[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7412-H7429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Pursuant to House Resolution 188 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for further consideration of the 
bill H.R. 1976.

                              {time}  1305


                  In the Committee of the Whole House

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1976) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Klug in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative 
day of Thursday, July 20, 1995, the bill was considered as read.
  After disposition of any questions earlier postponed under the 
authority granted by the order of the House of July 19, 1995, and 
pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 20, 1995, no 
further amendments shall be in order except the following: The 
amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], 60 minutes; 
the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 10 minutes; 
the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 20 
minutes; and the amendment by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], 
20 minutes.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order specified, by the 
specified proponent or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  When proceedings resume on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], that amendment shall again be debatable for 10 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment.


                     amendment offered by mr. hoke

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
20, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and a Member opposed will 
each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The purpose of the Hoke-Meehan amendment is very simple. What it does 
is reduces the appropriation for title I of Public Law 480, the 
Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act of 1954, by $113 million 
to the level that was requested by the President and approved in the 
fiscal year 1996 budget resolution that we passed in this House.
  What exactly is this title I program all about? Does it develop new 
markets for America's farm exporters, as its proponents would have you 
believe? Not according to a very long series of investigations by the 
Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office. In 
fact, there is not one single shred of nonanecdotal evidence that it 
develops long-term foreign customers.
  Does it provide humanitarian food aid to save starving populations in 
desperately poor and hungry nations? No; in fact, that is not even the 
purpose of title I. That is the purpose of the $875 million that has 
been appropriated in titles II and III for emergency humanitarian food 
aid relief.
  However, there is substantial evidence that Public Law 480, title I, 
does exactly the opposite. It undermines the ability of foreign farmers 
to compete with much cheaper, dumped, subsidized American agricultural 
products. This has literally resulted in the destruction of local 
foreign farm economies around the world.
  In Egypt, an AID study found that the volume of United States food 
aid has become a disincentive to Egyptian farmers to produce grain. 
South Korea is frequently cited by Public Law 480 proponents as the 
best example of a success story where a recipient has become a 
customer. But according to a 1995 GAO study, there is no evidence to 
support the existence of a direct tie between title I aid and the 
development of commercial markets for United States farm goods in South 
Korea.
  In fact, because of the disruptive impact that this program has had 
on local farm economies, the nations of Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, and 
Slovakia, among others, are no longer participating in it.
  Well, if it is not about developing new markets for American farm 
exporters and it is not about providing humanitarian food aid for poor 
nations, then what is it about?
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the 
distinguished majority leader, got it right and said it best when he 
called this, the politics of greed wrapped up in the language of love.
  What this is about is clear-cut, straightforward Government subsidies 
to big-farm and big-shipping interests. This is a program that makes it 
possible for the U.S. Government to dump our products at below-market 
prices on foreign countries at the expense of small foreign farmers, 
all for the benefit of the very largest, giant agri-conglomerates in 
the United States; companies like Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, 
Cargill, Continental Grain, and others.
  Well, good for them, but not good for foreign policy, not good for 
the American taxpayer, and not good for building long-term 
relationships. This is precisely the kind of corporate welfare that our 
constituents want us to get rid of. Here is our opportunity to bring it 
down to the level requested by the President and approved by the 1996 
budget resolution that we have already voted for.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to inform my colleagues that this amendment 
has been endorsed by Americans for
 Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, and the National Taxpayers Union.

  Vote ``yes'' on the Hoke-Meehan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, after last night's debate, I think what is 
needed is some clarity on the issue. What many of the opponents of this 
amendment suggested is that this amendment is adopted, and Public Law 
480, title I funding is cut, that starving people around the world 
would not receive food assistance.
  If that were the case, I certainly would have never cosponsored this 
amendment. An action such as this would be mean-spirited at the very 
least.
  Title I is a market development program, not an emergency 
humanitarian food program. Other titles of the Public Law 480 act are 
responsible for these activities. Title II authorizes donations for 
agricultural commodities for emergency feeding programs and to carry 
out activities to alleviate the causes of hunger and disease and death. 
Title III authorizes grants of agricultural commodities to be used for 
food distribution programs and development of food reserves.
  The distinction between these differing objectives was made clear by 
the Committee on Agriculture itself. The 1990 Agricultural Development 
and Trade Act distributed the responsibility for these programs to two 
different agencies with distinct missions. The management of title I 
activities was kept in the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that Members vote for the Hoke-Meehan amendment. 
The administration is in favor of cutting back this appropriation.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H7413]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, title I, about which we are talking, is 
directed toward countries that exhibit potential to become customers of 
U.S. agricultural commodities. It is a program that serves as a vital 
link between the assistance we give to severely impoverished nations 
and business we receive from cash-paying customers of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong opposition to this ill-
advised amendment and must refute some of the arguments that have been 
presented.
  First of all, it was stated last evening that several countries have 
dropped out of the title I program. They have. They have graduated from 
the concessional program to become hard-cash customers of U.S. 
commodities. In fact, 43 of the 50 largest buyers of American farm 
goods are countries that used to receive food aid.

                              {time}  1315

  Examples of this include Egypt, which now purchases a half billion 
dollars in United States bulk grains annually, and Pakistan, which has 
become 1 of the top 10 importers of United States wheat.
  Furthermore, both of these countries have allowed privatization of 
their government-managed food importing agencies, a reform which has 
been furthered by participation in this program.
  Some have said that this program has outdated objectives. I disagree. 
Market development and privatization are still very much in style 
today. Development of our export markets is as important today, if not 
more so, than it has ever been.
  This amendment affects specifically title I, the portion directed 
toward economically stronger food-deficit countries that have the 
potential of becoming commercial importers, but it is an important part 
of the entire Public Law 480 picture because it allows a transition 
between the assistance that we give to severely impoverished nations 
and business we receive from cash-paying customers of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.
  I also want to respond briefly to the argument the title I program 
was deemed inadequate by the GAO and USDA. That is not true. Both 
agencies have offered suggestions for refining the program, and these 
concerns will be addressed in the farm bill.
  However, using the appropriations process to limit the role of our 
food assistance and foreign market development efforts is neither a 
timely nor an appropriate manner to effect needed operational 
refinements. This program is a win-win situation. We provide jobs for 
U.S. workers both now and in the future, and we assist struggling 
countries to meet their food needs.
  I urge my colleagues, I plead with my colleagues, to vote against 
this ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding to me. He has been a true leader in having U.S. agriculture 
address the nutritional needs of countries that are in desperate shape 
from a food need standpoint.
  This amendment comes right at the heart of a very important program 
we have long maintained, using our agricultural prowess to help shaky 
countries with serious food need shortages for their citizenry.
  What have we gained from that? The benefit of world leadership, the 
benefit of stabilizing very unstable situations and, finally and best 
of all, new customers for our agricultural products.
  Following the GATT Treaty, we are in a critical period of shakeout in 
terms of developing international markets. We must maintain the funding 
for Public Law 480. Please, do not succumb to the very shallow 
attractiveness of this amendment. Please, support the Committee on 
Appropriations and reject this amendment.
  Mr. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield back to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this terribly 
insensitive amendment and attack on our Public Law 480 program.
  Mr. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman for his contribution also. He is a 
distinguished leader on the Agriculture Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, the chairman 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKEEN. I, too, think it is about time we quit talking about 
corporate welfare when we do not even know what the program is all 
about. I tell the gentleman that I admire him for taking this on, his 
support for this program. It is one of the things that helps 
agriculture in this country. That is exactly what we need.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The CLERK. The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. HOKE: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 726. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for 
     under the heading ``Public Law 480 Program Accounts'' are 
     hereby reduced by the following amounts:
       (1) The amount specified in paragraph (1) under such 
     heading, $129,802,000.
       (2) The amount specified in paragraph (2) under such 
     heading, $8,583,000.
       (3) The amount specified for the cost of direct credit 
     agreements, $104,329,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, the Chairman announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings, and 
this first vote will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 83, 
noes 338, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 547]

                                AYES--83

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Davis
     DeLay
     Dornan
     Duncan
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Hancock
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Kasich
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Torkildsen
     Wamp
     White
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--338

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske

[[Page H7414]]

     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Ford
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1340

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Dreier for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Messrs. ALLARD, RUSH, BOEHLERT, and Ms. FURSE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DAVIS, SHADEGG, HOEKSTRA, SCHUMER, GORDON, and GILCHREST 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order and to address the House for 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if any of my colleagues were 
as thrilled as I was when I was driving around my district, I think on 
Monday, and had my radio on, and heard that one of our colleagues, a 
colleague from this House, was the one that had the courage and the 
guts to have two of our fellow Americans released by Saddam Hussein. It 
was not somebody from the administration; it was not somebody from the 
Senate. It was somebody from our House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say I have been waiting all week to bring 
a little civility to the House, and what better way to do it than to 
recognize the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]? We are in his 
debt for what he has done for two Americans and for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in his debt, and now we are asking him to free us 
from this institution today.
  (Applause, the Members rising.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order and to address the House for 1 minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. LaHood] for the very generous words.
  Second, I want to thank all of my colleagues for their expressions of 
support.
  I want my colleagues to know that this was not a solitary effort. I 
got support from the administration and many on both sides of the aisle 
like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] and many others that 
worked with me to secure the release of the two Americans.
  I also want my colleagues to know that Saddam Hussein did reject part 
of the deal, that being that I stay in Baghdad for a few days.
                              {time}  1345

  But seriously, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for the 
nice words.
  I think that there is a role for those of us, many here, with 
abilities in foreign policy that can serve as mediators when our 
executive branch perhaps does not have the flexibility to do that. 
There are many here in this body like the Frank Wolfs and John Porters 
and Nancy Pelosis and Tom Lantoses and Sam Gejdensons and Jim Morans 
and Jim Oberstars, all who have talents in foreign policy, care about 
human rights, and could very easily have undertaken the efforts that I 
just did.
  I think it is important that as we move ahead in relationships with 
countries that previously have been antagonists, like with North Korea, 
that eventually we utilize the talents of some of our own, like Jay Kim 
and many others that have direct experiences on many of these issues.
  To my colleagues, I thank them for their warm words. I am thankful 
for the support and friendship and the jokes, the Free Willy jokes, the 
many others that they have undertaken, but mostly to the gentleman from 
Illinois and to the American people and to the families of these two 
good men and these two good Americans, family values, two regular guys 
that innocently got caught and did not get a response from their 
government until it was a coordinated effort between the executive 
branch and the Congress. I thank you.


                    amendment offered by mr. sanford

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Sanford] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanford: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act shall be used for the construction 
     of a new office facility campus at the Beltsville 
     Agricultural Research Center.''.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 221, not voting 14, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 548]

                               AYES--199

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Cooley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Ganske
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson

[[Page H7415]]

     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Owens
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wyden
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bateman
     Bonilla
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Hoke
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1355

  The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:

       Mr. Dreier for, with Mr. Moakley against.

  Mr. STUPAK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CAMP and Mr. WICKER changed their votes from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. olver

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec.  (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act shall be used to pay the salaries 
     of personnel to provide assistance to livestock producers 
     under provisions of title VI of the Agricultural Act of 1949 
     if crop insurance protection or nonuninsured crop disaster 
     assistance for the loss of feed produced on the farm is 
     available to the producer under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act, as amended.
       (b) Corresponding Increase in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided in this Act for ``Rural Development Performance 
     Partnerships'' is hereby increased by $60,000,000.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 248, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 549]

                               AYES--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Armey
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--248

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach

[[Page H7416]]

     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise

                              {time}  1403

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Dreier against.
       Mr. Wise for, with Mr. Watts of Oklahoma against.

  Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].


                    amendment offered by mr. zimmer

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 29.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Zimmer:
       Amendment No. 29: Page 71, after line 2, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 726. (a) Limitations on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries of personnel who carry out a market promotion 
     program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided in this Act for ``Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Fund--Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses'' is hereby 
     reduced by $110,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
20, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] will be recognized 
for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and that he be 
permitted to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes 
of my time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and that he be 
permitted to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. To make things clear to my colleagues in the House, the 
proponents of the amendment control 30 minutes of the time, 15 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and 15 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. The opponents control 30 
minutes, 15 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and 15 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding for the market 
promotion program, the program that epitomizes corporate welfare and 
congressional pork at its worst. Since 1986, one and a quarter billion 
taxpayer dollars have been used by MPP to underwrite the overseas 
advertising budgets of some of America's largest and most profitable 
businesses like Gallo, Blue Diamond, McDonald's, Burger King, Jim Beam, 
Hershey's.
  I am proud of what this Congress has done to get the poor off 
welfare. I think it is time we showed the same commitment to getting 
the rich off welfare. At a time when we are eliminating hundreds of 
Federal programs for the sake of Federal budget reduction, we can no 
longer afford this program.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] plans to offer an alternative 
amendment he says can preserve the MPP and still get rid of corporate 
pork. Do not be fooled by the Obey amendment. It is just pork lite. Mr. 
Obey proposes to eliminate from eligibility any organization that sells 
more than $20 million. You heard that right, that is $20 million, not 
$20,000, not $200,000, not even $2 million, but $20 million.
  Let me put that $20 million in perspective for you. The average 
American farm household income in 1993 was less than $43,000. It would 
take that average American farm household 466 years to earn $20 
million. Most American farm producers are lucky if they gross $100,000, 
let alone $20 million. In fact, only 6 percent of all American farms 
gross more than $250,000 annually.
  So who is the Obey amendment going to help? Who is he thinking of? 
The average farmer who earns $43,000, or the 94 percent of all American 
farms whose total gross annual sales are less than $250,000? I think 
not. Under the Obey amendment, you will be asking American taxpayers to 
subsidize the advertising budgets of those who do up to $20 million in 
business, and as high as it is, even the $20 million cap would be 
incredibly easy to evade.
  In yesterday's debate on this bill, we heard how the current $50,000 
per farm subsidy cap is a joke. The Obey amendment $20 million cap can 
be breached by any competent lawyer through the use of multiple bogus 
partnerships and dummy corporations. The Obey amendment $20 million 
will not get Ronald McDonald off welfare. Instead of one application 
for MPP money for Ronald McDonald, you get 500 from Ronald's 
franchises.
  If you do not believe that this is welfare for the rich, then support 
the Obey amendment. If you really want to help small American farm 
producers break into overseas markets, then vote for the Zimmer 
amendment and scrap this program altogether. The Obey amendment, no 
matter where it places its cap, does not address the fundamental bias 
that this program has toward big business.
  MPP requires a 50 percent match, and Obey will not change that. So if 
you are a California producer with less than $250,000 in sales and you 
can spare $2,000 for ads, MPP will give you $2,000. But if you are big 
business with $20 million in sales, and you can spare $200,000, you can 
get $200,000 from MPP. If you want to get rid of corporate pork and if 
you want to help the small producers, support the Zimmer amendment, 
vote to end this fatally flawed MPP program and ask the authorizing 
committee to create a brand-new program for you, one that has not been 
tainted by 10 long years of controversy and pork. You do not need to do 
this in this year of 1995. When the farm authorization bill comes to 
the floor, seize that opportunity. Vote for the Zimmer amendment, and 
do not settle for pork lite.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, we hear the stories of 6 or 7 years ago and most of them 
were wrong then, and to dredge them up over and over does a disservice 
to this debate.
  Through the efforts of this committee, we have forced the Department 
to redo the way it manages the Market Promotion Program, the idol of 
all of the great pork busters when they cannot find a pig. It now 
targets the small, nonbranded trade groups. The success of this program 
is well-known, and we 

[[Page H7417]]
will hear story after story today to show how this program benefits 
American farmers and industry.
  This program means jobs in the United States, and to pass this 
amendment means jobs in other countries. Vote ``no,'' save American 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. LoBiondo], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], to end 
once and for all and never return to one of the most ill-conceived and 
wasteful programs in the annals of congressional spending, the market 
promotion program.
  Joining us in spirit, if not in person as a cosponsor and one of the 
originators, is no other than the majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey], who has worked with me for many years to kill the 
MPP Program. For 10 years this program has shoveled over $1.3 billion 
to pay mostly, not exclusively, but mostly, huge agribusinesses to 
advertise their products overseas.
  The program was changed so badly, three times in separate reports by 
the GAO, for example, that Congress borrowed a tactic from the FBI's 
witness protection program and changed its name from TEA to MPP to give 
it a new lease on life.
  Well, you can run but you cannot hide. MPP still brazenly gives cash 
grants to the biggest corporations in the world: $70 million to 
Sunkist, $40 million to Blue Diamond, $20 million Sunsweet, Gallo, $16 
million, Pillsbury, $10 million, and a little hamburger company called 
McDonald's got over $1 million.
  I have nothing against McDonald's or any of the other blue chip 
companies that receive these grants. They are what makes America tick. 
They are good. But it is simply wrong for corporations that grace the 
pages of Fortune magazine to receive taxpayer handouts.
  Some companies never even sought the grants, there is so much money 
in this program that is unneeded, but took the money because USDA 
offered it free of charge.
                              {time}  1415

  USDA called Paul Newman's salad dressing company, for example, and 
asked if they wanted a grant. Now, is this a government program, or is 
this a Publishers Clearing House contest?
  My favorite story, of course, is the one about the California Raisin 
Advisory Board. They received $3 million to introduce raisins to Japan. 
After this MPP fiasco, it will be centuries before the Japanese eat a 
single raisin. The Raisin Board used the same singing and dancing, ``I 
heard it through the grapevine'' claymation raisin campaign that proved 
so successful in the United States, but not so in Japan. First, it 
turns out that these claymation raisins were not bilingual, so they 
only sang in their native English. The Japanese could not understand.
  Second, Marvin Gaye and his hit song, ``I Heard It Through the 
Grapevine,'' are virtually unknown in Japan, so the Japanese target 
audience did not get the pun.
  Third, since the Japanese were not familiar with regular raisins, 
they were baffled by these gargantuan vaudevillian dancing raisins. 
They thought they were dancing potatoes or dancing chocolates.
  Finally, and worst of all, the raisin figures that they had dancing 
had four fingers. In Japan, this is a very bad omen. It would be 
similar to the Japanese marketing the Nissan as satan. Therefore, this 
is not the only MPP-inspired fiasco.
  A California walnut ad in Israel has puzzled Israelis scratching 
their heads. Only 1 in 20 Israelis could figure out what the ad was 
about. The rest thought the walnut was, you guessed it, a potato.
  As bad as this program is, as tight as our budget is, as draconian as 
the cuts in this bill are for child nutrition, MPP, can Members believe 
this, received a $25 million increase.
  Our MPP amendment funds this program at the level it deserves: zero. 
I urge Members to support a bipartisan amendment. Look who is 
supporting it: Heritage Foundation, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, 
the National Taxpayers Union, all the way over to the Center for the 
Public Interest, the Teamsters, and no group less than the Doris Day 
League for the Protection of Animals.
  With all due respect to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
make one final argument. I hope those of the Members, and their staffs 
watching on the television, please tell your Member this. If we pass 
this amendment and end the program, we skip the next three votes. We 
will be out of here much earlier this afternoon than we would 
otherwise. This final argument is one that even the gentleman from New 
Mexico, Bill Richardson, could not negotiate such a good settlement. 
Therefore, I say to my colleagues in conclusion, do not be fooled by 
any substitutes. Vote against the MPP Program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, in response to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York, I realize he comes from an urban area, but 
those companies he is talking about are selling food. Just so he will 
be reminded, food does not come from the grocery store, it comes from 
the farmer.
  Beyond that, I want Members to know I strongly oppose this amendment. 
Just a few weeks ago this floor rejected an amendment to abolish OPIC, 
and the vote was 90 to 329. I know that OPIC is not structured like 
MPP, but they have the same purpose: to increase American exports; OPIC 
for manufactured jobs, MPP for agriculture. Last month's debate showed 
that exports not only create jobs but also create a positive balance of 
payments. OPIC creates American jobs. So does MPP.
  Mr. Chairman, GATT allows us to support agriculture exports for a few 
years. Our economic competitors are using every legal means available, 
and so should we. I did not support GATT because I believe in fair 
trade. It is not fair trade if our competitors use tools that we deny 
our own farmers. Just look at this chart, and it shows what we spend as 
compared to others.
  Mr. Chairman, the agriculture-related segment of the economy upstream 
and downstream from the farm constitutes about 17 percent of our gross 
domestic product. Agriculture exports have outpaced imports by about 
$20 billion in recent years.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would like to remind this House that 43 State 
delegations supported OPIC last month, and we ought to be supporting 
MPP.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the Market Promotion Program is the 
ultimate corporate welfare--giving millions of taxpayer dollars away to 
many of our largest corporations. It is good business to advertise 
overseas, and corporations would, and do, do it on their own. Our 
Nation's businesses are the best in the world. They know how to 
advertise effectively both at home and abroad.
  This amendment will not put people in the unemployment lines as its 
opponents say, but it will help to get people off of welfare. People 
like Ronald McDonald, the Keebler Elves, the Dancing Raisins, and the 
Pillsbury Doughboy, to name a few. In fact, in 1993, the GAO reported 
that they could find no correlation between the amount spent on the 
MPP, and the levels of U.S. agricultural exports.
  We are taking great steps forward toward shrinking the Federal 
Government and balancing our budget. Continuing the MPP flies in the 
face of all that we are trying to do. We are making tough choices and 
setting tough priorities so that we will not burden our children with a 
debt that they had no part in creating. Providing seed money for 
multibillion-dollar corporations to advertise beer, nuts, fruit, or any 
other product overseas is not one of these important priorities.
  In tight budgetary times, this program should not have even 
survived--but it was increased by 30 percent. The MPP has already cost 
taxpayers $1.2 billion. Let us end this corporate welfare program. 

[[Page H7418]]

  Without the MPP, the raisins will still dance, the doughboy will 
still giggle, and Ronald McDonald will still smile. The difference is 
that Mr. and Mrs. America will not be picking up the tab. Vote ``yes'' 
on the Zimmer-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Corporate welfare, they say? The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer] spoke of several of America's larger corporations. How about 
Bekins Skiff Orchards, how about McCluskey Farms, or western New York 
State apple growers? This program impacts on our farmers positively.
  The MPP program, just this year, opened up a great new market for New 
York State apples in Israel. Trade sources in Israel report the market 
potential is 50,000 metric tons per year. This year we sold thousands 
of pounds of apples from New York State, upstate New York, to Israel. 
This means jobs. It means real income to our farmers all over the 
country, not just in New York. Stop this big city assault on our family 
farms. Vote ``no''.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of this 
amendment to end funding for the Market Promotion Program [MPP].
  The Market Promotion Program, as other speakers have mentioned, 
reimburses companies for advertising and promotion incurred in overseas 
markets. While I fully appreciate the merits of export promotion, and I 
respect the motives of those who support this program, I must ask why 
we are even considering funding a program like this when our Federal 
budget is completely out of balance and we are nearly $5 trillion in 
debt.
  The MPP is a clear example of a taxpayer-provided subsidy for dozens 
of American's successful businesses. In fact, over the past decade, the 
MPP has cost American taxpayers over $1.2 billion to subsidize foreign 
advertising.
  Like with other programs, a case can be made that this advertising is 
helpful in selling our products overseas, but if the program is so 
successful, then the private sector should--and hopefully will--
continue the practice without help from American taxpayers.
  In fact, to their credit, some of the companies, including at least 
one in my home State of Minnesota, has been candid and honest enough to 
say that while they benefit from this program, they understand the need 
to cut this subsidy along with other areas of Federal spending.
  This amendment is supported by groups across the spectrum including 
the Concord Coalition, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the National 
Taxpayers Union.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying I am surprised that we are 
even having to deal with an issue like this in today's environment. I 
thought the people of this country made it clear in last fall's 
election that they want change, discipline, and fiscal responsibility 
here in Washington. Why then does spending like this still appear in a 
bill on the floor of this House?
  Today, after years of overspending, we have no extra money to spend 
and we must discipline ourselves the way the rest of the world does. We 
must ask ourselves, not whether there is some value in this program, 
but rather is it more important to provide this foreign advertisement 
subsidy or make future investments in our children's education, Head 
Start, job training, and health care for the people of this country.
  And what credibility will we have in trying to hold the line in those 
areas if we fund this program?
  I ask you to bring some discipline and common sense to our work and 
support this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, this week all of us were greeted when we 
read our morning newspaper, regardless of where we were in the country, 
that the United States was experiencing the largest trade deficit in 
history, that we had an $11.5 billion trade deficit. It is ironic that 
today on the floor of this House, we are considering passing an 
amendment that would increase that trade deficit.
  Our agricultural exports are one of the few sectors of our economy to 
have a positive balance of trade. We are exporting over $51 billion 
worth of agricultural goods, creating a $20 billion surplus of trade in 
that sector. When we look at this, we are doing this in light of the 
fact that we are being grossly overspent by our competitors in the 
international marketplace.
  If we look what the EC is spending, they are spending 10 times as 
much as the United States is. On wine exports alone, the EC has their 
subsidies of $90 billion. That is more than we spend on the entire 
market promotion program.
  We talk about the arguments about the major corporations and 
cooperatives in this country, but the only way a cotton farmer in 
California or an apple grower in Pennsylvania or a dairy farmer in New 
York can market their products overseas is through some type of 
cooperative or some type of corporation. The MPP gives the tools to the 
farmers, to the cooperatives, so they can compete against the unfair 
international competition.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is a program that works. This chart 
clearly demonstrates that since MPP was instituted, our trade balance 
has gone up with our agricultural products. It is a success. Do not 
listen to some of the arguments of our urban neighbors and urban 
colleagues. Vote for MPP.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Zimmer 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we say it over and over--if we are going to balance the 
budget in 7 years, we must make some tough decisions. Cutting the 
market promotion program is not one of them. This is easy. There is no 
way that this program can be justified.
  We must ask ourselves if it is an essential task of the Federal 
Government to advertise McDonald's Chicken McNuggets, Gallo Wine and 
Sunkist Oranges in foreign countries. The answer is no. Yet that is 
exactly what the market promotion program does.
  The supporters of this program are going to talk about how the market 
promotion program is justified because it increases economic activity 
here in the United States.
  Which means one of two things:
  If the program is effective, we should eliminate funding because 
these multi-million-dollar corporations don't need it.
  If, on the other hand, the market promotion program is not effective 
enough for private corporations to justify spending their money on it--
then how do we justify spending more taxpayers' dollars on it?
  Either way, we should eliminate funding for the market promotion 
program.
  Since the program began in 1986, Congress has spent $1.25 billion to 
supplement the advertising budgets of some of the biggest corporations 
in the United States.
  In this bill, spending on the market promotion program will increase 
from $85 million this year to $110 million in fiscal year 1996. This is 
a spending increase that we cannot tolerate.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people sent us here to do what is right 
for the Nation. They want us to cut spending. They want us to stop 
putting them deeper and deeper in debt. And they want us to build a 
better economic future for them and their children. They want us to 
shrink the size of the Federal Government--to preserve those things 
that only government can accomplish, and get government out of those 
areas that should be left to the private sector.
  We must make difficult decisions on spending in order to balance the 
budget in 7 years. The Zimmer amendment is an easy one. Vote ``yes'' on 
Zimmer-Schumer.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose any of these amendments pending on the floor 

[[Page H7419]]
  today to the 1996 agricultural appropriations bill which would either 
eliminate or reduce funding for the market promotion program.

                              {time}  1430

  Such an action would cripple American agriculture's ability to remain 
competitive in the post-GATT global marketplace.
  Let me be clear about one thing. The world marketplace is still 
characterized by unfair competition. The European Union, for example, 
over the past 5 years has outspent the United States by 6 to 1 in terms 
of export promotion, and will be able to maintain this historical 
advantage even under GATT. The European Union now spends $89 million 
just promoting wine exports, which is more than we spend promoting all 
of our agricultural exports abroad.
  The people that would be hurt by this amendment, which again comes 
from Northeasterners and I think is sort of a continuation of the 
overall war on the West emanating from Washington, DC, would be farmers 
and ranchers and the 1 million Americans whose jobs depend on U.S. 
agricultural exports. The fact of the matter is the MPP works.
  Let me tell why. Arizona State University as part of a recent study 
completed analysis of the impact of MPP expenditures on 7 fruit and 
vegetable crops. The analysis showed that for every dollar of MPP funds 
spent overseas promoting American table grapes, there was an increase 
in value of $5.04. Even more dramatic was the return from a value-added 
product such as American wine. In addition, the study found that the 
return from the MPP to apple production was $18.19. The Market 
Promotion Program based on this study pays for itself and then some. 
The funds invested in the MPP translate into increased income for 
farmers, more jobs in the packaging and processing industries, and more 
jobs on the shipping lines.
  Do not be deceived by these stories about so-called corporate abuse.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I put together my own 
plan to balance the budget. I had to make some difficult decisions, but 
I learned a valuable lesson: If we're serious about balancing the 
budget, Congress has to stop allocating scarce resources to pork-barrel 
projects.
  The Market Promotion Program is a flagrant example of misallocated 
funds. Last year alone the Department of Agriculture spent $110 million 
helping market American food products abroad: $2.9 million went to 
Pillsbury to sell pies and muffins; $465,000 went to McDonalds to 
market Chicken McNuggets; $10 million went to Sunkist to sell oranges; 
and $1.2 million went to the American Legend to market mink coats.
  Ronald McDonald and the Pillsbury doughboy shouldn't take priority 
over feeding young children when it comes to Government spending. 
Congress should end the special interest handouts before cutting 
programs that people rely on--like WIC, and other nutrition programs.
  Let's put an end to the Market Promotion Program. Vote for the 
Schumer-Zimmer amendment, and start cutting corporate welfare now.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing a lot of talk about 
the large companies and how they benefit, but there are a couple of 
small Maine companies that benefit, and there are companies in the 
Northeast in the family farms that do benefit.
  There is a family in Yarmouth, ME, Chick Orchards, which has been run 
by the Chick family since 1933. They have 500 acres of apple trees and 
about two-thirds is planted as McIntoch. Last year along they shipped 
36,000 boxes of apples to supermarkets in the United Kingdom. Norman 
Chick chatted with me a while Wednesday and he told me how important 
the MPP program is to his success. Each time there is a promotion in 
the United Kingdom, he sees an increase in demand, an increase in 
sales. The Chick family has been on the orchard since 1933. That is a 
program that works.
  This year for the first time ever funds from the Market Promotion 
Program are going to be used by the lobster industry in Maine, in my 
State. With the help of the MPP funds, a good deal of their money is 
going to be promoting the Sprucehead Lobster Company and the Seaview 
Lobster Company in Kittery, and they are going to be part of a 
delegation that travels to Japan and Korea.
  The MPP program does work. Trade is the future. We are not going to 
have subsidies and price supports into the future. We have got to be 
able to give the small family farms the opportunities to be overseas.
  It does work, it does work in the Northeast, and it works all over.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  You are sitting in a beautiful restaurant, a little overpriced, kind 
of snooty, you are handed a list. See if any of these names sound 
familiar to you: Gundlach Bundaschu, Iron Horse, Trefethen, Chalone, 
Robert Mondavi, Far Hierte, Sutter Home, Fetzer, Dry Creek, Domaine 
Chendon, Firestone, Sebestiani, Simi, Korbel, Pine Ridge Parducci, 
Kendall-Jackson.
  Wonderful list. Wonderful list. Why on Earth, please? Why on Earth 
are we subsidizing these vineyards for advertisement abroad? It is 
crazy.
  The thing that I really do not understand about the people that are 
supporting this is that we have the same folks who are the most avid 
free traders, pro-GATT, pro-NAFTA, antitariff, anti any kind of barrier 
to trade. Yet they are saying, ``Well, we've got to have the MPP 
Program because we've got to subsidize them from within.'' It is just 
another way of having unfree trade. That is what it is all about.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. Did I miss one of them? Who did I miss?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. What I would like to point out to the gentleman, he did 
tick off a rather impressive list of wineries, most of which are small 
family-owned wineries. I just want to point out to him, of the 101 
wineries participating in the MPP, 89 are small wineries.
  Mr. HOKE. And probably 100 of them are from California.
  Reclaiming my time, what I would like to point out, also, is that it 
is an extraordinarily regional kind of subsidy and welfare scheme. It 
goes 10 times to California what it goes once to Ohio. Ten times. It is 
unfair. It is crazy. It is antifree trade.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating that the proponents of this 
amendment, all from the northeast part of the United States, do not 
understand what we in the West do to help them sit in that restaurant 
and eat the food that is produced in this country and we do it because 
we export it overseas. A lot of our farmers in the West are potato 
growers, are apple growers, pea and lentil growers, and wheat growers.
  The proponents of this amendment ought to come out to Washington 
State and see what we export overseas because Washington exports over 1 
billion dollars' worth of agriculture products and those exports 
generate about $3 billion in economic activity and about 30,000 jobs in 
this country.
  We benefit New Jersey and New York by the fact that we are able to 
export our goods overseas. We have to compete with the European Union 
who subsidizes their wine growers in this country to the tune of $89 
million. We have to have this kind of assistance to be fair to the jobs 
and the economy of the Northwest. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, imagine that you are a 
chairman or a president of a major corporation in this country, and 
Uncle Sam walks into your office and tells you, ``I've got a deal for 
you. Here's the deal. I subsidize your foreign advertising budget, 
while in exchange you do nothing. You just get the money.'' That is how 
the program works.

[[Page H7420]]

  Also, think of every single company in your State. Not just your 
Congressional District. Every company in your State. Unless you are 
from New Jersey or unless you are from California, Gallo Wine last year 
received more money than every single company in your State under this 
program. Sunkist received more money than every single company in your 
State under this program. That is simply wrong. We should not have two 
corporations receiving more than every single company in my State or 
your State or anybody else's State. That is not a good distribution of 
resources.
  The people who support this program say, well, the return on the 
dollar is very good. There was one person who was attacking the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] who said, ``Wait a minute, there 
is a 5-for-1 return on my investment here.'' If there is a 5-for-1 on 
your investment, you would be a knucklehead if you did not invest 
yourself. If you are making that much money on the program, well, then 
invest. You don't need Uncle Sam to do it.
  We hear in Congress that the private sector can do a lot of things 
better than Government. One thing is for sure. Private sector can do 
the private sector a lot better than Government can.
  There is no reason for the Government to come in and subsidize these 
corporations. If there is a problem and if we want to encourage 
exports, we should do it in another way. But we should not be doing it 
by giving it to corporations who make millions of dollars in this 
country.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the first 20 years of my life 
I lived in New Jersey and New York and Massachusetts. Then the last 30 
I have lived in the valleys of California. I have learned a little bit 
in that last 30-year time frame, but I have not forgotten how 
politically attractive a cutting amendment could be for the people who 
think they do not benefit from these programs.
  Let me simply ask the gentleman who works for the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer] if he would leave the well.
  I think this is a very important piece of information. The Europeans 
are spending a tremendous amount on export promotion. They understand 
where it is at in agriculture. Now with the GATT round completed, those 
subsidies for agriculture that are off the table are going to shift 
even more money over to the promotion of agricultural exports in 
competition with our growers.
  Let me tell who these people are. They are people who grow 10 acres 
of almonds or 50 acres of prunes or 30 acres of wine grapes. These 
people are the heart of agriculture. Whether they sell through a small 
entity or a co-op or whether they sell through a large corporation, 
they have to find outlets for their products. They have to find income 
for their families. This program works. We ask for a 50/50 cost share. 
Nobody gets into these programs free. They have to think long and hard 
before they put the money on the table. But they have proven time and 
time again, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] showed, to 
increase export sales and increase farm income.
  Let's face it, folks. Mistakes can be made. This program can be and 
has been reformed. But it works. If we turn our back on the 
international markets, we are killing our small farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would 
eliminate the Market Promotion Program.
  Every year, we see these short-sighted attempts to reduce or 
eliminate the Market Promotion Program. Fortunately, this House has 
kept this important program alive in the face of such opposition, and I 
hope we will be smart enough to do so again this year.
  American agriculture leads the world in productivity and in total 
production. Agriculture accounts for our greatest export dollar. 
Agriculture and related food and fiber industries employ more Americans 
by far than any other industry.
  However, one area in which we are falling short--and this has been 
analyzed by agricultural experts, the GAO and others--is promotion for 
our agricultural products overseas.
  In particular, we need promotion for so-called value-added 
agricultural products. This is an area where our competitors in the 
European Union and Asia are making
 enormous promotion investments and reaping enormous returns. It is an 
area where we should be doing much more.

  The Market Promotion Program is the program that fills this need.
  Agriculture exports, projected to exceed $50 billion this year--up 
from $43.5 billion for fiscal year 1994--are vital to the United 
States.
  Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
  Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
  Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion in related economic 
activity.
  Agriculture exports produce a positive trade balance of nearly $20 
billion.
  If U.S. agriculture is to remain competitive under GATT, we must have 
policies and programs that remain competitive with those of our 
competitors abroad.
  GATT did not eliminate export subsidies, it only reduced them.
  The European Union spent, over the last 5 years, an average of $10.6 
billion in annual export subsidies--the United States spent less than 
$2 billion.
  The EU spends more on wine exports--$89 million--than the United 
States currently spends for all commodities under the market promotion 
program.
  MPP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain 
and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, and MPP is 
a proven success.
  Our success with the MPP in California is very instructive.
  MPP has been tremendously successful in helping promote exports of 
California citrus, raisins, walnuts, almonds, peaches and other 
specialty crops.
  For example,
  In Japan, MPP funds helped educate consumers regarding the high 
quality of United States cheeses. The result: a 15-fold increase in 
exports.
  In Eastern Europe, MPP funds were used to provide technical and 
educational assistance to textile spinners. The result: U.S. cotton 
exports to this area rose to 1,100 metric tons with a value exceeding 
$1.4 million.
  MPP permits small producers to pool the promotion efforts for 
particular commodity groups.
  It may allow them to pursue new markets--markets they could not have 
pursued otherwise.
  It may leverage their promotion efforts in a particular market that 
are already underway.
  We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means 
jobs: a 10-percent increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000 
new jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing, 
processing, marketing, and distribution.
  The measure of any government program has got to be performance.
  The Market Promotion Program performs.
  For every $1 we invest in MPP, we reap a $16 return in additional 
agriculture exports. And as I said before, more exports means more jobs 
for Americans.
  MPP has come under some criticism in recent years, and the program 
has been adjusted to take these recommendations into account.
  In allocating funds, MPP gives small businesses the priority--we've 
stopped the subsidies for big companies that don't need the help.
  MPP limits participation to 5 years--that means commodity groups will 
not grow dependent on MPP, but will use those funds wisely to put in 
place long-term, industry-wide promotion efforts.
  MPP requires a cost-share--participants, including farmers and 
ranchers, must contribute as much as 50 percent of their own resources 
and cannot substitute MPP funds for investments they intended to make 
in the first place.
  MPP is accountable--independent audits and on-going reviews ensure 
that the program remains effective and remains true to the intent of 
Congress.
  In short, MPP is an effective program. If anything, we should be 
bolstering our commitment to value-added market promotion overseas 
instead of constantly whittling back our efforts in the face of 
significant investments by our competitors.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support American agriculture, 
support smart marketing efforts to promote American exports, support 
American farmers and producers, and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Zimmer 
amendment to eliminate funding to the Market Promotion Program. We in 
the 104th Congress have been struggling to get pork out of the budget 
so we can balance the budget. We have talked about the evils of 
corporate welfare. 

[[Page H7421]]
Believe it or not, this Market Promotion Program, I believe, is worse 
than pork and it is worse than corporate welfare, because at least 
Federal pork and corporate welfare dollars are spent in the United 
States. The Market Promotion Program on the other hand takes precious 
and scarce Federal dollars and spends them overseas to pay for 
advertising for very wealthy, rich American companies, like Sunkist, 
Gallo Wine in my State, and McDonald's.
  Supporters of this foreign handout use the argument that scarce tax 
dollars are being spent to convince people to buy American products. 
Well, I do not care what American products you are talking about, it is 
not the job of the Federal Government to promote American products.

                              {time}  1445

  The last thing we need is for hard-working taxpayers to be actually 
footing the bill for paying for wealthy companies' advertising. We do 
not want to use scarce tax dollars to convince the French to buy ``Le 
Mac.'' We do not need that.
  What we need is open markets and let those companies handle their own 
advertising and produce superior products and we will win and we will 
prosper.
  I support the Zimmer amendment, which will allow us to balance the 
budget by eliminating this unnecessary spending.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a gentleman who knows the difference between a 
co-op and a corporation.
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed, of course, to 
the elimination of the MPP program.
  In the first place, to kill this program with an amendment to the 
agriculture appropriations bill is simply not the way to go.
  In my opinion it is clearly an attempt to set policy on an 
appropriations bill and it is a decision that we should want to debate 
when we talk about the farm bill, not now.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not to say that I do not have some concerns 
with the Ag Department's administration of the program, because I do. 
In fact, I believe that the only congressional hearings that have taken 
place on this issue, on trade matters, with very few exceptions, have 
been my subcommittee. Those hearings were conducted by the General Farm 
Commodities subcommittee, the point committee on the new farm bill.
  I wish Members who were offering this particular amendment, and 
perhaps others who support it, might have come to the committee of 
jurisdiction before taking an end run to the floor.
  Even some strong advocates for MPP realize the political problems 
with the branded promotion part of the program where Federal dollars 
actually help benefit large private companies. However, the brand 
promotion increases the highest value and the fastest growing U.S. 
agricultural exports.
  But I believe the changes can be made and I believe they will be made 
with respect to branded promotion. My subcommittee will address these 
matters at the appropriate time when we start marking up the farm bill 
after the August recess.
  The MPP is just one of the few tools that we have that have been 
instrumental in assisting the United States in increasing and enhancing 
agricultural exports.
  According to the testimony by the administrator of the foreign ag 
service, ``market promotion is really working the best.'' He added, 
``To eliminate the MPP now, I think, would be not helping to keep 
America competitive in the coming years.''
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is the market promotion has been a 
success. It is a good example of Federal, State, and private 
partnership which has worked well. It may need some reform, but this is 
not the time nor is this the legislation to do it.
  I urge a no vote. Let us do it the right way.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the elimination of all funding for the 
Market Promotion Program for a number of reasons.
  First, to kill this program with an amendment to the agriculture 
appropriations bill, is clearly an attempt to set policy on an 
appropriation bill. A decision we should want to debate in the farm 
bill.
  This is not to say that I don't have some concerns with the 
Agriculture Department's administration of the MPP program. In fact, I 
believe the only congressional hearing in this Congress, relating to 
MPP and most of the other agricultural trade programs, was conducted by 
the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, which I chair.
  I wish the Members who are offering this amendment, and others who 
support the abolishing of MPP, would come to the committee on 
jurisdiction before taking an end-run to the floor.
  Even some strong advocates for MPP, recognize the political problem 
with the branded promotion part of the program, where Federal dollars 
help benefit large private companies.
  However, the brand promotion increases the highest value and the 
fastest growing U.S. agricultural exports. But I believe changes can 
and should be made to MPP with respect to branded promotion, and my 
subcommittee will address this when we mark up the farm bill after the 
August recess.
  Despite some problems, there is little doubt of the overall success 
and efficiency of this program. Unfortunately, like many government 
programs, the Market Promotion Program has been much more effective 
than it has been given credit.
  The world markets are very competitive. In 1994, world farm subsidies 
amounted to $175 billion. That's correct, virtually all countries 
support their agricultural industry, and in 1994 those subsidies 
totaled $175 billion.
  This year the European Union alone, will be spending $9 billion on 
export subsidies. The EU's overall farm expenditures is $54 billion. By 
comparison, this is roughly 10 times what the U.S. is expected to spend 
on agricultural trade programs.
  The MPP is just one of the few tools we have, that have been 
instrumental in assisting the United States in increasing and enhancing 
agricultural exports.
  According to testimony by the Administrator of the Foreign 
Agriculture Service, ``market promotion is really working the best.''
  He added, and I quote, ``to eliminate the MPP now, I think, would be 
not helping to keep America competitive in the coming years.''
  The bottom line is, the Market Promotion Program has been a success. 
It is a good example of a Federal-State and private partnership which 
has worked well. It may need some reform, but this is not the time, and 
certainly not the legislation, with which to kill the program.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. Let's do it the right way.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit]
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I have to move through this quickly, so I 
am going to stand and state my opposition to the Zimmer amendment, the 
Obey amendment, and the Kennedy amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I come from California, a district which is dependent 
heavily on agriculture and we are also dependent on agricultural trade. 
Trade is the driving force for our economy in the Central Valley.
  Today what we are trying to do is to penalize what we believe to be 
large ag companies. Let me assure my colleagues, we are not penalizing 
large ag companies with these amendments today. What we are doing is 
penalizing thousands of small farmers.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. In my district, the largest 
wineries, the five largest wineries that participate in the Market 
Promotion Program, purchase 90 percent of the grapes. That is hundreds 
and thousands of independent grape growers.
  Second, this Congress has already addressed the issue of small 
business during the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act by requiring small 
business be given the first priority for funding of MPP.
   Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I do not have more time, but I ask my 
colleagues to vote against all these amendments as they come up today.
  I rise today in strong support of the Market Promotion Program [MPP].
  Contrary to popular belief by some Members of this body, MPP is one 
of the most effective trade programs at the Department of Agriculture.
  By eliminating the Market Promotion Program, Congress will be sending 
a message to Americans and American business that we can do without 
$1.4 billion in exports generated by this important program.
  The Market Promotion Program is designed to assist in the promotion 
of U.S. agricultural products.
  This program promotes American food and American farm products, not 
individual company names.

[[Page H7422]]

  U.S. producers often find themselves competing not with their foreign 
agriculture counterparts but with foreign governments.
  The European Community for example, subsidizes their wine industry 
$89 million annually, the government of France spends $229 million on 
the promotion of agriculture products and the Australian Government 
contributes $226 million to promote agriculture products such as dairy, 
wine, brandy, and processed meats.
  By eliminating funding for the Market promotion Program you will be 
sending a message to the American farmers that what is appropriate in 
another country may not be appropriate in this country.
   Congress will be saying that you can go out on your own and compete 
in a world market against foreign governments and fend for yourselves.
  If the United States is serious about establishing fair trade and has 
the political resolve to establish its position in world trade, the 
Market Promotion Program is the right vehicle to use.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to that high-spurring, 
hard-riding gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Opponents of the Market Promotion Program have portrayed this program 
as ``corporate welfare.'' Nothing could be further from the truth.
  U.S. Agriculture continues to face rigid competition in the global 
marketplace against heavily subsidized countries all over the world.
  By helping U.S. Agriculture compete more effectively, the Market 
Promotion Program contributes to economic growth, job creation, and 
increased tax revenue.
  Even Secretary Glickman has said, and I quote--``We cannot eliminate 
unilaterally our export assistance efforts at a time when the 
competition is increasing its investments in these areas.''
  In Oregon, agricultural exports total over $500 million. Such exports 
alone generate over $1.4 billion in economic activity and provide over 
15,000 export-related jobs.
  Increasing exports not only helps boost economic activity, but adds 
to my State's and the Nation's job base.
  I urge my colleagues to protect American jobs and reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the Members, ``Wake up. Look 
what is going on around here.'' We passed GATT last year. We passed 
NAFTA. We told the world we want to be competitive and now my 
colleagues want to cut the underpinnings that allow us to be 
competitive?
  All you urban legislators that get up and talk about cutting this 
program turn around and say it is all right to use taxpayers moneys to 
promote New York, promote Massachusetts, and promote Atlantic City. 
``Bring the tourists here. We will use the taxpayers' money to do that 
promotion.''
  But when it gets to agriculture, ``No, we don't want to use any of 
that money. We don't want to promote.'' You walk into a restaurant and 
you talk abut the fact that there are all these big wine companies. 
There are also Chilean wines, European wines.
  Do my colleagues know that the Europeans spend more money promoting 
European wine than is in this entire program? I represent small farmers 
who try to sell their strawberries. We grow more strawberries than 
California and the United States can consume. We have to sell them some 
place else. We have to have some help doing that.
  They have to put their own money into it. They have to be in small 
business and can only be in the program for 5 years. This is a program 
that works. If we are going to be competitive in the world, we have to 
sell our product abroad. Do not undercut the small farmers in the 
United States. Vote no against this amendment and all the other ones 
that attack this program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], as the 
designee for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], is recognized.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about 
what is going on here. This program is nothing more than a corporate 
grab of the worst order.
  We are here on the floor of the Congress of the United States cutting 
the most important programs about the future of this country. Whether 
it is student loans or whether or not it is funds to assist our senior 
citizens.
  But what we are saying is we do not have money for things like the 
fuel assistance program to heat or cool our homes, but there is plenty 
enough to buy a shot of Jim Beam whiskey to keep people warm at night.
  We say there is no money to pay for summer jobs or paying for student 
loans, but the Pillsbury Dough Boy is going to go to the head of the 
class.
  We say there is no money for public housing, but we are going to give 
wine to the homeless. And we have cut services for the needy and the 
frail elderly, but they will be able to go out and buy a cup of warm 
Campbell's soup.
  We say there is no money to pay for the senior citizen's health care 
in this country. We cannot buy their pills, but we can buy them a pack 
of M&M's.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues let us stop what is going on 
here in this country with a corporate grab to grab the few dollars that 
are available to invest in the future of this country. These 
corporations are not the Ma-and-Pa kinds of operations that are being 
described. These are the biggest corporate 500 companies in America.
  Ten percent is all they have to put up. The smallest vineyards in the 
country put up a very small amount of money and get a very small amount 
of money. The biggest companies, Ernest and Julio, the brothers 
themselves, stand up and get $22 million over 5 years to promote their 
wines overseas.
  Let us be realistic about who wins and who loses in this country and 
who wins and who loses in this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Market Production Program is very 
important to the people of my district in Marin and Sonoma County, CA. 
The wine and wine grapes from my district, many of them that were 
listed by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Hoke] are famous worldwide. But 
these vintners have to fight to enter and compete in the world market.
  The Market Promotion Protection Program, on the other hand, Mr. 
Chairman, helps these small wine producers. It helps them in my 
district compete with heavily subsidized foreign producers, producers 
who dominate the global marketplace.
  The U.S. wine industry is at a disadvantage from the start because it 
receives no production subsidies from the Government. I repeat, no 
production subsidies from the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me today in an effort to 
level the playing field of the global market by opposing the Schumer-
Zimmer amendment. Let us help export California products, not 
California jobs.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the MPP has been a tremendous success in helping U.S. 
agriculture, including farmers and ranchers in my district and in my 
State, compete more effectively in the international marketplace. It 
has opened up markets in Eastern Europe for the sale of more United 
States cotton, opened markets in Japan for the sale of United States 
structured wood panels and beams, and opened up markets in Mexico for 
additional apples to be sold. We need this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends who are world and free market 
traders, this ought to be right down their alley. This is their 
opportunity to support free trade by U.S. agricultural product.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].

[[Page H7423]]

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is easy to get up here and toss 
around the words ``pork'' and ``boondoggle.'' This is a program that is 
working. It is working to create jobs in the global marketplace; 24,000 
alone in my home State of Mississippi, over 1 million jobs nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Schumer amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, it seems like all the supporters of MPP are 
from the West, and I am, too, West Virginia. It is about 1 hour and 15 
minutes from here. We have pockets of high unemployment, but yet the 
county that has the lowest unemployment is an agricultural county.
  When my colleagues talk about pork, I would rather talk about 
poultry, because the MPP is helping move poultry into the Asian market. 
Take Hester Industries of Hardy County. Hester Industries, with $3,500 
of MPP, of which they matched half of it, began a promotional campaign 
in Japan. In the last 6 months they have moved 100,000 pounds of 
drumsticks into the Japanese market.
  Or Wampler-Longacre, a bigger company, yes, but using a little amount 
of MPP, which they had to match, I might add, they have been able to 
put hundreds of people to work, both in the poultry houses as well as 
the poultry processing industry as they promote their products in the 
Far East.
  A very small amount of MPP leverages a large amount of jobs for West 
Virginians and, yes, in revenues for this Government as well as a 
healthy economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge you to support the Market Promotion Program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from our Secretary of 
Agriculture, Mr. Dan Glickman. You know who is into market promotion 
big time under GATT, under free trade? Not the United States, not 
McDonald's, not Gallo. It is the European Union. As has been stated, 
they are spending more for wine export promotion than we invest in all 
of our products.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] should 
introduce their bills in the British Parliament and the French Assembly 
and the German Bundestag.
  It is easy to say the check goes to McDonald's. It does not. It goes 
to the United States Poultry, Egg and Potato Council, and McDonald's 
matches that contribution so that that customer in McDonald's in 
Bangkok will eat American French fries and American Egg McMuffins, 
representing 2,000 jobs in New Jersey, 10,000 jobs in New York, and I 
would tell the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], 30,000 jobs in Ohio, not 
Chinese products.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Since 1985, we have reduced subsidies, direct subsidies, to farmers 
from $35 billion in 1985 and $9 billion last year, and as we have 
brought subsidies to farmers down, what we have done is we have moved 
money into export programs so that our farmers have fair access around 
the world.
  There are a number of programs that they gain access for our farmers. 
The market promotion program is just one of these programs, and the 
special part about market promotion is that this is value-added 
products. It is commodities that are produced here in America, they are 
processed here in America with American labor, creating American jobs 
that we can use this program to move these products around the world. 
As we continue to bring down subsidies to farmers, as most every Member 
of this Congress wants to do, we have to ensure that our farmers are 
not being unfairly blocked from entry into other markets around the 
world, because the European Economic Union is trying to steal those 
markets from our small farmers. It is not fair. This is a good program. 
Defeat their amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair give us an accounting of 
the time at this moment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would be delighted to give a time summary.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] controls 4 minutes, the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] 5, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer], the designee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], 
3 minutes, and yourself, 4 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] have the 
right to close? Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico as the chairman of the 
committee, has the right to close debate.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  One thing that really concerns me in this whole discussion that is 
forgotten is that agriculture and the small farmers are going to take 
their hit as far as reducing the budget and getting to a balanced 
budget. In the next 7 years, we have passed a budget resolution that 
takes away $13.4 billion from the American farmer, and it is not just 
that, folks.
  We are talking about real jobs in this program, and I think when you 
look at the proportion, if you are from California, we are talking 
about 137,000 jobs in California directly related to agricultural 
exports, and you talk about what the base closings did to California.
  If you are in Iowa, Iowa is the second largest State as far as export 
jobs with 96,000 jobs; if you are in Illinois, there are 68,000 jobs.
  I see the gentleman from Minnesota up here. You go back to 
Minneapolis and tell them you voted to take away 50,000 jobs in 
Minnesota and see what they say.
  Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, we are conducting this debate at a time 
when our trade deficits are running at a historic high. Our trading 
partners must be looking at us in absolute amazement.
  Agriculture is one facet of our economy where we actually sell more 
than we buy, and the old ``hurt America first'' crowd now comes after 
agriculture. When will you be satisfied? When we import more 
agriculture, too?
  In fact, in the post-GATT world, we are in a vicious competition for 
new markets, and the Europeans know exactly what that is all about. 
They have committed many times the amount of support for their export 
products than the United States of America.
  The MPP program is a buy America program. It benefits farmers, 
ranchers, American workers that process and handle the product, and 
shippers. In fact, there are 20,000 American jobs that flow from $1 
billion worth of agriculture exports.
  The MPP program is a critical link. Do not pull the pin on our export 
program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I for the life of me cannot understand why 
we attack programs that increase ag exports and decrease our trade 
deficit.
  We continue to cut agricultural programs domestically, and we need to 
protect and preserve our foreign trade and our foreign markets.
  We need to do more, not less.
  You know, this program, if it needs reform, let us reform it. Do not 
kill the goose that lays the golden egg of $100 million in economic 
activity, thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in 
tax revenues. Vote against these amendments.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  I was trying to find one of the proponents of this waste-of-moneys 
chart, but I cannot seem to locate it right, now, so I will not use it.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, if we had an extra $110 million lying 
around 

[[Page H7424]]
collecting dust, maybe we could justify giving it to corporations like 
Ralston Purina, Pillsbury, Snapple, name brand, very profitable 
companies.
  But, my friends, we do not have an extra $110 million laying around. 
So at this point in time I think it is time to say we do not have the 
money. We have to abolish the program.
  Why? What are we doing to the citizens of this country who provide 
those tax revenues? For the senior citizens of this country, we are 
going to cut Medicare by $270 billion. Do you know where the bulk of 
those funds are going to come from, my friends? From your pocket. It is 
going to come as out-of-pocket expenses to pay for the hospital bills 
and the doctors you are going to need.
  So, as we give $110 million to E.J. Gallo and Pillsbury, you are 
going to pay more. For the students, $10 billion cut in student loans, 
they are not going to be able to afford college.
  We do not have the $110 million.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I think the thing that is 
important for me today is I came here to balance the budget, and we 
have $200 billion in excess spending.
  When I went home for my townhalls, I was asked to get rid of 
corporate welfare, and corporate welfare being those things that 
American people could do for themselves.
  When I look at this program, even though for a time we needed help in 
the marketing, I have to say now it is time we let industry do this for 
themselves, we let the farmers, we let the companies that market it, we 
let you and I, we let the big corporations. At some point we have to 
say no to some of this stuff. We cannot continue to say yes to 
everything.
  It is nice, But it comes in the nonnecessary.
  And yes, I have farming in my State, but everybody is going to have 
to sacrifice just a little bit if we are ever going to get there.
  Our grandchildren have to see us do this now, or we will never get 
rid of the debt, and we are giving this cost to our grandchildren and 
our children and they just plain old should not have this charged to 
their account.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, it amazes me here in the House of 
Representatives. We are very often trying to fix things that are not 
broken.
  Certainly, the program that we are talking about here is not broken. 
What we must remember is that people just do not buy soybeans and corn 
and wheat and cotton. They buy cooking oil and cereals and clothing 
products that are all processed by foreign companies also, and our 
competitors, our competitor nations, are certainly helping them.
  The goal of branded promotion is to persuade foreign consumers to 
choose and develop a loyalty to brand names by U.S. companies that 
utilize U.S. commodities. It is also important to remember that 
products promoted in this program provide jobs here in the United 
States.
  This program, which helps us assist the really very positive factor 
in our trade problems, agriculture, is one of the great things we have 
got going for us. This is the thing we want to whack.
  I do not understand how this House could come to the conclusion that 
we want to hurt something that is helping us so very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would 
devastate the Market Promotion Program.
  Through the Market Promotion Program, funds are available to conduct 
promotional and educational activities including trade servicing, 
technical assistance, and generic and branded advertising of U.S. grown 
agricultural commodities and products in foreign markets. A majority of 
the MPP efforts are focused on consumer-oriented, high-value products--
the products that are found in supermarkets.
  The MPP also provides that assistance may be made to private 
organizations for branded advertising when it is determined that such 
organization would significantly contribute to United States export 
market development. This is the aspect of the program that has 
generated controversy, because some view it as unfair that individual 
corporations receive funds.
  What we must remember is that people don't buy soybeans, wheat, corn, 
and cotton. They buy cooking oil, cereals, and clothing--products that 
are also processed by foreign companies. The goal of branded promotions 
is to persuade consumers to choose and develop a loyalty to brands made 
by U.S. companies and that utilize U.S. commodities.
  It is also important to remember that the products promoted in this 
program provide jobs in the United States. Selling value-added products 
overseas not only supports agricultural producers, but also creates 
jobs in the processing, merchandising, advertising, and transportation 
industries. For every $1 billion in agricultural exports, 20,000 jobs 
are created in the United States. Expansion assistance, the value added 
portion of total agricultural exports has more than tripled, reaching a 
record high of almost $17 billion in 1994. That growth translates to 
over 220,000 jobs throughout the country.
  Furthermore, the cost-share requirements of the MPP require private 
companies selling branded products, with few exceptions, must 
contribute at least 50 percent of the promotional costs.
  In short, the Market Promotion Program has helped boost U.S. exports, 
promoted economic growth, contributed to agriculture's trade positive 
trade balance, created additional employment opportunities, and 
enlarged the tax base. It has been a cost-effective method for 
leveraging the growth potential of the food industry.
  While there is room for improving MPP, it is appropriate to make 
operational refinements in the farm bill rather than to dismantle now 
what has been a fundamentally successful program. Using the 
appropriations process to limit the role of our foreign market 
developments is neither a timely nor appropriate matter to effect 
needed modifications.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment and allow true reform to take place in the pending farm bill 
debate.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, in this time of burgeoning U.S. Trade deficits, why would we 
even consider eliminating one of our most successful export programs?
  Consider, for example, what this program has done for the walnut and 
raisin industries in California. In 1986 the United States market share 
of walnuts in Japan was 30 percent. As a result of a highly successful 
MPP promotional program, 9 years later the California industry controls 
71 percent of the market and exports nearly 12,000 metric tons of 
walnuts to Japan.
  The raisin industry has enjoyed similar success in the United Kingdom 
where agricultural exports encounter stiff competition from heavily 
subsidized European commodities. Over the last 9 years, with the help 
of the MPP, California raisin shipments to the United Kingdom have 
increased sixfold, capturing 45 percent of the entire market. Today 
California raisins are known and preferred by over 54 percent of the 
households in England.
  Mr. Chairman, let's not penalize ourselves for succeeding. I urge no 
vote on the Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to be reminded here in 
this body of some of the facts of what we are talking about today.
  We are talking about reducing this appropriation bill. The $110 
million is not in the bill we are considering today. It is in the farm 
bill, and that is why many of us are suggesting that we ought to take a 
look at the farm bill for this purpose, not this amendment today.
  When we talk about this, I do not take a back seat to anyone on 
balancing the budget. Since 1981, the Committee on Agriculture has cut 
$50 billion from our function of the budget. Under the budget 
reconciliation bill, we will have to cut another 23 percent, and not 
from an inflated baseline but from a real baseline.
  This discretionary bill is down 3.1 percent from last year, but it is 
completely overlooking we cut 14 percent.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] presided over that last year 
when there was a different chairman and minority member.

[[Page H7425]]

  So let us keep our facts straight when we are talking about budget 
cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Zimmer amendment 
calling for the elimination of funding in general or that would limit 
funding for salaries and expenses associated with the MPP program.
  The United States must compete for world export markets. The new GATT 
trading rules are opening markets throughout the world, and U.S. 
agricultural producers must compete for shares of these newly opened 
markets. The European Union is expected in 1995 to spend over $54 
billion--$6 billion more than last year--under its common agricultural 
policy to support its farmers, including over $9 billion for export 
subsidies alone.
  The MPP is a value enhancing program that gives U.S. agribusinesses 
the added edge to be aggressive in markets that they otherwise would 
not. A new national food and agriculture policy project study has shown 
a $5 return on each $1 spent in MPP funds for certain horticultural 
products and products derived from them. According to USDA, every 
dollar spent through MPP results in an additional $16 in U.S. 
agricultural exports.
  Currently, the United States spends less--$85.5 million--on MPP for 
all commodities than the European Union spends on wine exports--$89 
million. The European Union, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and other 
major foreign competitors are aggressively working with their 
agricultural producers and exporters in support of market development 
and promotion efforts. Such expenditures total nearly $500 million more 
than similar efforts by the United States.
  MPP is vital to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain, and 
expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, especially to 
some 20,000 family farms, that are members of agricultural 
cooperatives. As members of cooperatives that benefit from MPP, these 
families are able to engage in international markets that would 
otherwise be unavailable to them.
  Our agricultural industry is the most competitive in the world, but 
it cannot compete against foreign governments alone.
  Therefore, we need to keep the Market Promotion Program as it is, and 
allow the authorizing committee to address the concerns and criticisms 
of MPP in the farm bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against 
any amendments reducing funding for the MPP.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Zimmer-Schumer amendment is nothing short of 
unilateral disarmament in the world trade war. They have replaced the 
peace-at-any-price crowd with the Zimmer-Schumer unemployment-at-any-
price, because the Zimmer-Schumer amendment is a job killer. One 
million Americans work in businesses which have a direct interest in ag 
exports, and these are generally good-paying jobs. What the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] want to do is to cut out those jobs, reduce them, make it more 
difficult for us to sell overseas, while every major exporting nation 
in the world is pumping up its export efforts.
  Zimmer and Schumer and all of their friends would have the United 
States throw in the towel. Zimmer and Schumer just do not get it. They 
should sit down in Tokyo and Seoul and learn the realities of world 
trade competition.
  American products can win the trade war overseas if we are willing to 
fight.
  The Market Promotion Program is a proven success. For $110 million we 
leverage $50 billion in ag exports, creating jobs and farm income 
across America, and that is a great investment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  When you sit here and listen to the debate, it boils down to ideology 
over realty. Stop and take a look at what is taking place with this 
amendment.
  Some of my colleagues talk about big companies. You should be so 
lucky to have big companies involved. First, do you know what it takes 
for a big company to be involved in this program? You must cite unfair 
trade practice in the targeted country. Second, you want MacDonald's 
involved, because if MacDonald's is involved, every piece of beef has 
to be American, every piece of bread has to be American, every piece of 
cheese has to be American. Everything under this program has to be 
American. You should be so lucky to have the big companies involved in 
this program.
  This program is for all the small companies, like the one in Door 
County up in Great Lakes, where 30 people have jobs because we are 
selling cherries overseas in Australia and opening the market in China. 
This is not an ongoing program. This is a beachhead program. Exporters 
get a few dollars to go over to these other countries to get them to 
understand what good products we have here in America.

                              {time}  1515

  I do not want anyone who votes for this amendment ever to tell me 
they are concerned about a trade deficit or jobs here in America. This 
is for good-paying jobs here in America.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, agriculture is an essential industry in this country. 
Agricultural jobs are very important to us, as are jobs in food 
production.
  But there is absolutely no proven connection between the MPP and act 
exports or agricultural jobs, and do not take it from me. This is what 
the GAO, this is what the Office of Technology Assessment, has 
concluded.
  In all the years of the MPP program, Mr. Chairman, not one 
disinterested group has looked at the program and come to its defense. 
They all conclude there is no evidence that these large corporations 
would not have spent their own money, McDonald's money, on this 
advertising if MPP were not available, and MPP has been under fire for 
all these years because the lion's share of its money has gone to the 
biggest corporations, and change it as they might try, this is still 
the case.
  And so, as a result, in 1994, the last available year for data, while 
Berry Station Confectioners in New York, a small company, got $2,000 in 
MPP funds, Hershey's got $265,000, Tootsie Roll got $161,000, and M&M-
Mars, which by the way, Mr. Farr, is in my State, got more than 
$300,000. In California, Ernest and Julio Gallo last year got a 
whopping $2\1/2\ million. Other vintners did get some money: $2,500 for 
Mountain View Vintner, $4,000 went to Sunny Dune Vineyards. Now we know 
why Gallo sells no wine before its time. It is waiting for its subsidy 
check.
  This is not a regional issue, my colleagues. This is an issue that 
involves every State and every taxpayer. My State, as I said, is the 
home of M&M-Mars, of Ocean Spray, of Campbell Soup. My friend, the 
secretary of agriculture of New Jersey, and, yes, New Jersey does have 
a secretary of agriculture, is very upset with me for this, but I 
believe that we have to have frugality begin at home because this is a 
program that cannot be justified. It has been changed in its features; 
even the proponents of the program have said in passing that it still 
is not a program that does not need changes.
  This reminds me of a story about the great baseball player, Leo 
Durocher, when he was a playing coach. He had a player who was 
committing error after error out on the field. Leo Durocher took that 
player out of the game, put himself in the game instead. The first play 
that happened thereafter was an easy fly ball. Leo Durocher dropped it. 
At the end of the inning Leo Durocher stormed into the dugout, told the 
player he had taken out of the game, ``You screwed up that position so 
bad nobody can play it.''
  What we have got to do is terminate this program, pull it up by its 
roots, and allow the authorizing committee, the Committee on 
Agriculture, and the 1995 farm bill to come up with a program that will 
help exports in a way that does not benefit the biggest, and 
wealthiest, and least needy corporations.
  In the past years the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey], has led the fight against this program, and I will close by 
quoting him:

       The market promotion program is a corporate handout, 
     nothing more. I wonder about our commitment to deficit 
     reduction if we cannot take Betty Crocker, Ronald McDonald, 
     and the Pillsbury Doughboy off the dole.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H7426]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago I thought it was important to 
have a cooperative effort between the Government and the private 
sector, not through subsidies, but through a cooperative effort. That 
is what this program is.
  My colleagues have heard this is about trade. We are at war. It is 
post-GATT. My colleagues heard a lot of jokes earlier about raisins and 
about the Japanese. I ask my colleagues, Do you know the Japanese are 
our third largest raisin market? My colleagues heard talk about 
corporations. Sun-Maid is not a corporation; it is 5,000 farmers and 
50,000 workers.
  What we are talking about is something that we have got to do more 
of. We have got to be competitive in the world marketplace. The single 
largest positive balance-of-trade category is horticulture-agriculture. 
That is what we are talking about in the MPP program. We need market 
share, we need a cooperative effort between our Government and our 
American workers, farmers, and processors.
  This program is $100 million. It brings back enormous benefits. It 
should be $1 billion. Let us knock this ill-conceived amendment where 
it belongs.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong opposition to 
this misguided amendment which would eliminate the Market Promotion 
Program. If the other agricultural producing nations of the world did 
not grossly and unfairly subsidize the production and sale of 
agricultural and food products, this member would be more than willing 
to support this amendment. Unfortunately, free and fair trade does not 
exist in world agricultural trade. Even with the Market Promotion 
Program, U.S. producers are being out-subsidized by their competitors, 
including the very aggressive member countries of the European Union. 
The United States Department of Agriculture has determined that the 
United States would have to increase its current funding of the MPP by 
approximately 500 to 600 percent in order to catch-up with the European 
Union in consumer food exports by the year 2000.
  The USDA recently concluded an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis of 
the MPP and the results are absolutely clear that a modest MPP Program 
greatly enables American agriculture to compete for high-value 
agricultural export markets.
  Mr. Chairman, competition for agricultural markets in bulk 
commodities, intermediate, and high-value products is a high-stakes 
battle for good paying jobs here in the United States. Because of 
agricultural export programs like MPP, the U.S. agricultural industry 
currently enjoys a $19 billion trade surplus. With the help of the MPP, 
U.S. high-value agricultural exports have expanded by 75 percent over 7 
years.
  However, statistics and studies about the MPP do not reveal its total 
value. As the chairman of the Asia and the Pacific
 Subcommittee, this Member witnesses daily the proliferation of 
nontariff barriers specifically designed to keep U.S. high value 
agricultural products out of developing markets. In Taiwan and Korea 
for example, MPP circumvents a host of trade barriers by creating 
consumer demand for United States products. This demand in turn leads 
to relaxation and reform of the tariff and nontariff barriers which 
deny consumers in those countries access to U.S. exports.

  Mr. Chairman, MPP is an important export tool and a good lesson for 
other export-related industries; MPP enables our agricultural industry 
to sell directly to the consumers of some of the world's most protected 
markets.
  This Member acknowledges that MPP is not perfect and agrees that 
certain reform of the MPP is necessary to ensure that it does not allow 
Federal dollars to replace rather than augment private sector market 
development efforts. Nevertheless, as the General Accounting Office has 
suggested, while reform of the program may be necessary, elimination of 
the program could substantially affect our ability to compete for 
lucrative and emerging markets throughout the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, here is the latest example of the bizarre 
sense of priorities prevailing in the House these days: Some of the 
same folks who have been arguing that this Government does not have 
enough money for school lunches are claiming that Ralston Purina and 
Fruit of the Loom should get more corporate welfare than ever before.
  It seems we do not have money to clean up toxic waste sites, or to 
provide Medicare to elderly people, or to help students with college 
loans. But we apparently have plenty of cash lying around to give 
McDonalds to advertise Chicken McNuggets in Europe.
  The truth is that in any year, the Market Promotion Program would be 
difficult to defend. But in this year when hundreds of efforts to help 
hard-working, middle-class families are being slashed or totally 
eliminated, it is simply astounding to see the Republican leadership 
actually increase this corporate giveaway program by $25 million 
taxpayer dollars.
  We could be spending this $110 million to pay the salaries of 5,817 
new police officers. Or we could pay for 56.1 million school lunches. 
Instead, we are going to engage in more business as usual: When it 
comes to tax breaks for the wealthy or corporate welfare for industry, 
there is no blank check the Republican leadership will not sign.
  The Market Promotion Program is an insult to taxpayers and working 
Americans, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 261, not voting 19, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 550]

                               AYES--154

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Burton
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cremeans
     Davis
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McHale
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wolf
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--261

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy

[[Page H7427]]

     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Abercrombie
     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Markey
     Meehan
     Moakley
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Stupak
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1542

  The clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Dreier for, with Mr. Quillen against.

  Messrs. FLAKE, BEILENSON, FLANAGAN, and Ms. LOFGREN changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TIAHRT, DAVIS, YATES, GEJDENSEN, WELDON of Florida, LAZIO of 
New York, GUTIERREZ, DELLUMS, STARK, and BAKER of California, Mrs. 
MALONEY, and Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follow:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 71, after line 5, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a market promotion program pursuant 
     to section 203 (7 U.S.C. 5623) of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 that provides assistance to organizations with annual 
     gross sales of $20,000,000 or more, unless it has been made 
     known to the official responsible for such expenditures that 
     the organization (a) is a cooperative owned by and operated 
     for smaller organizations that are members of the cooperative 
     or (b) would satisfy the Small Business Administration 
     standards for a small business.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
20, 1995, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The market promotion program is a program that is supposed to help 
provide funding for the promotion of U.S. agricultural products in 
foreign countries. Its original intent was to help the American farmer, 
I emphasize farmer, compete against heavily subsidized producers in 
Japan, Europe, and elsewhere.
  This amendment is very simple. This amendment does not cut any money 
from the program. It simply says that you qualify for this program only 
if you are considered a small business under SBA definition, if you are 
a company with less than 20 million in annual sales, or if you are a 
cooperative representing a large number of small producers or companies 
and would under qualify the Small Business Administration standards for 
small business.
  I have 10 top reasons for wanting to pass this amendment. They are as 
follows: Ernest & Julio Gallo received $6.9 million out of this program 
the last 2 years; Dole Corp., 2.4 million; Pillsbury, 1.75; Tyson 
Foods, 1.7; M&M Mars 1.5, Campbell Soups, 1.1; Seagrams, 793,000; 
Hershey's 738,000; Jim Beam Whiskey, 713; Ralston Purina, 434.
  As I said last night, I have nothing against any of those products. I 
enjoy every last one of those products, every last one of them. But I 
would simply, while I like them, I would simply like to know that I am 
not subsidizing them with my tax dollars. I am happy to purchase them, 
but I do not want to subsidize them.
  This amendment is not perfect, and I am sure opponents of it will 
find some reason to attack it for being imperfect, but I simply want to 
say to folks on both sides of this issue, to those like the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] who attacked this amendment during the 
discussion on the earlier bill, I would simply say this: Your amendment 
clearly overreached, but this is the only chance you have to send a 
signal to both the Committee on Agriculture and the Department that we 
want this program reformed.
  To those of you who, like me, represent farm districts and would like 
to see no change in this program, I would simply say, sooner or later, 
if you do not reform it, you are going to lose it. With the kind of 
budget squeeze coming at the American people, with the cuts we are 
making or being asked to make in Medicare, with the cuts that are being 
imposed on us for education, for health, for job training, we have no 
business giving corporations on this list money to subsidize the 
exports of their own products.
  I urge Members to support this amendment as a reasonable compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the now 
famous, powerful committee.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for 
yielding time to me. It is also good to see the gentleman from New 
Mexico. It is also good to hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] in his attempt here with this amendment to separate the wheat 
from the chaff and then try to export the chaff.
  I rise in opposition to his amendment. Look, here is what this is all 
about. This is not going to take very long.
  We must export high-value-added products. That is the future of 
agriculture program policy. The highest value ag products are branded 
products. These products are sold by brand loyalty.
  The European Union has that all figured out. They will not let some 
branded products in. Here we have a Member of Congress that does not 
want to let the branded products out.
  This amendment should be introduced in the Assembly of France or the 
Bundestag of Germany or the Parliament of maybe Great Britain. I have a 
better idea. What this is, basically, is just a revote on the previous 
amendment. You kill the branded products, you kill the program.
  If that is what you want to do, go ahead and we can have a revote. 
But if you are really excited about a generic product as opposed to the 
laundry list of big companies who do such a great job on behalf of our 
farmers and ranchers and every consumer here with exports, let us just 
put it in a brown paper bag.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would simply say, I am amused at the fact that some of the same 
Members in this House who will vote for a farm policy which will throw 
hundreds of thousands of small farmers over the cliff will bleed all 
over this floor for some of the largest corporations in this country.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
The 

[[Page H7428]]
able and brilliant author of this amendment has called it imperfect. I 
agree with him. It is imperfect. It has got two problems.
  One is substantive. First, if you outlaw the brands because of 
certain corporate receipts levels, then what they are going to do is 
set up another entity that has lower receipts to channel the funds 
through there.
  Also this, as the previous speaker said, should probably be handled 
by the World Trade Organization, the GATT language or whatever else. 
This is not the proper place to do it.
  The second problem with this amendment, though, is an inherent 
problem, and that is that the big dog does have the tendency to eat 
first and, yet, in that process the little bitty puppies also get some 
of the bone. How can you promote American hamburgers without McDonald's 
getting their share of the market? How can you promote American wine 
products without Gallo being a recipient of it?
  I think we have got these two problems in this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman. There is no need to rush it. This amendment does kill the 
MPP. Vote ``no''.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this amendment would 
preclude any corporation with more than $20 million in annual gross 
sales from participating in the program. How long are we going to hear 
about rich versus poor, big versus little?
  I would remind my colleagues, if you are looking for a job, do you 
turn it down because the company is too big? No. We are talking about 
jobs, good jobs. Larger companies often provide higher paying jobs with 
better benefits. Besides, these companies buy products from smaller 
companies.
  This program contributes to our positive agricultural trade surplus. 
Let us not divide and be conquered. Stand up for all American 
agriculture. Vote ``no'' on Obey.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, about the only agriculture I have in my 
district is at the swap meet. So this is not real big.
  And I know the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has good 
intentions in this thing. I grew up in Sheldon, MO, about 2,113 folks. 
I went back just a couple of months ago. Every single one of those 
farmers are having to work two and three jobs just to hang onto their 
farm. I think where you have a bigger organization that supports those 
organizations all the way down, I think we need to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment as 
strenuously as I did the prior amendment.
  We are talking competing country to country and small farmers in this 
country need large entities, in some cases, yes, corporations, to speak 
for them in the international marketplace.
  There is no question that the Europeans are spending much of their 
taxpayers' dollars to compete with us, 10 times as much. And when you 
eliminate the entities that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
read off in the well, you eliminate thousands of small farmers whose 
ability to play a role in the international marketplace would be 
totally eliminated.
  We have made it clear that small business has a priority in this 
program. These large entities will be using it less and less over time 
because promotions have a 5-year limit on them.
  What is most important for people to understand can best be 
understood in the context of the wine industry in our State.
  Yes, there are 101 wineries participating, 89 of them are small 
wineries. But when you look at it in detail, you will discover that the 
five largest harvest 90 percent of all the independently grown grapes 
in our State. They cannot succeed if this limitation is imposed.
  Please defeat the Obey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appear to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 229, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No 551]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     Cremeans
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McHale
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Studds
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--229

     Allard
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mica
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker

[[Page H7429]]

     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Abercrombie
     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Moakley
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Torricelli
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1613

  The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Dreier against.
       Mr. McDermott for, with Mr. Watts of Oklahoma against.

  Mr. TIAHRT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the 
amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 71, 
     after line 2, add the following new section:
       Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for the Market Promotion Program may be 
     used to promote the sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic 
     beverages.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
20, 1995, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
reduced to 5 and 5, 5 minutes on each side, and that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] be allowed to control the remainder of the time 
on my side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous ruling of the House and the agreement 
of the House, each side is given 10 minutes. We can, however, reach a 
consensus if both the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will yield back 5 minutes 
each.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, do we do that at the end 
of the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. the Chair will advise the gentleman, he can do it right 
now and preserve the other 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express concern about the 
proposed language contained in the Appropriations Committee report 
regarding the importation of Mexican avocados. This language is 
unnecessary and improperly seeks to create special procedural hurdles 
which the Secretary of Agriculture must overcome before determining 
whether to modify the embargo on Mexican avocado imports.
  Moreover, the proposed language seeks to preserve technical barriers 
to trade of the type that Washington apple growers have been fighting 
for decades in Japan, Mexico, and elsewhere. Only recently have 
consumers in these countries been able to enjoy our apples while our 
growers enjoy the economic benefits of free trade. The United States is 
the most competitive producer of agricultural products in the world. 
Accordingly, we should act to encourage our trading partners to 
dismantle their technical barriers to U.S. agricultural exports.


           the committee's special procedures are unnecessary

  The Department of Agriculture has been regulating agricultural 
imports successfully for over eighty years to protect American crops 
from the risks of imported pests or diseases. After extensive research 
and consultations with the Mexican authorities, the Department of 
Agriculture has now proposed a detailed plan under which avocados could 
be imported from one part of Mexico to the Northeastern United States, 
without risk to U.S. crops in the South or West. The Department has 
already held two public hearings on this issue and has scheduled five 
more hearings in August. Anyone interested in this issue may speak at 
one of the hearings or submit their views in writing. The Department 
will only decide whether to publish a final rule after considering all 
the views and evidence submitted.
  The proposed language would state that the House Appropriations 
Committee ``expects'' the Department of Agriculture to ``ensure 
scientific credibility on pest risk assessment and risk management'' 
and to ``ensure that industry is provided with an opportunity to 
provide input on any proposed regulatory changes.'' This language is 
simply unnecessary. The Department has already published a detailed 
explanation of its ``systems approach'' to eliminate any risks posed by 
avocado imports. Moreover, the ordinary procedures for rulemaking under 
the Administrative Procedure Act already ensure that the industry will 
have ample opportunity to express its views in writing and at the five 
scheduled hearings. To the extent that the proposed language can be 
read to encourage the Secretary to apply a higher standard in this case 
than the scientifically-based standards ordinarily used by the 
Department, the use of this higher standard is unjustified and 
discriminatory.
  The proposed language also suggests that the Secretary create an 
``independent peer review panel'' before modifying the embargo on 
Mexican avocados. In other words, the proposed language seeks to create 
a special procedure applicable to only one product, from only one 
country. To adopt the proposed language would be to say: ``For all 
other crops, from all other countries, the Department's ordinary 
procedures and standards are good enough to protect American crops. But 
for some reason, the Appropriations Committee believe that the 
Department of Agriculture's well-established procedures and standards 
cannot be trusted with regard to one product: Mexican avocados.''
  The committee language does not explain why these special, one-time-
only procedures and standards are necessary in this case. But the 
reasons are apparent: referring a well-studied matter to an 
``independent peer review panel'' is nothing but an attempt to further 
delay the import of Mexican avocados into the United States. The 
committee would cater to a special interest group at the expense of the 
American consumer by imposing delays and restrictions on the Secretary 
of Agriculture's ability to determine that continuing the embargo is 
scientifcally unjustified.


 the committee's approach would violate our trade commitments and harm 
                             u.s. interests

  Moreover, by encouraging the Department of Agriculture to delay the 
modification of an unjustified trade restriction, the proposed language 
would have the United States breach its obligations under two recent 
trade agreements: the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and 
the World Trade Organization [WTO]. Both of these agreements were 
approved by the Congress to promote economic growth in America, the 
region, and the world, and a committee of this House--particularly a 
committee which lacks jurisdiction over trade policy--should not 
lightly advocate breaches of these vital agreements.
  Both the NAFTA and the WTO contain provisions expressly addressing 
this type of trade restriction, which are known as ``phytosanitary 
measures.'' In particular, these rules prohibit the application of 
phytosanitary measures in a manner which either discriminates against 
the produce of one country or operates as a ``disguised restriction on 
trade.'' These rules were included at the insistence of the United 
States. The American negotiators pressed for international rules on 
phytosanitary measures to prevent other countries from using such 
measures as non-tariff barriers to agricultural products from the 
United States. As the world's largest exporter, the United States has 
the most to lose from trade barriers, including the overbroad use of 
phytosanitary measures. Japan and other countries have used excessively 
strict phytosanitary justifications to restrict U.S. agricultural 
exports that compete with their local products.
  It is simply inconsistent with U.S. interests to encourage other 
countries to delay changes to their trade restrictions by adopting 
special new procedures of the sort suggested by the Committee. You can 
rest assured that protectionists in other countries will be studying 
the Committee's language as a model for delaying access to their 
markets for U.S. apples, rice, and other agricultural exports, to the 
detriment of the American economy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from 
Utah, Mr. Jim Hansen, who has cosponsored the amendment with me, and I 
appreciate all the hard work he has put into it.


                          ____________________