[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.

____________________