[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S11763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EXPLANATION OF VOTES ON THE SENATE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, farming is Michigan's second 
largest industry and a cornerstone of the State's economy. For this 
reason, I would like to take a moment to comment on some of the 
amendments considered by the Senate. Prior to final passage, several 
amendments were debated on the floor of the Senate.
  The first amendment considered was a Santorum amendment to prohibit 
the use of funds in excess of $125,000 for nonrecourse loans to peanut 
producers. Recently, the peanut program has faced extensive scrutiny. 
In response to several attempts to eliminate this program, members from 
peanut-producing States addressed some of the more problematic aspects 
of this program in the farm bill. Since this issue had already been 
considered and decided by the Senate, I opposed Senator Santorum's 
amendment. If the peanut program is going to be amended, I believe it 
should be done so during consideration of farm programs as a whole. 
Senator Santorum's amendment was ultimately tabled by a vote of 64 to 
34.
  I did, however, support a second Santorum amendment to ensure that 
America's farm programs are managed in the most objective manner 
possible. Specifically, Senator Santorum's amendment prohibited the use 
of funds to carry out a program that was operated by a marketing 
association if the Secretary of Agriculture determined that a member of 
the board of directors of the association had a conflict of interest 
with respect to the program. In my opinion, a program that is not 
influenced by individuals who stand to gain from decisions will garner 
greater respect and run more smoothly than a program that is viewed as 
a Government subsidy for a few individuals. Unfortunately, by a vote of 
61 to 37, this amendment was also tabled.
  The final amendment considered was a Bryan amendment to reduce the 
amount of funds appropriated to the Market Access Program [MAP]. The 
Bryan amendment would have eliminated funding if the aggregate amount 
of funds and value of commodities under the program exceeded $70 
million. Formerly known as the Market Promotion Program, this program 
has provided funding for large and lucrative corporations such as 
Sunkist. I believe the Market Access Program is a clear example of 
corporate welfare, and I have consistently supported elimination or 
reduction of this unnecessary Government subsidy. I supported Senator 
Bryan's amendment which was tabled by a vote of 55 to 42.
  Following disposition of these three amendments, the 1997 Agriculture 
appropriations bill was passed, with my support, by a vote of 97 to 1. 
Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees were able to act quickly 
to finalize this legislation and allow America's farmers to begin to 
grow for the market.

                          ____________________