding the Market Promotion Program at $90 million for fiscal year 
1995. I would like to point out to the Senate why this program is so 
important for agriculture in my State of California, and many other 
States as well.
  The MPP is an important tool in expanding markets for U.S. 
agricultural products. Continued funding for this program is an 
important step in redirecting farm spending away from price support and 
toward expanding markets.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that each dollar of MPP 
money results in an increase in agricultural product exports of between 
$2 and $7. The program has provided much needed assistance to commodity 
groups comprised of small farmers who would be unable to break into 
these markets on their own. While the program has been the subject of 
criticism, some of it justified, I believe it would be a mistake to cut 
the program because of a few cases of poor judgment. Overall, the 
program has greatly benefited the small growers for whom it was 
intended.
  Earlier this year, a task force of U.S. Agriculture Export 
Development Council met for two days in Leesburg, VA, to review the 
role of the MPP, and other agriculture programs as part of our overall 
trade policy. This task force affirmed that the purpose of the MPP is 
to ``increase U.S. agricultural project exports.'' It concluded that 
the increase in such exports helps to ``create and protect U.S. jobs, 
combat unfair trade practices, improve the U.S. trade balance, and 
improve farm income.''
  Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program has been an unqualified 
success for California farmers. For many California crops, the MPP has 
provided the crucial boost to help them overcome unfair foreign 
subsidies. I would like to share one of the successes of this program 
in California.
  California produces about 85 percent of the U.S. avocado crop on over 
6,000 farms that average less than 8 acres per farm. Between 1985 and 
1993, California avocado growers utilized $2.5 million of their own 
money, combined with $3.4 million of MPP funds to achieve over $58 
million in avocado sales in Europe and the Pacific rim. This is better 
than a 17-to-1 return on our MPP investment. That means jobs for 
Californians.
  The MPP is a wise investment in American agriculture and I urge my 
colleagues to support it at the highest possible level.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee 
amendment on page 86, line 9, of the bill. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lott
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--38

     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Wellstone
  So, the committee amendment on page 86, line 9, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


    rural business enterprise grant funding for anderson county, tn

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Senator from 
Arkansas on his work in bringing this bill before the Senate. I commend 
the Committee for its recognition of the importance of Rural Business 
Enterprise Grants and for including $5 million over last year's level 
for this program. The program is designed to foster the development of 
business and industry in rural communities. There is an area in my 
State that would benefit greatly from this kind of assistance. Recent 
actions by the Department of Energy to downsize employee levels at its 
Oak Ridge facilities have created the urgent need in Anderson County, 
TN for new employment opportunities. In that area of my State there are 
few alternatives for employment other than the Oak Ridge facilities. 
Anderson County officials have developed a proposal for infrastructure 
improvements to support development of an industrial park to help 
offset the negative impacts of downsizing at Oak Ridge. However, they 
are in need of assistance to carry out this proposal. It is my 
understanding that funding through the Rural Business Enterprise Grants 
could be used for this proposal. Is that correct?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I say to my friend from Tennessee, I respond in the 
affirmative. The Senator had advised me of the negative impacts of 
reduced Energy Department activities at Oak Ridge. I believe the Rural 
Business Enterprise Grants would be an appropriate and effective 
program to assist Anderson County in its efforts to develop employment 
opportunities. I encourage the Department to review and consider a 
proposal by Anderson County, TN for infrastructure development to 
support a new industrial park.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator from Arkansas and again commend him 
for his fine work on this bill.


                           locoweed research

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the chairman of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee a few questions regarding the 
funding of the Locoweed Research Program as set out in the committee 
report accompanying the 1995 Department of Agriculture appropriations 
bill.
  Last year, Congress provided funding in the 1994 appropriations bill 
for the Agriculture Research Service [ARS], for locoweed research at 
New Mexico State University [NMSU]. Under an agreement with NMSU, Utah 
State University has received a portion of that amount to participate 
in the research effort.
  Some concerns have been raised that moving the NMSU locoweed research 
funding from ARS to the Cooperative State Research Service, as proposed 
in the Senate bill, may alter the funding portion Utah State University 
has been receiving. Could the Senator from Arkansas explain this 
situation?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me assure my colleague from Utah that there is no 
intention of denying funds to Utah State University for the purpose of 
conducting locoweed research through this transfer of funds.
  Mr. HATCH. I appreciate that response. Then, am I correct in stating 
that, assuming the Senate recommendation is agreed upon by the 
conference, it is my colleague's position that the research station at 
Utah State University will continue to receive a portion of the funds 
for locoweed research under the new funding proposal?
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is correct. It is the subcommittee's intention that 
Utah State University be included in the locoweed research effort.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for this clarification.


                    amendment no. 2305, as modified

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-Kerrey 
amendment to eliminate the provision in the fiscal year 1995 Department 
of Agriculture appropriations bill barring the continued use of the 
``cash out'' demonstration authority in the Food Stamp Program. This 
provision would prevent States from receiving new waivers to convert 
food stamps either to cash benefits or to wage subsidies, an option 
that is now utilized by 20 States, including Utah.
  The sponsors of this amendment have carefully explained the cash out 
demonstration authorization and why it is vital to the success of our 
overall welfare system. I will not restate the reasons why this portion 
of the program should continue.
  The State of Utah has received three welfare demonstration grants 
during the last 2 years to implement its overall welfare program. To 
receive these grants, the State had to obtain 44 waivers, one of which 
included a waiver to initiate a cash out program. It has taken 
considerable work to obtain this waiver, which would suddenly be 
eliminated by four simple lines in the Department of Agriculture 
Appropriations bill.
  Utah's cash out program has been operating for nearly 2 years in 
three cities: St. George, Roosevelt, and Kearns, all of which are 
located in distinct geographic areas of our State. This program has 
proven to be so successful in helping welfare recipients get off the 
welfare rolls that State officials want to expand the demonstration 
project statewide. Only a very small portion of Utahns participating in 
the State's welfare program use the cash out provision, but these 
officials believe the provision should remain an option for all 
participants. The provision demonstrates the flexibility inherent in 
Utah's overall welfare program, which is key to its long-term success.
  The concept behind Utah's welfare program is a simple one: to help 
individuals become as independent as possible in every aspect of their 
lives. The cash out provision of Utah's Single Parent Employment 
Demonstration Program is crucial to achieving this goal, which I 
wholeheartedly support. Allowing recipients to receive cash for food 
stamps allows them to exercise the same economic independence as 
everyone else. Rather than continually remind welfare recipients that 
they are dependent on the government for their subsistence, the cash 
out enables welfare recipients to make consumer choices on their own. 
It sends the message that they are expected to stand on their own two 
feet.
  If we eliminate the ability to continue the cash out program, then we 
will encourage these individuals to continue their dependence on the 
government. They will never need to think for themselves. Moreover, we 
will send the message that society does not trust them to make the 
proper and correct decisions in their lives. How will people ever 
develop the positive attitude, to say nothing of the life skills 
needed, if our Food Stamp Program treats them like children.
  The States need Congress to provide them as much flexibility as 
possible in the Federal Government's welfare system. The cash out 
provision in the Food Stamp Program provides some of this flexibility. 
By removing this component from the program, we will eliminate one of 
the discretionary powers that we have given to the States. We will be 
sending the message to the States that they, too, cannot be trusted to 
make the proper and correct decisions when it comes to the welfare of 
its citizens. I am not one who believes that the Federal Government has 
all wisdom in this area.
  The cash out provision has been successful and borne fruit in several 
areas of my State. Rejection of this amendment will prevent that same 
success from being experienced in other parts of Utah.
  I commend my colleagues, Senators McCain and Kerrey, for proposing 
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to the McCain amendment: Mr. Cochran, 
Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I come to support the McCain-Kerrey 
amendment to strike the food stamp waiver prohibition from H.R. 4554, 
the fiscal year 1995 Agriculture appropriations bill. As the bill now 
stands, it prohibits States from getting new waivers to cash-out food 
stamp benefits and use them as part of wage subsidies or work 
supplements in State welfare programs. The provision allows such cash-
outs if the waiver was granted before the first of July, but 
effectively prohibits any State from applying for or getting a waiver 
after that. Put simply, this provision would prohibit States from using 
food stamp benefits, in conjunction with other welfare benefits, as an 
instrument to move the welfare beneficiary from dependency into a 
private sector job.
  My concern is with how this provision would impair welfare reform 
initiatives. I recognize that there are problems of fraud and abuse in 
the Food Stamp Program and we must continue to ferret out such abuses 
and prosecute them. However, we should not tie the hands of Governors 
who are not handing out the cash value of food stamps willy-nilly, but 
who want to combine welfare and food stamp benefits and use them to 
provide jobs to welfare recipients.
  Currently, 20 States are pursuing or are interested in pursuing 
waivers from the Food Stamp Program. With the use of wage subsidies and 
work supplements, States are implementing bold and innovative programs 
which will create jobs and increase personal responsibility for welfare 
recipients. This provision would stop these innovations unless the 
State has already received a waiver. It is simply inappropriate to 
prohibit these waivers at a time when the States are leading the way in 
our country's efforts to reform welfare.

  Further, the provision in the Agriculture appropriations bill runs 
counter to welfare reforms proposed by the President and contained in 
welfare reform bills now before Congress. Specifically, I am the 
sponsor of welfare reform legislation, S. 1795--the Brown-Dole Welfare 
Reform Act. This bill would allow a welfare recipient to shop for a job 
with a voucher equal to their combined AFDC and food stamp benefit. 
Once hired in a job paying twice the amount of the welfare benefits, 
the amount of the voucher would be paid to the private sector employer. 
Moreover, S. 1795 would expand the existing AFDC work supplementation 
program to encompass not only AFDC cash benefits but also food stamp 
benefits. S. 2134, the Faircloth-Grassley-Brown Welfare Reform Act, 
follows the voucher and work supplementation proposals of S. 1795. 
Other proposals such as, S. 2009, the Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act, 
sponsored by Senators Harkin and Bond, would give States the option to 
use wage subsidies to assist welfare recipients in their transition 
from welfare to work and S. 2057, the Welfare to Work Act, sponsored by 
Senators Kohl and Grassley, would turn the AFDC and portions of the 
Food Stamp programs over to States.
  Please remember that under current law, States are permitted to 
implement these programs if they are granted a waiver. However, a State 
must go through an extremely rigorous waiver process that often takes 
months of preparation, in addition to an intensive screening period, 
before their plan can be approved or denied. Welfare reform efforts 
almost uniformly try to streamline the waiver process, but they do not 
prohibit either a State from seeking, or the Federal Government from 
granting, a waiver. Rather, most welfare reforms are designed to give 
the States more flexibility. What this appropriations rider would do is 
strip from the States the ability to get a waiver. This provision is 
simply counterproductive and should be removed.
  In closing, it should be clear that there is a bipartisan consensus 
that States be allowed to continue to apply for food stamp cash-out 
waivers from the Federal Government to pursue welfare reform. We must 
continue to afford States the flexibility to implement reforms in the 
welfare system. We should not punish States who have led the way in 
implementing these innovative programs by allowing this potentially 
destructive provision to remain in the bill. This provision would hurt 
not only State innovation, but welfare recipients who would be denied 
an opportunity to become employed and self-sufficient through State 
welfare reforms. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the McCain-
Kerrey amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kerrey-McCain 
amendment which would allow States to continue to use the food stamp 
program to experiment with innovative welfare reform programs. I want 
my colleagues to be clear: If we do not pass this amendment, we will be 
taking a giant step away from welfare reform. We will be saying to the 
States: You can no longer use Federal food stamps funds to try new ways 
to move people off welfare. We will be saying to the States: We in 
Washington know better how to run a welfare program than you who live 
and work in the communities you represent.
  If that were true, Mr. President, we wouldn't be talking about 
overhauling the Federal welfare system. If we could design a one-size-
fits-all welfare plan that really works, don't you think we would have 
done it?
  At a time when our States need more flexibility rather than less, I 
do not see why we should legislate away the meager amount of 
flexibility that is now built into the Federal welfare system, 
specifically in the Food Stamps portion of our welfare system.
  I therefore join my colleagues in opposing this attempt to enact new 
policy in an appropriations bill--a policy which has not been the 
subject of hearings--a policy that is the product of people who believe 
that all wisdom lies within the Capital Beltway. I'm here to inform you 
that just isn't so.
  I have said repeatedly that our welfare system is broken and that a 
one-size-fits-all, made-in-Washington solution won't work. That is why 
I worked with Senators Grassley, Exon, and Ford to develop the Welfare 
to Work Act of 1994. This bill acknowledges that the Federal welfare 
system, made up primarily by AFDC and food stamps, needs to be scrapped 
and completely replaced with welfare-to-work block grants to States. 
Our bill gives States the flexibility they need to change welfare from 
a system that pays people not to work to a system that helps them move 
toward work.

  I strongly believe that we need more State flexibility rather than 
less. And less flexibility is what the provision that we are trying to 
remove from this appropriations bill is all about--less flexibility to 
find out what works and what doesn't. States have only recently wanted 
to conduct experiments to reform their welfare system, and those 
inclinations should be encouraged, not stopped. It is not as if 
Washington had a monopoly on wisdom as to how to run welfare. If it 
did, the system would be working by now.
  Mr. President, we ought to reform welfare this year. It is a cruel 
and ineffective system that destroys families, destroys hope, and 
destroys the American value of work. We ought not to stifle any 
attempts to move away from this system. We ought not to close our eyes 
and ears to ideas for reform that come from outside of the beltway. We 
ought to vote for the McCain amendment and ensure that some 
experimentation with welfare is still allowed to the States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of 
this amendment from the State of Wisconsin's Department of Health and 
Social Services, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the 
National Governors' Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Department of Health


                                          and Social Services,

                                                    July 11, 1994.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: The House recently added language to the 
     Agriculture Appropriations bill that prohibits future 
     demonstration projects that ``cash out'' food stamps. We 
     would urge you to oppose such language in the Senate version 
     of this bill.
       Food stamps cash out has been an essential part of a number 
     of state welfare reform projects, including Wisconsin's Work 
     Not Welfare plan. By prohibiting cash out, states would lose 
     the flexibility they need to develop comprehensive welfare 
     reform initiatives.
       And it should be noted that the flexibility doesn't hurt 
     recipients of welfare. It only means that recipients receive 
     the equivalent of food stamps in cash.
       We appreciate your consideration of our concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gerald Whitburn,
                                                        Secretary.
                                  ____

                                               National Conference


                                        of State Legislatures,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1994.
     Hon. Herb Kohl,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: The National Conference of State 
     Legislatures urges your support for a floor amendment to H.R. 
     4554, FY 1995 appropriations for agriculture, nutrition and 
     related programs. This amendment would delete a provision in 
     H.R. 4554 that would prohibit states, for one year, from 
     converting food stamp benefits to cash payments or wage 
     subsidies for beneficiaries. We strongly feel that this 
     provision should be deleted.
       Those states seeking to convert food stamp benefits would 
     do so only subsequent to a grant of waiver authority from the 
     federal government. Seven states have waivers pending; others 
     are contemplating applying for waivers. These waivers are 
     being sought as part of a larger strategy to strengthen 
     welfare systems and demonstrate alternative mechanisms for 
     providing benefits. The language in H.R. 4554 would have a 
     chilling effect on these requests.
       President Clinton asserts in Executive Order 12875 that 
     ``these (state and local) governments should have more 
     flexibility to design solutions to problems faced by citizens 
     in this country without excessive micromanagement and 
     unnecessary regulation from the Federal Government''. The 
     report on the National Performance Review concludes that 
     ``(state and local) managers must have flexibility to waive 
     rules that get in the way''. The language within H.R. 4554 
     discards flexibility and undermines the executive branch's 
     discretionary capacity to approve waiver requests.
       Many believe that the welfare and income security systems 
     we have now are inefficient or ineffective. The ``cash out'' 
     demonstrations sought by several states present perhaps a 
     more effective means for giving recipients more control of 
     and responsibility for their benefits. We will not know 
     whether this is an appropriate alternative if the waiver 
     process is stymied.
       We appreciate your consideration of our perspective on the 
     aforementioned language in H.R. 4554 and respectfully 
     encourage you to support an amendment to have it struck from 
     the legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William T. Pound,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                                     July 6, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mitchell: We are writing to ask for your 
     support for a floor amendment to strike a little noticed 
     provision of the fiscal 1995 Agriculture Appropriations bill 
     that would bar states from pursuing important innovations in 
     welfare reform. This provision would prohibit for one year 
     federal waivers to allow states to convert food stamp 
     benefits to cash payments or to wage subsidies. Currently 
     seven states have waivers pending and a number of other 
     states are preparing waiver requests in this area.
       The Governors believe this provision is antithetical to 
     recent Congressional and administration proposals that would 
     increase state flexibility to reform welfare, empower 
     recipients by increasing their personal responsibility and 
     control, and create jobs for recipients through wage 
     subsidies. Furthermore, we strongly object to such a 
     significant shift in federal policy being adopted without 
     Congressional debate or discussion and in the context of a 
     large appropriations bill. This issue should be addressed as 
     part of a comprehensive debate on welfare reform.
       We are also very concerned about the precedent that would 
     be set by Congress stepping in to preempt state demonstration 
     initiatives that already must undergo a rigorous screening 
     process in the executive branch in order to be approved. 
     Supporting the amendment to strike the provision from this 
     bill would not mean that states would have carte blanche in 
     this area. Rather it would simply mean that the 
     administration would continue to have the discretion to 
     approve waiver requests that it deemed worthwhile and to deny 
     other requests. This existing provisions would strip that 
     discretionary authority from the administration.
       Again, we ask for your support for continued state 
     flexibility and executive branch discretion in this area. 
     Please support the amendment to strike the food stamp ``cash 
     out'' provision when the appropriations bill comes to the 
     Senate floor.
           Sincerely
     Governor Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.,
                           Chair, National Governors' Association.
     Governor Howard Dean,
                      Vice-Chair, National Governors' Association.
     Governor John Engler,
                         Co-Chair, Welfare Reform Leadership Team.
     Governor Tom Carper,
                         Co-Chair, Welfare Reform Leadership Team.
                                  ____

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


        vote On Motion To Table Amendment No. 2305, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the motion to lay 
on the table amendment No. 2305, as modified, offered by Senator from 
Arizona.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--62

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Simon
       
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2305), as 
modified, was rejected.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2305 offered by the 
Senator from Arizona. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the 
Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], and the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:

                      (Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.)

                                YEAS--63

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wofford

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boren
     Bradley
     Inouye
  So the amendment (No. 2305), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, presented a difficult choice. The amendment 
strikes language in the bill which prohibited providing food assistance 
in cash in any county not covered by a demonstration project that had 
final approval on or before July 1, 1994.
  On one hand is the concern over maintaining the Food Stamp Program's 
basic purpose of providing assistance to prevent hunger among needy 
Americans, and whether providing assistance in cash rather than food 
stamps detracts from that purpose. On the other hand is the great need 
for reform of our welfare system in order to help people move from 
dependency to jobs and self-sufficiency.
  To achieve meaningful welfare reform, I believe we are going to have 
to allow for experimentation, and for trying some new ideas. That is 
why the bill that I have introduced with Senator Bond provides for wage 
supplementation demonstration projects. The provisions of our bill are 
based on a promising pilot project that is being developed in Kansas 
City, MO. In that program, the value of AFDC and food stamps would be 
paid in cash as a wage supplement. The employer would have to pay no 
less than the minimum wage. The wage supplement would be designed to 
provide an incentive for those on welfare to take jobs.
  As innovative concepts like this are tried, we will need to evaluate 
very carefully whether providing food assistance in cash adversely 
affects the nutritional status of those--particularly children--in 
households that would otherwise receive food stamps.
  The language in the bill as approved by the House of Representatives 
and as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations would allow 
for no further approvals of demonstration projects involving cash food 
assistance, regardless of the merits of the project. Because the bill 
language was too restrictive, I vote in support of the McCain 
amendment.
  However, I hope that neither my vote, nor the vote of the Senate, 
will be interpreted as supportive of a wholesale cashing out of the 
Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program is of critical importance in 
preventing hunger among the most vulnerable in our society, 
particularly children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. As 
the chairman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, I have been honored over 
the years to work with Chairman Leahy to improve our Nation's programs 
to prevent hunger. Hunger and malnutrition are among the biggest 
impediments to education, employment, and self-sufficiency. So as we 
work to reform our welfare system, it is imperative that we not lessen 
our commitment to the Food Stamp Program and other nutrition assistance 
programs.
  The choice presented this afternoon was more difficult than it had to 
be. Language in the bill was too restrictive. Yet, by striking the 
language entirely, the McCain amendment does raise legitimate concerns 
about how far the Department of Agriculture may go in allowing food 
stamp cash outs without appropriate limitations and conditions. Surely 
there is a middle ground, which I hope we will be able to find in 
conference on this bill and as we move forward on welfare reform 
legislation.


                           Amendment No. 2307

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 2307 
offered by the Senator from Indiana.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if we can get a time agreement 
on the Leahy-Lugar amendment. I think there are a few Senators wishing 
to speak on it for a little bit. Senator Warner wants 5 minutes to 
speak for the amendment; is that right?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, it is in support of the amendment. I thank the 
manager.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Are there other Senators on the floor wishing to speak 
pro or con?
  Mr. BAUCUS. In opposition, 10 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if we can propound this 
unanimous-consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of 40 minutes, equally 
divided--strike that--make that 30. Senator Warner wanted 5 on behalf 
of, and Senator Baucus wanted 10 in opposition.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I, too, 
would like time on this amendment. I would like 7 or 8 minutes in 
opposition.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will we have a vote on the second-degree amendment by 
the Senator from Indiana? Will that require a rollcall vote?
  Mr. LUGAR. I would say that I am prepared to see a voice vote, but I 
gather there is opposition to it. So I suspect there would be a 
rollcall vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator from 
Indiana and I are in total agreement on both the first and second 
degrees of the amendment here. I would be willing to have both voice 
voted, or I am willing to have it the other way.
  Mr. COCHRAN. One recorded vote would be satisfactory.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That would be a recorded vote on the second degree and a 
voice vote on the first-degree amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. It is going to be the same result either way.
  Mr. COCHRAN. A voice vote on the second-degree and have a recorded 
vote on the amendment as pending.

                          ____________________