[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13716-S13724]
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 Senate continued with consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2686

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from 
Nebraska in offering an amendment to increase funding for critically 
important rural development programs, offset by the elimination of the 
ad hoc cotton disaster provision included in this bill.
  The cuts required in this year's Agriculture appropriations bill are 
very difficult. Both the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an admirable job with 
this bill under very difficult budgetary circumstances.
  However, there is one major provision in this bill to which I must 
object, and that is the $41 million ad hoc cotton disaster provision. I 
find this provision inappropriate for two reasons:
  First, the cotton disaster provision is inappropriate in light of the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act just passed last year. With great 
fanfare, Congress passed crop insurance reform legislation to require 
farmers participating in USDA programs to buy federally subsidized crop 
insurance, to better prepare for unexpected crop losses. We all hailed 
the passage of this legislation as being the end to ad hoc crop 
disaster payments, representing a new era of fiscal responsibility.
  Despite the near unanimity of our decision to end ad hoc disaster 
payments, we stand here today debating whether or not to provide ad hoc 
disaster payments. We made a promise to the U.S. taxpayer last year, 
and I think we should keep it.
  The second reason that I find this disaster provision inappropriate 
is because of the painful cuts required elsewhere in the bill. At a 
time when core rural development programs are being cut by nearly 30 
percent from last year's level, providing $41 million in unauthorized 
disaster payments becomes even that much harder to accept.
  Mr. President, the choice we make regarding this amendment goes far 
beyond any specific crop loss for any specific commodity in any 
specific year. If we decide to allow this ad hoc disaster provision to 
remain in the bill, it will set a very bad precedent for crop insurance 
reform in general in the future.
  If this provision becomes law, each of us will feel compelled to push 
for ad hoc disaster assistance payments for crop losses every time our 
farmers have losses. And our short-lived experiment in fiscal 
responsibility will have failed.
  But we can choose the alternate course, and reject this provision and 
thereby keep the promise that we made to the taxpayers last year to end 
ad hoc disaster payments for crop losses.
  So I urge my colleagues to choose the latter course, and support this 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, how much time remains under the 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, the Senator from 
Mississippi has 17 minutes, and the Senator from Nebraska has 3 
minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am hopeful that Senators will look at the language of the committee 
amendment and recognize that we are not creating, by law, a new 
disaster assistance program. We are giving authority, however, to the 
Secretary of Agriculture to use his discretion, and if he feels that 
supplemental disaster assistance is justified under the circumstances, 
he has access to these funds to make such assistance available to 
cotton crop producers who are victims of one of the most devastating 
disasters that we have witnessed in the deep South.
  This is a disaster that has come upon us very quickly, without any 
warning. A lot of cotton farmers, as a matter of fact, had understood 
that the level of catastrophic crop insurance assistance would be about 
the same that usual disaster programs provide under circumstances that 
have become familiar to those in farming: weather-related disasters, 
floods, storms of various kinds. But, normally, weather-related 
disasters have triggered the availability of some kind of disaster 
assistance from the Federal Government.
  Relying upon that assurance, when the Secretary of Agriculture and 
this administration promoted this program and encouraged farmers to 
embrace the new crop insurance program--they were told that they would 
automatically be covered if they participated in the commodity 
programs--cotton producers, who were signed up for the program, about 
90 percent of them nationwide, almost 100 percent of them in this 
region, thought that in case of a natural disaster they would have some 
predictable level of coverage.
  But, as it has turned out, the coverage that is being made available 
is substantially less than that which had been provided under disasters 
that had been experienced in the past. What makes this disaster 
different is that farmers, upon seeing the prospective devastation in 
their crops, began adding more pesticides, getting clearance through 
the EPA for emergency clearance of new kinds of insecticides to try to 
cope with this menace. And even with the expenditures of huge sums of 
money, in some instances, it did not work and cotton crops were 
devastated. Many of those who suffered from this disaster will not be 
able to gin a single bale of cotton. There are many who have suffered 
huge yield losses.
  As the insertions that I had printed in the Record earlier in the day 
will clearly show, in our State it is estimated there will be over $100 
million in damages and losses. These are real losses to real people who 
have invested time, effort, and, over long periods of time, developed 
businesses and farms that now may be lost as a result of this 
infestation and the lack of response from our Government.
  It is my hope we will not just stand by and let this amendment be 
adopted and transfer these funds to other portions of this bill. I am 
hopeful the Congress will respond to this situation and give the 
Secretary the authority to do something for them. It does not say he 
has to, but it says if he feels it is justified, if the facts justify 
it, if the severity of the loss justifies it, if there is merit to the 
suggestion that the Government has a duty to respond to people in dire 
situations who cannot help themselves, the Secretary has the authority 
to do it. That is all this provision says.
  So, it disappoints me greatly that we are being asked to turn our 
backs on farmers who traditionally have been able to look to Congress 
as sort of the last court of appeal when they are in desperate straits. 
And they are. Many are--not all, but many are. Those who are need to 
have an opportunity to have their cases heard at the Department of 
Agriculture for additional and supplemental benefits under the crop 
insurance program.
  I am hopeful the Senate will agree to provide this opportunity for 
additional assistance. I do not know how far these funds will go. Mr. 
President, $41 million sounds like a lot of money, but if you look at 
all the States that are involved and all the acreage that is involved, 
this report we got from the extension service and the Department of 
Agriculture indicates the losses were substantial in our State and 
Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, and there were some 
losses in North Carolina and South Carolina as well--but in our State, 
160,000 acres have been either abandoned or have seriously reduced 
yields. In Texas, it is 500,000 acres; Alabama, 400,000; Georgia, 
300,000. These are huge amounts of land, where either no cotton is 
going to be harvested this year or very little will be harvested.
  So I am saying that this is an unusual circumstance. Not only are the 
losses being suffered, but huge expenditures have been made by many of 
these farmers to try to protect themselves in this situation. So it has 
doubled the loss. Not only did they incur losses because they will not 
get any return at all, they have expended more money trying to save the 
crop that they had, that was well underway, that looked 

[[Page S 13717]]
good, was going to produce a good crop up until just a few weeks ago.
  So I am suggesting that we look with a sympathetic heart upon the 
situation that we find ourselves in today and approve this committee's 
recommendation that these funds be made available if the Secretary 
thinks they can be used and that it is justified. And I hope he will 
find it is justified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have two arguments in response to the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  One, if we authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide disaster 
assistance for cotton, any Members who vote no on this amendment are 
going to find themselves at some point faced with another crop with a 
comparable disaster, saying, ``Can you do what you did for cotton last 
year?'' That is what is going to happen. There is no question in my 
mind. It has already happened to me. People have come to me. Just like 
the Senator said, people misunderstood what the catastrophic program 
was. They have come to me and said, ``We thought this thing covered 
more. We did not look at the fine print. They told us it was something 
different, and now I have a disaster. Can you provide ad hoc disaster 
relief on top of the crop insurance we expected to be there?''
  My answer has been, ``No, we have to work with crop insurance or let 
us get rid of it. If you do not like the crop insurance program and you 
want to go to Congress year in and year out when there are disasters 
and try to get money appropriated, let us do that. Let us just assume 
the program will not work.'' I think it can work, if the administration 
will appoint a corporate board of directors.
  Second, as to this catastrophic coverage, part of the problem here is 
that there are Government employees who attempted--in our judgment, too 
quickly--to assume responsibility that they knew what this bill was 
about and could inform people.
  The law is very clear. It is not like this thing is ambiguous. For 
former ASCS employees, who were describing what this program was, to 
misunderstand this one, it requires a pretty substantial stretch of the 
imagination to figure out how they did. Because it says right in the 
bill that catastrophic coverage is only going to cover 50 percent loss 
in yield on an individual yield or area yield basis, indemnified at 60 
percent of the expected market price.
  So the coverage was never intended to provide full coverage against 
disasters. It was always intended as a floor and that the individual 
who was out there trying to make a judgment should have to buy up. We 
have subsidized insurance available. They could pay more and buy up and 
get more coverage. The misunderstanding is in part a consequence of our 
wanting to maintain a system where the Government itself is operating 
the insurance program.
  So I hope, for reasons cited, Members will look very carefully at 
this. It is a difficult amendment because the distinguished Senator 
from Mississippi is very persuasive and very well liked and has put 
together an awfully good piece of legislation. But I promise Members 
they will find, if they vote no on this amendment, that they will have 
a difficult time voting no in the future.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I offer a brief comment. We might as well be 
voting up or down on this amendment. I think it is a mistake to say, 
``Let us leave it up to the Secretary of Agriculture.''
  If you leave it up to him, he is going to do it. He is going to do it 
because that is the way things work. He has to live every day with the 
distinguished head of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran. He has to deal 
with him on many matters all the time. He is not going to let this 
interfere. I am not being critical of him or Senator Cochran. It is 
just the way things work. So this decision to leave it up to him, we 
might as well say let us vote it because that is the way it will work.
  So I think we ought not to misunderstand what the nature of this 
amendment is and the nature of what Senator Cochran is requesting. It 
is really should we or should we not authorize the payment of $41 
million? Because that is exactly the way it will work. Of course, 
Senator Kerrey and I are suggesting it is an inappropriate thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am prepared to yield back the remaining time.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek to have the vote at this 
time rather than at 6:30?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am prepared to vote. I think everybody is. I ask 
unanimous consent that we proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure, since 
we notified Members earlier that it was 6:30. I do not want to have 
somebody get tied up in traffic. It is pretty lousy traffic out there. 
I would hate to notify everybody that it will be at 6:30, and then to 
yield 10 minutes. It seems like that may be a problem.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we all understand that, if you do not use 
the time and yield it back, the vote could occur earlier.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, unless there is some personal information 
that somebody is going to have trouble getting here, I am not prepared 
to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Mississippi to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Nebraska. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], 
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. 
Daschle], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from 
California [Ms. Feinstein], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], 
and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 439 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     DeWine
     Frist
     Gorton
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--10

     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gramm
     Mikulski
     Sarbanes
     Specter
  So, the motion to lay on the table, the amendment (No. 2686) was 
rejected.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
amendment. 

[[Page S 13718]]

  The amendment (No. 2686) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the majority leader has authorized me to 
announce that this was the last vote today. We do have a number of 
other amendments, though, under the agreement which we could consider 
and discuss tonight, and if recorded votes are required, we could have 
those votes occur tomorrow. We already have under an agreement an 
amendment on poultry regulations that is set for a time certain 
tomorrow under the agreement.
  There is an amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado, Senator 
Brown, on the peanut program that has the yeas and nays ordered, which 
will occur tomorrow. Other amendments are identified in this agreement 
which we could take up this evening and dispose of, some of them on 
voice vote maybe.
  We are prepared to consider all the amendments tonight if Senators 
will be here to offer them. So I encourage those who do have amendments 
to present them, offer them, let us discuss them and dispose of them, 
if we can. If rollcall votes are required, we will have those votes 
tomorrow.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have been told that Senator Bryan will 
be here within a minute or two to offer an amendment on the Market 
Promotion Program. It is an amendment he will offer on behalf of both 
of us.
  I ask unanimous consent that, since he is on his way and prepared to 
offer the amendment, his amendment be the next amendment in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I 
withhold that, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage my good friend, 
the senior Senator from Mississippi, in a colloquy concerning potato 
production in Alaska.
  Potatoes are one of the very few cash crops that can be grown 
successfully in Alaska because of the short growing season and cool 
weather. Because of the extreme climatic conditions in my State, most 
potato cultivars produced in the lower 48 States are not successful in 
Alaska. While the potatoes grow, they do not produce tubers for 
production in future years. However, the Canadians have experimented 
with some new varieties and have enjoyed tremendous results. 
Unfortunately, the Department's potato research program has not focused 
on the unique needs in extreme Arctic climates like Alaska.
  The Alaska Department of Agriculture has proposed a plan to use its 
clean environment for breeding these Canadian potato tubers for use in 
Alaska as well as West Virginia, New York, Colorado, and Maine. A clean 
breeding environment is required to prevent disease, but the Department 
already has a facility which can be used. Approximately $120,000 would 
be required to cover additional operational expenses.
  The State of Alaska's facility is the only State-operated plant 
materials center in the United States, and will be the only potato 
cultivar center in North America when the British Columbia facility 
closes down its operation. The Alaska Materials Center successfully 
handles 120 northern climate varieties of potatoes, and has been virus 
free for its entire 10 years of operations. This center has the 
potential to provide disease-free stock for the other 400 varieties of 
potatoes grown in North America.
  The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee provided $707 
million for the Agriculture Research Service including a number of 
increases to address specific agricultural issues. The Senate report 
includes specific language directing the Agriculture Research Service 
to work with the National Potato Council to address disease problems in 
the lower 48 States.
  Since the Agriculture Research Service is already engaged in potato 
research, I ask the chairman of the subcommittee whether the necessary 
funds could be provided to produce the Canadian potato for use in cold 
climates in the United States in addition to the work it will do this 
year on addressing disease problems in the lower 48 States?
  Mr. COCHRAN. As the Senator from Alaska noted, the subcommittee did 
address the potato disease issue, but was not aware of the unique 
problem in Alaska. I am pleased to learn that a tuber has been 
developed that would be successful in Alaska, and agree that the 
Service should address this unique need of cold-climate States.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for 
the purpose of trying to establish an agreement on time on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. I would be pleased to do so. With respect to this 
amendment that the distinguished floor leader is aware of, Senator 
Bumpers and I will want to have some time tonight and just a small 
amount tomorrow before the vote. It is not our purpose to prolong this. 
I would be willing to agree, subject to the agreement of the Senator 
from Arkansas, to an hour on this amendment, to be divided equally.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Would 10 minutes tomorrow before the vote be sufficient?
  Mr. BRYAN. Let me inquire of the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator from Arkansas has indicated that he agrees 
to that.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour, equally divided, on the 
amendment to be offered by the Senators from Nevada and Arkansas 
tonight, and then tomorrow, 10 minutes before the vote on or in 
relation to this amendment, equally divided.
  Mr. BRYAN. Would the Senator be willing to make that 15 minutes, 
equally divided?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I so modify my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is always gracious in accommodating his 
colleague, when I suspect that the Senator may not agree with the 
thrust of the enlightened Bryan-Bumpers amendment that is just about to 
be unveiled on the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2691

   (Purpose: To eliminate funding for the Market Promotion Program )

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself and Mr. 
     Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 2691.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 65, line 18, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this Act may be used to carry out the 
     market promotion program established under section 203 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623)''.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I told the Members of the Senate that 
there is a program that has cost the American taxpayers a billion 
dollars, much of that money going to the largest corporations in 
America, and that there is no evidence it works, in this time of budget 
constraints, one would think that Members of this body on both sides of 
the political aisle would say, ``Senator, show me where that is; that 
is one cut that surely we can agree to.''
  Mr. President, you would be wrong if you made that assumption. If I 
further 

[[Page S 13719]]
asserted that there is a program which is currently slated in this 
budget proposal at $110 million, that has been denounced by such groups 
as the Cato Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Heritage 
Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, the Center for Science in the 
Public Interest, Citizens against Government Waste, Citizens for a 
Sound Economy, the Concord Coalition Citizens Council, the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, surely, Mr. President, you might think this is an 
arrangement that has been made in Heaven, and we should have those on 
the right and those in the political center all in agreement that a 
program costing the American taxpayers $110 million ought to be 
eliminated.
  Mr. President, you would be wrong, because this program continues to 
survive. If I put this in the context that at a time when this Congress 
is cutting money for the National Park Service, school-to-work 
programs, vocational education, elderly housing, and countless hundreds 
of other programs that help needy Americans, who help us to advance our 
abilities to enjoy public recreational facilities in America, that 
would make it even all the more unbelievable that there is a program 
out there that survives.
  This program, Mr. President, not only survives, but earlier this year 
when we were considering the supplemental budget, it was increased from 
an $85 million to a $110 million program.
  By now I suppose some are saying, ``Tell me, Senator, what is this 
program? What is this program that seems to survive when those who are 
thoughtfully considering the function and role of the Federal 
Government, both in the center and on the right, all agree that it 
ought not to exist? It has cost us $1 billion that goes to some of the 
wealthiest corporations in America. Tell me what this program is. Let 
me have a chance to cast my vote to kill it.''
  This program, Mr. President, is the Market Promotion Program. As the 
distinguished occupant of the chair knows, because he has been 
supportive over the years in our efforts, this is a program that 
continues to survive and, as I say, even prosper in this, a year when 
budget austerity is supposedly the order of the day.
  Let me tell you some of the companies that receive this money. For 
fiscal years 1993 and 1994, here are some of the companies that have 
received taxpayer funds for the Market Promotion Program.
  Before stating exactly what these companies have received, I think a 
word of explanation about this program: Ostensibly, presumably, the 
underlying premise of this program is that by providing taxpayers' 
dollars to advertising budgets of companies that deal with the overseas 
promotion of American agricultural products, that somehow--somehow--
that will increase our agricultural exports.
  I acknowledge, Mr. President, that is a noble goal. I am fully 
supportive of efforts to increase our agricultural exports overseas.
  This is a program that is part of a larger budget picture in which, 
as the General Accounting Office has pointed out, the entire Federal 
Government spends about $3.5 billion annually on export promotion--$3.5 
billion.
  While agricultural products account for only 10 percent of total U.S. 
exports, the Department of Agriculture receives and spends about $2.2 
billion, or 63 percent of the total.
  I do not believe that it can be argued that we are being 
unnecessarily penurious in providing money to promote agricultural 
products abroad. The Department of Commerce, by way of contrast, spends 
about $236 million annually on trade promotion.
  Let me return to the beneficiaries of this program.
  Your tax dollars are going to some of the largest and most successful 
corporations in America to be added to their advertising budgets. Here 
is an example of the kind of companies that receive this generous 
largess from the Federal taxpayers.
  Ernest & Julio Gallo. Fine products. I can attest to that. Mr. 
President, $7.9 million go to Gallo wines to assist in their 
advertising budgets. Now, certainly Ernest & Julio Gallo, great success 
stories, ought to be able to finance, without the benefit of Federal 
tax dollars, their own advertising programs.
  The Dole people, $2.4 million; Pillsbury, the little doughboy, $1.75 
million; Tysons Food, the chicken people, $1.7 million; M & M/Mars, 
$1.5 million.
  Let me say, lest the thought be that somehow the Senator from Nevada 
is picking on programs that do not have any recipients or beneficiaries 
in his State and, therefore, it is kind of easy for him to take a cheap 
shot at others, I remind my colleagues that more than 2 years ago on 
the floor this Senator took the lead in eliminating an equally 
outrageous program, the wool and mohair subsidy, in which there are a 
number of Nevada ranchers that received this largess, as I characterize 
it, for a period of some 39 years, from 1954 to 1993. I led the charge 
to eliminate that abomination in our Federal expenditure system.
  I point out that M & M/Mars has a factory in Las Vegas, a wonderful 
product. They are not, in my judgment, entitled to get into the 
American taxpayers' pocket for $1.5 million.
  Campbell soups, $1.1 million; Seagrams, $793,000; Hershey, $738,000; 
Jim Beam whiskey, $713,000; and Ralston Purina, $443,000. Mr. 
President, this is only a part of the $110 million that has currently 
been appropriated to go to companies of this size. It is an outrage.
  The General Accounting Office has examined this program and done a 
study to assert its effectiveness. Let me share with my colleagues what 
its conclusions are.
  It goes on to say that there are many problems with the MPP program, 
the Market Promotion Program, one of which is that there is no 
strategic planning. The USDA lacks overall guidance or priorities. To 
date, listen to this, there is no solid measure of success or a way to 
evaluate how the money is spent.
  I think that is a pretty compelling argument, Mr. President, to 
eliminate the program. Moreover, it is not clear who should get the 
funds. There are no strict guidelines about the size or type of company 
that will receive these funds. I have mentioned some of the larger 
corporations. But in addition to those that are depicted, McDonald's, 
the hamburger people, Sun Maid, Welch's, among others, are also some of 
the largest recipients of this funding.
  I think the American taxpayers, when shared sacrifice appears to be 
the clarion call of the day, want to ask themselves why are 
corporations of this size not being asked to do their bit in reducing 
the level of Federal expenditures? A sacrifice that simply requires 
them to say, ``Look, we are not going to take Federal taxpayers' 
dollars to supplement our own advertising accounts. We will do that job 
on our own. Nobody knows better than we do how to market. Nobody knows 
better how to advertise our programs and our products than we do. We do 
not need and we are not going to accept Federal dollars.''
  This program continues on. Moreover, as the GAO concluded, ``There is 
no proof that these funds do not simply replace funds that would 
already have been spent on advertising anyway.''
  Let me make that point clear: In effect, what the GAO is saying is 
that there is no way in which they can assert that this $7.9 million 
that Ernest & Julio Gallo, the group on the top of the list for fiscal 
year 1993 and 1994, has not simply slid dollars out of the corporation 
treasury that would have gone to the advertising budget and just simply 
said, look, we will release those with $7.9 million that the Federal 
Government is going to give us and direct that $7.9 million down the 
profit line to be distributed to the shareholders of that company. In 
effect, this program, like its predecessor, the TEA--the Targeted 
Export Assistance Program--has become a convenient source of free cash 
for wealthy businesses to help pay for their overseas advertising 
budgets.

  Mr. President, I argue forcefully and implore my colleagues, whatever 
their previous voting record may have been--is it not time to eliminate 
this program? Whatever its justification may have been in the past, is 
this not a new era? I compliment Members on both sides of the aisle who 
have taken the lead to support a budget amendment to the Constitution, 
to require the President of the United States to submit a balanced 
budget and the Congress to require a balanced budget. I am a supporter 
of that effort. 

[[Page S 13720]]

  I support the target of 2002 or 2003, whatever it might be, to 
achieve that balanced budget. Presumably, these kinds of pronouncements 
herald a new era of Government spending in Washington.
  But, if we allow these kinds of programs, corporate welfare, pork for 
the wealthiest corporations in America, to continue, what kind of 
message do we send to the American people? I will tell you. The message 
is, it is business as usual. If you are a big corporation and have 
influence in high places and have access to the right kind of people, 
even though we are cutting the programs for the poor, the elderly, and 
those who do not have influence in high places in Washington--but these 
programs can be protected.
  These are good citizens, good corporate citizens. They make important 
contributions in their communities and in this country, I am sure. I 
would think they would be shamed and embarrassed to reach out there at 
a time when we are trying, struggling to balance this budget.
  I offer no criticism of my colleagues who have had to wrestle with 
some of these tough decisions in the money committees. It is not easy. 
I may disagree with them on some of their priorities. But it is 
difficult. There is no magic wand that can be waved. We cannot simply 
say let us eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse and we can balance the 
budget. It requires tough and hard decisions.
  Nobody has encouraged the Congress to do this more than some of the 
leading business people in America, the kind of people who are chief 
executive officers for these companies. I think they ought to stand up 
and say, ``You know, you are right. We ought to do our share, too. From 
here on out we will simply pay for our own advertising budget. You 
return those dollars--$110 million--you return those to the Treasury 
and let us let that money be used to help reduce the deficit.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not know what year this is in my 
crusade to torpedo this program. The Senator from Nevada and I--I think 
this is the third year we have teamed up. But, if I am not mistaken, I 
was opposed to the program even before that.
  Though I yield to nobody in the Senate in my commitment to a viable 
agricultural economy--but, when I think of all the long-winded, endless 
speeches that are made on the floor of the U.S. Senate about welfare 
deadbeats, which we are going to vote on tomorrow; we are talking about 
eliminating the earned income tax credit, which is the greatest 
antiwelfare provision we have ever adopted--we are talking about 
cutting it dramatically. We are cutting funds for the arts, the 
humanities. We are cutting public broadcasting. We are cutting 
education. We are at least $3 billion short on child care. We are 
talking about cutting Medicare $270 billion between now and the year 
2002, and cutting Medicaid, health care for poorest of the poor, by 
$240 billion over the next 7 years.
  And here is a piece of corporate welfare, unexcelled--I want to say 
in the history of this Senate. I have not been here quite that long, so 
I am reluctant to make that claim. But you think about the U.S. 
Government subsidizing, really in small amounts, by their standards, 
something to advertise their product abroad so they can export more.
  I look at this chart, prepared by the Senator from Nevada. I see 
Ernest & Julio Gallo, Seagrams, Jim Beam--of the top 10 companies here, 
three of them alcoholic beverages. Even though this is a $110 million 
program this year, in the past it has been bigger, and we put in a 
total of $85 million to advertise alcoholic beverages abroad.
  Can you see Ernest & Julio Gallo advertising to the Italians why they 
should drink American wine? To the French why they should drink 
American wine? What are we doing, giving Ernest & Julio Gallo $8 
million? I think that is a privately held company--my guess is it is 
probably a $5 or $10 billion corporation.
  McDonald's? I do not know what McDonald's annual sales are. I guess 
they are probably approaching the $15 billion mark, and we give them $3 
or $4 million? That is probably less than one-tenth of 1 percent of 
their advertising budget, and we say, ``Sic 'em, tiger, go advertise 
Big Mac and McNuggets all over the world.'' Not only are the amounts we 
give piddling amounts, the General Accounting Office says there is no 
relevance to the amount of money we give them and the results. So why 
do we continue with this?
  How does a U.S. Senator go home and talk to a hometown Chamber of 
Commerce and tell them, ``If you just reelect me, I will spend my money 
as though it were yours?''
  If you let that Senator and me go before that same Chamber of 
Commerce, I promise you, they will threaten to impeach him before it is 
over, for squandering $110 million on such programs as this.
  People are supposed to graduate from this program, too, did you know 
that? I think, as we lawyers say, ``since the memory of man runneth 
not,'' nobody has ever graduated. They just keep hanging on.
  Mr. President, one thing that is a little painful about this is there 
are some big corporations who have big presences in my State who get 
this money. And it always saddens me, it always saddens me to go to the 
floor and attack something that is at least mildly beneficial to some 
of the corporate citizens in my State.
  You know, not only is this an utter waste of the $110 million, $12 
million goes to foreign corporations. They are not even American 
corporations. You know, I am not xenophobic about my nationality. But 
what on Earth are we doing spending $12 million on foreign corporations 
so they can advertise abroad?
  Not only is this an absolute, utter waste; not only do we have no 
business putting $110 million into the pockets of these gigantic 
corporations in America when we are cutting the most vulnerable among 
us, poorest of the poor--even cutting education, the elderly through 
Medicare, the poor through Medicaid, the poor through the earned income 
tax credit--and then just knowingly hand out $110 million--not only is 
it corporate welfare, it is wrong.
  And it is not only morally wrong, it is wrong for the U.S. Senate to 
be picking winners and losers. There are other wineries. I have a few 
wineries in my State that would like to have a little of that Ernest & 
Julio Gallo money. Who decided to give it to Ernest & Julio Gallo 
instead of some of the wineries in my State? Tyson Foods, as big as 
they are, we have 11 major integrated poultry companies in my State. 
You know we are big in that business, No. 1.
  When it comes to even the whiskey business, who decides that Jim Beam 
and Seagrams are the two brands that should be advertised abroad? I am 
not picking on them. If I were in their company and I saw this money 
lying around and I knew I could get a piece of it by simply applying 
for it, I would probably apply.
  Of the battles fought in the 20 years I have been in the Senate, 
there have been a couple of others that I feel as strongly about as 
this one. But I cannot tell you how wrong I feel this is. I do not feel 
this is just an economic matter. I feel it is utterly, absolutely 
indefensible, and we ought to stop it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program has as its 
objective meeting foreign competition, boosting agricultural exports, 
strengthening farm income, and creating American jobs.
  Every billion dollars in agriculture exports helps create nearly 
20,000 jobs. Nearly 1 million Americans today have jobs that are 
dependent upon U.S. agricultural exports. Exports this year from the 
United States into the international marketplace are expected to reach 
almost $50 billion in value. Farmers and ranchers, as well as American 
workers, are the real beneficiaries of this program.
  The arguments on the other side that are being made tonight would 
have you believe that corporate America is the beneficiary, that 
certain specific companies--they mentioned Gallo Wine, and McDonald's--
are the beneficiaries of these programs. It is the American working man 
and woman, the American citizen, who benefits when our economy is 
strong, when we compete in the international marketplace and 

[[Page S 13721]]
when we sell more of what we produce in overseas markets than we 
import. We need to do a better job.
  We have a trade deficit right now. We are confronted with some new 
rules under the Uruguay round of GATT, under other trade agreements 
that heighten and make more competitive the international marketplace, 
heighten competition between the European Community, for example, and 
the United States. It involves other countries, too, who are competing 
for their share of this international market--Canada, Australia, and 
the Asian countries, that are emerging as strong competitors in many of 
these industries.
  So what does the Market Promotion Program really do? It gives the 
money to associations of those who market products. The U.S. Poultry 
and Egg Council is just one example. When Senators were talking about 
McDonald's getting this money, I have a memo in here that talks about 
that point. This is a memorandum from the president of the Poultry and 
Egg Export Council, U.S.A. They say specifically:

       Our council has used MPP to help McDonald's sell more 
     American chicken but not to promote McDonald's. The facts are 
     that McDonald's franchises in other countries are foreign 
     owned and operated. They are under no obligation to buy U.S. 
     poultry or eggs, and can readily find lower-priced (and 
     lower-quality) product in those countries. But by allowing 
     McDonald's to apply for and receive funds under MPP requires 
     their franchises to be entirely supplied with U.S. products. 
     The point is we are not promoting McDonald's. We are getting 
     McDonald's to advertise U.S. chicken and eggs, and it has 
     been quite effective. In fact, the State of Arkansas has 
     likely benefited more from this activity than any other 
     State.

  So what we learned by getting the facts from the Poultry and Egg 
Export Council is that it was this council that applied for and 
received funds under the Market Promotion Program, not McDonald's. The 
council was allocated the funds to promote U.S. poultry and egg 
products in the international market. McDonald's uses poultry and eggs 
in its outlets, but they do not have to use U.S. poultry and eggs in 
overseas outlets.
  That is the whole point. But because this program has been helpful, 
we have sold more U.S.-produced and processed poultry and eggs in 
overseas markets that we would otherwise would not have sold, they tell 
us in this memo, without this program.
  They mentioned the wine industry. I happened to find out the other 
day--and here is an interesting fact to contemplate--that the European 
Union spends more on wine exports, subsidizing, encouraging the export, 
than the United States currently spends for all commodities under the 
Market Promotion Programs. The number is $89 million just for wine 
exports from the European Union. That is why when you would go into a 
grocery store around here, or anywhere where wines are sold, and you 
look at the French wines or some of the other European wines, you are 
amazed at how low the prices are compared to the domestic wines. That 
is why.
  The European Union governments are putting their money together, and 
they are expanding their share of the market aggressively by reducing 
those prices to American consumers. This is the biggest market in the 
world.
  So foreign companies and foreign countries are joining forces as they 
have never done before to try to capture a larger share of this market. 
Who suffers? Well, our consumers enjoy lower prices because of this 
competition with lower priced products. But our domestic food and 
beverage industries, our poultry producers, those who are involved in 
agriculture production, are having a hard time meeting this competition 
on a price basis because we do not subsidize these industries as they 
sell in this market. And we have a small amount available under 
legislation that authorizes funds to be made available to help promote 
the sale of U.S. farm commodities and U.S.-packaged foods and other 
commodities that are eligible under this program.
  As the competition becomes keener under these international 
agreements, more and more countries, more and more industries are going 
to be competing and doing it more aggressively.
  The GATT Agreement under the Uruguay round changes does not outlaw or 
abolish or make illegal subsidies. It makes changes in which subsidies 
are to be used and which cannot be used. It talks about trade-
distorting subsidies. But we are finding that Canada, Australia, the 
European Union certainly, are building their funds to embark upon much 
more aggressive marketing programs and promotion programs than they 
ever have before.
  Here we are being asked tonight to abandon ourselves, to say to the 
U.S. Government, ``Quit helping U.S. industry, quit helping U.S. 
farmers, quit helping U.S. ranchers promote the sale of what they are 
producing in the international marketplace.''
  I think we ought to wait a minute and not be stampeded by arguments 
like we are helping corporate America with welfare benefits. This is 
helping those who are working in the poultry industry in Arkansas, in 
Mississippi, and in other places.
  They are not targeting McDonald's for benefits. We are seeing these 
funds used to promote a wide range of activities in the international 
market.
  I was looking at a list of these firms and these associations. And 
these groups of farmers, many of them are cooperatives. The National 
Cotton Council has a memo here which talks about the impact of this 
program in promoting the sale of cotton and cotton fiber throughout the 
country. ``Value added creates jobs.'' And they are talking about the 
fact that some of these funds are used in name-brand advertising.
  Most of the money is used for generic advertising of American 
commodities. But they find that the best way in some markets to ensure 
increased export sales of U.S.-grown-and-produced commodities is 
through branded promotions. This is what the studies have shown. This 
is what the experience shows.
  And so those who criticize the program on that basis are ignoring the 
success that the program has enjoyed in using branded promotion. But 
even so, 40 percent of the funds for branded promotions involved small 
businesses. The market promotion program, we are told by the experts at 
the Department of Agriculture and those who participated in the 
program, has served as an incentive to buy American-grown-and-produced 
agriculture commodities and related products. Without MPP, companies in 
overseas markets would likely buy from often subsidized foreign sources 
rather than from the United States.
  So those who are making clothes in Asia, they do not have to buy U.S. 
cotton. They can buy cotton that is produced in Uzbekistan or the Sudan 
or any number of countries around the world where cotton is grown and 
sold. And they are trying to sell it at prices less than we can sell 
it. And if we can convince them through the advertising of facts about 
the quality of our product that it is better, it is longer lasting, it 
is more durable, it is more comfortable if you have clothes made with 
U.S. cotton, then we are going to sell more. But if we sit on our hands 
and we do not promote what is good about American products and what is 
good about American agriculture, nobody is going to know about it. We 
know about it. But we have to be aggressive and we have to promote and 
protect our job interests, our economic interests, in this competitive 
international market.
  So to criticize the program and say let us just abolish it --that is 
what this amendment does. They did not say let us just reduce it or let 
us change it in some way. Let us just abolish it. That is what this 
amendment says. I think it is shortsighted. I think it misses the 
point. I think it fails to recognize the successes we have had in the 
past and the importance of our continuing an aggressive marketing 
strategy on behalf of our farmers and ranchers, those involved in these 
food industries and clothing industries where U.S. agricultural 
commodities are used.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi reserves the 
remainder of his time.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Not to belabor the point, my colleague from Mississippi and I--I 
think it is fair to say we have a disagreement on the value of this 
program. I know the hour is late, but I hope that a number of Senators' 
offices are still tuned in. 

[[Page S 13722]]

  One of the best articles that I have read on this MPP program was 
printed recently in the Los Angeles Times, Sunday edition, June 25, 
1995. I think it is a matter of about seven or eight pages. I implore 
my colleagues, or at least their staff, just read that article. Just 
read that article. It quotes both those who support the program and 
those who criticize it.
  My good friend from Mississippi mentions the good folks at 
McDonald's, the hamburger people. Let me just say to him and the rest 
of my colleagues, I enjoy a Big Mac. I am a hamburger man. In fact, 
just this summer while we were on tour through our State I ran across a 
McDonald's manager who had a McDonald's tie on. It shows the Big Mac, 
the French fries. I said, ``I've got to have that tie.'' I am a Big Mac 
kind of a guy. So my comments are not directed with any sense of malice 
or hostility, but simply as one trying to do justice to the American 
taxpayer.
  McDonald's, the hamburger people, are good folks. I wish I had been 
as smart as Ray Kroc. And I wish I had been that smart to put together 
this impressive enterprise. Most folks of this generation think it has 
gone on forever. It has lasted only about 40 years, and it has been an 
incredible success. I pay great tribute to the entrepreneurship and the 
vision of folks that thought, ``By golly, we can change the fast food 
business in America,'' and we can do it in a way that McDonald's has 
been eminently successful. Let me comment on the success. And I know my 
distinguished colleague who joins me in arms, the Senator from 
Arkansas, may want to add his comments, also.
  McDonald's, which has received $1.6 million in this program since 
1986--that is when the Targeted Export Assistance Program, which is the 
progenitor to MPP, was in existence; it is the same program 
essentially--has received $1.6 million. Remember, this is to supplement 
one's advertising account.
  McDonald's had a net profit in 1994 of $1.224 billion--$1.224 
billion. You know, whether you are to the left of Mao Tse-tung or to 
the right of Genghis Khan, wherever you fit yourself on the political 
scale, if you accept the premise that Federal tax dollars are finite, 
they are not inexhaustible, there ought to be some priorities.
  How, good Lord, can you say, McDonald's with a net profit of $1.224 
billion ought to be able to get into this program? You know what they 
spent in 1994 in advertising? $694.8 million. And yet the American 
taxpayer is supplementing the good folks of McDonald's who make those 
great hamburgers and French fries that so many of us enjoy.
  Let me just give you the cumulative impact of this. The top corporate 
recipients of this money from 1986 to 1994: Sunkist Growers, 
$76,375,000. In a different era and in a different context the great 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen used to say, ``A million here, a 
million there. Before long you will be talking about real money.'' Let 
me suggest, Mr. President, to our colleagues that $76 million is more 
money than 99.9 percent of the people in America will ever see in their 
lifetime--ever see.
  The Blue Diamond Growers, they do not do too badly, $37,338,000. 
Sunsweet Growers, $22 million. I am rounding these numbers off. And our 
good friend, Ernest & Julio Gallo, the winery folks--this was not an 
aberration, this 1993-1994 number; they have this program down; whoever 
is doing this good work for them obviously deserves a lot of credit--
they have gotten $23 million since 1986. Sun-Maid Growers of 
California, $12 million; Tyson Foods, $11 million; Pillsbury Company, 
$11 million.
  I do not quarrel with the proposition that my good friend from 
Mississippi argues when he says, look, we do need to support American 
agricultural promotions. But, Mr. President, not in this fashion, not 
when there is not one scintilla of objective evidence where GAO and 
other groups can make the proposition stick that this is a program that 
works.
  Moreover, its premise is flawed: Money to supplement advertising 
budgets that ought to be the responsibility of the private sector, for 
branded products, some of the largest companies not only in America but 
in the world at a time when we are desperately struggling to balance 
this budget.
  My friend from Arkansas used the word ``indefensible,'' and I think 
that sums it up.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article appearing in 
the Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1995, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1995]

                       Thank You for Your Support

                 (By John M. Broder and Dwight Morris)

       No other government program may generate such universal 
     scorn as an obscure Agriculture Department office that pays 
     highly profitable agribusiness concerns millions of dollars a 
     year to promote Sunsweet prunes in Taiwan, low-shelf Gallo 
     wines in Europe, Chicken McNuggets in Singapore, Kentucky 
     whiskey in Scotland and bull semen in South America.
       But as Congress prepares to chop away at billions of 
     dollars in spending for health care, space exploration and 
     school lunches, the USDA's Market Promotion Program is 
     gliding through the budget process unscathed, enjoying 
     bipartisan congressional and White House support despite 
     years of controversy over its worth.
       In fact, during the debate this spring over $16 billion in 
     cuts from the current federal budget, Congress voted to 
     increase the program's funding by almost 30%, from $85 
     million to $110 million.
       The MPP's defenders say that's a piddling sum for a program 
     that helps American farmers compete against heavily 
     subsidized producers in Japan, Europe and elsewhere.
       Its opponents, ranging from the Heritage Foundation on the 
     right to Ralph Nader on the left, vilify the program as pure 
     pork (almost literally--the U.S. Meat Export Federation got 
     $7.2 million in 1994) and an example of corporate welfare at 
     its worst.
       The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of 
     Congress, calls the program poorly run and of questionable 
     value; the Congressional Budget Office perennially lists it 
     among the prime candidates for extinction.
       And year after year, the Market Promotion Program survives, 
     championed most actively by California lawmakers, who gave 
     birth to the program a decade ago and who receive campaign 
     contributions from the California fruit, nut and wine 
     producers that are among the program's prime beneficiaries.
       The MPP, originally designed as a response to the unfair 
     trade practices of other governments, has grown over the 
     years into a program that provides a lucrative bounty for 
     producers of everything from soup (Campbell Soup Co., 
     $515,651 in 1994) to nuts (the California Pistachio 
     Commission, $1.15 million).
       Early critics derided the program as ``walking-around money 
     for Californians,'' because it was sponsored by then-Sen. 
     Pete Wilson (now California governor) and then-Rep. Leon E. 
     Panetta (now White House chief of staff) to help the state's 
     producers get a place at an agricultural aid trough long 
     dominated by the big corn, wheat and soybean farmers of the 
     Midwest and Great Plains.
       As the program grew, it took in growers, processors and 
     shippers in all 50 states and virtually every congressional 
     district--which helps explain its ability to survive in 
     difficult fiscal times. Its tenacity also bears testimony to 
     how difficult it will be to bring the $1.5-trillion federal 
     budget into balance, despite new bipartisan zeal to do so.
       Programs that serve powerful constituencies and enjoy well-
     financed corporate support--from subsidies for corps to tax 
     breaks for oil and gas drilling--are among the most 
     entrenched parts of the federal budget, having resisted 
     repeated efforts to repeal them. These benefits amount to an 
     estimated $50 billion a year, or about a tenth of the 
     discretionary portion of the budget.
       Farm programs have proved particularly resistant to budget 
     surgery, combining as they do the romantic appeal of the 
     family farmer, the political clout of a major industry and 
     their importance to the economies of many states and 
     communities. Add to that the bogymen of subsidy-happy 
     Japanese and Europeans--whose government backing is often 
     cited as a reason to keep U.S. farm programs--and the 
     durability of costly undertakings such as the MPP becomes 
     understandable.
       ``Everything about this program is wrong. We should junk 
     this disastrous program and save the taxpayer some money,'' 
     said Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), a longtime MPP foe who 
     represents one of the least agriculture-dependent states in 
     the union. ``The amount of our national debt does not give us 
     the luxury to fund this fatally flawed program that has no 
     proven benefit for American agriculture.''
       In the end, the way this collision of forces affects the 
     range of federal subsidies will help determine whether the 
     overall budget-balancing campaign is successful this time 
     around--and also whether the pain inflicted is judged to have 
     been borne fairly across society.
       Gus Schumacher, head of the USDA's Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, which oversees the MPP, defends the program. He 
     notes that the European Union spends more each year to 
     promote overseas sales of French, German and Italian wines 
     than the U.S. government spends on all of its agricultural 
     advertising.

[[Page S 13723]]

       Schumacher describes the subsidy as an inexpensive weapon 
     in the international competition in high-value agricultural 
     products, which is the fastest-growing sector in global 
     trade.
       ``This is not the time to get weak-kneed about American 
     agricultural exports,'' Schumacher said. ``It's time to stand 
     up to our competitors. What are we supposed to do, 
     unilaterally disarm?''
       Schumacher acknowledged that corporate giants such as E & J 
     Gallo Winery Inc., Sunkist Growers Inc. and Dole Food Co.--
     all California-based--and Pillsbury Co., Tyson Foods Inc. and 
     others have received millions of dollars from the government 
     over the years to supplement their own very large advertising 
     budgets. But, he said, critics forget that the grapes, 
     prunes, tangerines, flour and chickens marketed by big 
     agribusiness are grown by thousands of small farmers across 
     the country.
       William K. Quarles, Sunkist's vice president for corporate 
     relations, defended the MPP as an appropriate response to 
     foreign competitors, who spend far more than the United 
     States on agricultural promotion. Sunkist uses the program to 
     increase its advertising in countries--particularly those in 
     Asia--it as already targeted as fruitful markets, not to pry 
     open new countries, he said.
       ``The federal program acts as a multiplier to what we would 
     be doing,'' Quarles said. ``In all the countries we're in, we 
     would be doing some advertising, but with federal monies we 
     increase that advertising and create additional demand.''
       He also said Sunkist is required to match the federal funds 
     on a dollar-for-dollar basis and that its exports create jobs 
     in California for thousands of packers, pickers, truckers, 
     and longshoremen,
       The participating corporations have made sure they have a 
     receptive audience for their side of the story. Since 1984, 
     Springdale, Ark.-based Tyson has contributed more than 
     $988,000 to political campaigns through its political action 
     committee and through direct contributions by its executives. 
     Executives of Modesto-based E & J Gallo poured more than 
     $750,000 into federal campaigns over the same period.
       Over the past decade, the 10 largest Market Promotion 
     Program recipients have also made political contributions 
     totaling $166,000 to Rep. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento) and 
     $105,000 to Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), both key 
     supporters of the program.
       The General Accounting Office and other critics say the big 
     food companies can afford to promote their own products and 
     that the government has no business spending the public's 
     money to reimburse them.
       Bryan noted that McDonald's Corp.--which received $1.6 
     million in MPP funds from 1986 to 1994--had a $1.224-billion 
     net profit in 1994 while spending $694.8 million on 
     advertising worldwide.
       Similarly, ConAgra Inc.--which sells the Chung King, 
     Wesson, Butterball, Swift, Armour, Banquet and Swiss Miss 
     brands, among others--received $826,000 in MPP funds from 
     1986 to '94, a pittance compared to its advertising budget 
     last year of $200 million.
       ``How in God's world do we justify spending taxpayer 
     dollars to supplement this program?'' Bryan asked. ``This is 
     a company that is large, it is successful, and they can 
     effectively handle their own advertising and promotion 
     budget.''
       Similar fulminations come from Nader's Center for Study of 
     Responsive Law, the libertarian Cato Institute, the Heritage 
     Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
     Progressive Policy Institute--even the Marin Institute for 
     the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, which 
     objects to the program because it underwrites overseas 
     advertising for beer, wine and whiskey.
       But a ConAgra spokeswoman said the company participates in 
     the promotion program because it allows a testing of the 
     waters in markets that it otherwise could not afford to 
     enter.
       ``We have never lobbied on behalf of this program, but we 
     do believe it serves an important purpose,'' said Lynn 
     Phares, ConAgra's vice president for public relations. ``It 
     opens expanding markets for products that would not have the 
     money spent on them. If more hot dots are sold in Korea, that 
     benefits not just the company that is the conduit (ConAgra), 
     but the corn growers and hog producers that create the 
     product.''
       For its part, the nonpartisan GAO has tired of issuing 
     reports detailing the program's flaws.
       ``It's such an easy target,'' sighed Allan I. Mendelowitz, 
     director of international trade issues for the GAO.
       Several years ago, the GAO discovered, the MPP financed a 
     $3-million advertising campaign in Japan for the California 
     Raisin Board, featuring the animated dancing raisins that 
     were such a hit in the United States.
       It bombed.
       The campaign's theme song, ``I Heard It Through the 
     Grapevine,'' couldn't be translated into Japanese, so it ran 
     in English and was therefore incomprehensible to most 
     viewers, according to the GAO. The shriveled dancing figures 
     disturbed Japanese children, who thought they were potatoes 
     or chunks of chocolate. The characters' four-fingered hands 
     reminded television viewers of members of criminal 
     syndicates, whose little fingers are cut off as an initiation 
     rite.
       If all that wasn't enough, the Raisin Board couldn't even 
     get its product onto store shelves during the promotion 
     period.
       The board's goal was to sell 900 tons of raisins in Japan 
     during the campaign; exports during the period reached a 
     little more than half that. And the U.S. government spend $2 
     in promotion costs for every dollar's worth of raisins that 
     reached Japanese store shelves.
       The California Prune Board has a mixed record in using 
     federal money to try to open new markets for its fruit. The 
     California prune has made substantial inroads in Britain, 
     even though the dried fruit still has what the board 
     delicately describes as an ``image problem'' in that country 
     arising from ``the laxative stigma and the forced consumption 
     of poor-quality prunes during childhood.''
       Rich Peterson, Prune Board executive director, said 
     advertising efforts on the California prune's behalf over the 
     past decade have helped increase sales by 45% in Britain, 75% 
     in Italy and 108% in Germany--all against stiff competition 
     from heavily subsidized French prunes.
       ``That wouldn't have been possible without MPP funding,'' 
     Peterson said. ``The prune industry on its own would not have 
     had resources to launch the campaigns we've been able to 
     mount.''
       The board spends roughly $1 million a year in MPP funds to 
     produce generic promotions for California prunes, and private 
     funds such as Sunsweet Growers Inc. of Yuba City, Calif., 
     spend millions more. Advertising focuses on prunes as a 
     healthful snack, Peterson said, rather than on their 
     gastrointestinal benefits.
       ``We don't do dancing prunes,'' Peterson said. ``There's no 
     cutesy stuff for the prune.''
       It's a different story in Asia. Prunes have been well-
     received by the health-conscious Japanese, but the Taiwanese 
     have rejected them as an inferior version of the popular, 
     though expensive, Chinese black date. The Clinton 
     Administration has consistently supported the MPP, proposing 
     to spend $100 million a year on it for the next five years. 
     Officials argue that as the new General Agreement on Tariffs 
     and Trade requires governments to cut direct subsidies to 
     farmers, it is crucial to maintain strong marketing efforts 
     that are legal under the trade pact. But critics insist that 
     the money should be spent on more productive programs rather 
     than on subsidizing the advertising of rich marketing 
     cooperatives such as Sunsweet, Sunkist and Sun-Maid.
       ``I do not believe any member of this body should be able 
     to keep a straight face and support some of the measures we 
     are voting for when we cannot kill a program like MPP that is 
     a pure subsidy for some of the biggest corporations in 
     America and abroad,'' Sen, Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) said in a 
     fruitless effort to kill the program earlier this year.
       Times researcher Gary Feld contributed to this report.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me make just a few closing comments 
in opposition to this amendment. According to the Department of 
Agriculture's estimates based on their studies of the program, every $1 
that we have spent in the Market Promotion Program has translated into 
$16 in additional agricultural exports.
  The Foreign Agriculture Service recently released its studies 
evaluating the effectiveness of the program, and that study concludes 
that the 25-fold increase in export promotion activities for U.S. high 
value food exports, made possible by MPP and its predecessor, the 
Targeted Export Assistance Program, strongly supported the 300-percent 
increase in exports of those products since 1986 and was the leading 
factor in increasing the U.S. share of the world consumer food market. 
That is persuasive evidence. I do not see how you can ignore that. If 
you are trying to decide whether you vote for this amendment to abolish 
the program or not, this was a study that was done to assess the 
effectiveness of this program.
  It works. It means more U.S. jobs. It means more U.S. agriculture 
products being exported throughout the world. It is good for America. 
It is good for American citizens.
  All regions of this country, the United States, have benefited from 
the program. It is not just a program that singles out one commodity 
area or one region.
  According to this same Foreign Agriculture Service study, the 
employment and economic effects of MPP are clear. With two-thirds of 
the jobs supported being off the farm--that is, manufacturing, 
transportation, and service industries--the other third were jobs on 
the farm. They have analyzed it in that respect.
  Recently, the Department of Agriculture presented us some specific 
examples of the program's effectiveness, and I want to bring them to 
the attention of the Senate. 

[[Page S 13724]]

  Last year, a new regulation by the Japanese Government requiring that 
poultry products be identified by country of origin actually helped 
sales of U.S. poultry, as a result of a campaign conducted by the 
U.S.A. Poultry and Egg Export Council under this program.
  The council had spent $167,000 in MPP funds to conduct joint 
promotions with 12 chain stores in Japan. The stores affixed the U.S. 
stickers saying ``U.S. poultry, U.S. regs,'' to product packaging, 
displayed point of purchase materials and devoted greater portion of 
shelf space to U.S. poultry products. By the end of the promotion, the 
12 chains reported total sales of over 110 tons of U.S. commodities. A 
year after the program, the stores continue to use these labels.
  There are other examples. MPP funds helped the processed potato 
products industries who reached a record $485 million in sales last 
year. They nearly doubled the level of just 5 years ago. U.S. pear 
growers and exporters were able to sell more than $73 million last 
year, their highest level ever. The emerging market in Russia is 
becoming the United States fourth largest meat market. Canned salmon 
from Alaska is being sold in the United Kingdom. U.S. hard wood 
products are being exported. There are a number of other success 
stories in greater and greater quantities because of the thoughtful use 
of these funds.
  Mr. President, new GATT trading rules are opening markets throughout 
the world. We are encountering new opportunities, and we must expand 
our efforts, we must increase the aggressive way we are going after our 
share of these new markets, competing effectively where we can. And 
because of the openness of these markets, they are increasingly 
competitive, and other countries are enjoying these opportunities, too.
  So reducing or eliminating, which is what this amendment would do, 
the Market Promotion Program at this time in the face of continued and 
increasing foreign competition would be tantamount to unilateral 
disarmament, and I am against it and I am arguing against it. The 
impact would be felt throughout our economy in terms of lower exports, 
reduced economic activity and fewer jobs. I do not think we want that.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I recognize our time has expired. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for up to 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Arkansas has 2 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, when you consider the mood of the 
country, which everybody recognizes is pretty hostile and very 
volatile, most of it directed at the U.S. Congress and the people who 
occupy this Chamber and the one down the hall, most people do not 
understand what this Market Promotion Program is. But it is the very 
epitome of what people are upset about.
  I cannot fathom our continuing a program such as this. We spent $2 
billion a year helping companies export--$2 billion--and here we put 
$110 million in for not just these corporations listed on this chart 
but dozens and dozens of other corporations, all of whom are quite 
capable of fending for themselves--the biggest in America.
  Can you imagine McDonald's spending $60 million or $80 million a year 
on advertising and us giving them $3 million to advertise Big Mac in 
Russia or wherever? What kind of nonsense is this?
  This is one of those issues that if every single American were 
required to listen to the debate on this issue, I promise you, this 
$110 million would be torpedoed in a megasecond. People would be 
appalled if they knew this sort of thing went on and particularly in 
light of the people we are cutting.
  I still believe in helping people. I believe in what de Tocqueville 
talked about, an enlightened self-interest. I said it on this floor a 
hundred times. We ought to help people who want to make it and are 
reaching for the first rung on the ladder. We are passing a lot of 
legislation here that guarantees a lot of people who would like to have 
a chance, for example, to go to school on the GI bill like I did. I 
would not be standing here if it were not for the GI bill.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. My brother made it pretty big in the corporate world. He 
would never have made it. We came from very poor circumstances. So, 
yes, I believe in helping people. I do not believe in helping people 
who do not want to help themselves. But I can tell you a little help 
from time to time from the Federal Government pays rich dividends, and 
we ought to be spending where it pays rich dividends. We ought not to 
be spending it on dancing raisins in Japan that scared half the 
children of Japan out of their wits. It was in English, and they did 
not understand any of it. Little shriveled raisins--they thought they 
were aliens. That was $3 million worth of scaring Japanese children. I 
could go on with the horror stories. I am not going to belabor it. 
About everything that needs to be said has been said.

  I want to point out again that we are spending $2 billion on export 
enhancements right now. Why are we adding this piddling amount for the 
biggest corporations in America? If the people on this list right 
here--which is a lot longer than that list--cannot fend for themselves, 
this country is in more trouble than I thought it was. I am here to 
help people who cannot fend for themselves and who need and deserve 
help. This $110 million--I am not asking you to put it anyplace else. 
Put it on the deficit. You could not find a better place to put it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we have discussed this issue 
fully tonight, and we will have an opportunity to conclude debate 
tomorrow morning before voting on the amendment. I am prepared to move 
on to other subjects.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in connection with the unanimous-consent 
agreement, in which we listed all amendments that were in order to the 
bill, I need to add an amendment for Senator Bennett of Utah, which 
would be a relevant amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Bennett amendment be added to the 
list of amendments in the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we understand that there is now an 
agreed-upon list. We will consider these amendments as they are called 
up tomorrow. Some have agreements on them in terms of time available 
for debate and time for recorded votes that will occur, and the yeas 
and nays have been ordered on some of the amendments. On others, we 
hope we can work them out as they are called up. We may be able to 
agree to some of these. We hope Senators will be here tomorrow and be 
prepared to work quickly as we try to wrap-up consideration of this 
bill.
  I understand that no other Senators intend to come to the floor 
tonight to offer amendments. So we are prepared to wrap up the business 
of the Senate tonight and go out for the evening.

                          ____________________