Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from California is correct. This is among the most dangerous material on the face of the Earth. We are talking not about something that would be a problem for 5, 10, 15, 20 years, even 2 or 3 lifetimes. The whole thrust of the bill that is before us is to cut corners, try to save a few bucks here, to impose artificial deadlines that can never be met, all to the disadvantage of public health and safety. Very seldom do you hear the nuclear utilities talk about doing something to protect public health and safety. It is always, ``This costs too much,'' ``Delay this a little bit,'' ``It would be inconvenient or difficult.'' The whole thrust of these laws is a balancing of public health and safety, and the fact that it may take a little longer, it may be a little more difficult, was a bipartisan consensus, as my senior colleague pointed out, during the term of Richard Nixon. NEPA was enacted in 1969, the first year he served as President. It was a bipartisan consensus in America. This legislation would shatter that and subject those who would be affected by this decision--at least 51 million people along the transportation routes-- to a lower standard of protection for public health and safety.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I did not hear the inquiry of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, how much time remains under the control of the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have on our side?

Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I have tried purposely to keep the focus on the issues, but I must say that my friend from Idaho has spoken and my friend from Wyoming has just spoken, and they obviously reach a different conclusion as to the urgency of the need than does the scientific community, which has specifically rejected the need. Let me say with great respect to them, if they disagree, they have the right under the law to volunteer their States as sites for interim storage. That is permissible. I find some irony in the fact they are eager to have it come to us in Nevada and yet suggest that their own State would not be available. There is another irony. Late last week, another letter was circulated that raised some concerns about the interstate shipment of trash, and this letter goes on to say, in part: It is important that Congress pass interstate legislation this year. Cities and towns all across the Nation are being forced to take trash from other States. Many States have tried to restrict the shipments. The letter goes on to say: But every time they do, they have been challenged in court and their laws have been overturned as a violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. It is clear that States cannot protect themselves, their residents or their land from being spoiled by out-of-State waste. We need Federal legislation to empower States and communities with the authority to manage solid waste within their borders. Without legislation, they will have to continue to accept unwanted trash. Does anybody see a disconnect or an inconsistency? Here they are talking about trash, and many of my colleagues who have ventured forth in the Chamber and who have expressed support for this legislation have gotten greatly exercised about the trash issue. You cannot have it both ways. My colleague and I have signed on to this letter because we understand the concerns. You can be concerned about trash but not the most dangerous, lethal trash known to mankind, high- level nuclear waste. Finally, let me just say that we have talked about the standards ad nauseam. I think it just one more time needs to be pointed out that the National Academy of Sciences--these are the scientists which this body asked to make recommendations about standards--reported and concluded that the standards in terms of radioactive exposure should be from 10 to 30 millirems. That is their view. They are scientists. Nobody--I repeat, nobody--in the world has set a 100-millirem standard, and to point out that those who are charged under our law with the responsibility of enforcing and administering the environmental laws, the Environmental Protection Agency, through Carol Browner, the Council on Environmental Quality, the President of the United States, the Department of Energy, all have urged a no vote on this piece of legislation. Now, I guess what they do not have in common with some of the advocates is that they are not supporting the view of the nuclear industry. This is special interest legislation at its worst. There is no groundswell for this legislation. The nuclear industry and its phalanx of lobbyists who ply these halls every day with enormous amounts of money and power and influence, they are the ones who are driving this debate by creating a contrived and fabricated crisis that purports to call out for a legislative response. That is simply not the case. There is no need. The damage that we do to our Nation's environmental laws and to people across America that can be affected by this is unconscionable--unconscionable. No environmental organization in America--none--supports this legislation. All oppose the irreparable damage it would do to our environmental laws. And no agency charged by law at the Federal level to enforce the environmental standards supports this legislation. All have concluded that to do so would be irreparable, do irreversible damage to our environment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRYAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BRYAN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 5073 (Purpose: To specify contractual obligations between DOE and waste generators)

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 5073 to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read an article by Maj. Gen. Edward J. Philbin, which I ask be printed in the Record. In the wake of downsizing our national defense apparatus, we will come to rely even more on the capabilities of United States' Reserve Forces. As Members of Congress, we should take it upon ourselves to insure that guard and reserve units are prepared to carry this mission well into the next century. The article follows: [From National Guard, June 1996] The Gathering Storm (By Maj. Gen. Edward J. Philbin (ret.)) Recently, I was conducting experiments on the aerodynamic behavior of low-altitude, low-velocity spherical bodies at the Andrews Air Force Base golf course. Like all weather-wary flyers, I kept a suspicious eye on the mutating cloud formations overhead. Across the initially cloudless, blue sky crept wisps of white, which slowly burgeoned into rising silver cloud towers, the pinnacles fattening into great overhanging mushrooms of gold and purple. Progressively, the sky was darkened by a great sea of these forbidding gray thunderstorms. And then, these ``duty boomers'' unleashed a lightning barrage, which generated peals of thunder, followed by a monsoon-like deluge of water. With apologies to Winston Churchill for appropriating one of his titles, I was struck by the similarity between this atmospheric spectacle and the acerbic treatment accorded the Army Guard since Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm almost six years ago. At that time an orchestrated public affairs attack on the Army Guard was launched, concentrating on the three roundout brigades federalized on November 30, 1990. The most popular target of abuse was Georgia's 48th Infantry Brigade, roundout to the 24th Infantry Division, because of its alleged post-mobilization ineptitude at the National Training Center (NTC). The fact that the 48th Brigade had, before mobilization, been consistently evaluated as combat ready by the 24th Infantry Division was ignored. Also ignored was the 48th's call-up 3\1/2\ months after its parent division was alerted for Gulf deployment. Also never mentioned was the fact that, despite all the obstacles placed in its path at the NTC, the 48th was revalidated as combat ready in 91 calendar days, which was just one day more than scheduled, and on the very day the cease-fire went into effect. During those 91 days, the 48th Infantry Brigade spent only 65 days actually training. Despite these facts, the 48th has been continually flogged and castigated by the media for ``failure'' to deploy to the combat area. With relentless determination, the media have published a rash of articles emphasizing fictional failings rather than positive accomplishments of the 48th, concluding that since the 48th `'couldn't hack it,'' then none of the Army Guard ``can hack it.'' This World War II tactic relies on the theory that ``if you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, most people will eventually believe it.'' The audience for which this propaganda is intended is the members of Congress in the hope they will relegate the Army National Guard to a state constabulary. The Reserve Officers Association (ROA), in its May issue of the ROA National Security Report, published the written testimony of Richard Davis, General Accounting Office (GAO), which was presented at a hearing before Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). Davis, among other things, claimed that ``at least one reserve component has not sufficiently adapted to the new challenges [of regional dangers rather than a global Soviet threat] and therefore may not be prepared to carry out its assigned missions.'' Guess which one? It's the Army National Guard. Davis went on to state that (1) the ``Army National Guard has considerable excess combat forces'' while the ``big Army'' hungers for more combat support units; (2) ``the ability of some Army National Guard combat brigades to be ready for early deployment missions * * * is highly uncertain,'' suggesting that Army National Guard roles and missions should be ``modified;'' and (3) the Air National Guard force dedicated to continental air defense ``* * * is not needed today'' and eliminating them would free ``considerable funds'' for better use. Since this issue will be resolved cooperatively with the United States Air Force and the Congress, no further comment will be made here. Davis, whose resume is devoid of any hint of military experience, grounded his opinion upon the alleged military deficiencies of the three Army National Guard brigades, federalized for the Gulf War. However, those three brigades met the Army's deployability criteria, but were never given the mission to deploy and no sealift was ever requested or scheduled for them. I repeat: All three roundout brigades and the three additional Guard battalions (Texas, Alabama and South Carolina) met the readiness deployability criteria established by the Army Mobilization and Operations Planning System (AMOPS) on the first day of federalization. The truth, obscured by the slanderous billingsgate that has been spewed on the Army Guard, is that Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm was a significant success for the Army National Guard as well as the ``big Army.'' Army Guard volunteers filled critical positions early in the crisis. It was successful in rapidly deploying 60 COL/LTC level commands to SWA, all of which made a significant contribution to Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. Due to years of preparation, Army Guard units were ready for federalization and were successful. All Army Guard units were at their respective mobilization stations within 72 hours of federalization. More than 97 percent of ARNG units met or exceeded deployability criteria when federalized. Sixty-seven percent of all Army Guard units deployed within 45 days of being federalized. The primary obstacle to an even earlier deployment was unavailability of sealift and airlift. Almost 100 percent of the Army Guard soldiers called-up reported for active duty and more than 94 percent of the units' soldiers were deployable. Of the unit troops, only six percent (3,974 of 62,411) were ineligible for deployment under statutory provisions and DoD guidelines. Before federalization, the combat readiness of the Army National Guard was at an historic high. The Army Guard demonstrated its ability to alert, federalize and rapidly deploy to the theater of operations (CENTCOM)--reports to the contrary notwithstanding. Did Mr. Davis (B.S. degree in accounting; M.S. in business administration) consider any of these data in arriving at the apocalyptic conclusions about the Army National Guard's military prowess? If he did, he didn't mention it in his written or oral testimony. But his oral testimony was liberally buttressed with statements such as: ``I think,'' ``I believe,'' ``it's my opinion,'' but no evidence was given. Our ``good friends'' in the ROA never mentioned these facts to their readers. Nor did ROA mention that for various reasons a considerable portion of the Army Reserve is not deployable. Probably that is the reason the Army Reserve is energetically blocking the path of Army Reservists who wish to transfer to the Army Guard. ROA claims that the purpose of its National Security Report is to inform Reservists of the facts of readiness issues. Yet, ROA publishes only material that denigrates the Army Guard. The motive may be found in the following excerpt from a commentary printed beside the Davis testimony: ``Anyone reading carefully between the lines of the articles contained in this month's NSR will become aware of the riptides and undercurrents that can impact negatively on the future size and role of the Reserves if we (ROA) are not careful. The problem is that many Reserve officers assigned to units feel they do not have to join ROA in order to take advantage of the benefits of the highly effective legislative work ROA does on their behalf on Capitol Hill.'' Sounds more like a membership drive than a crusade for the truth. ROA followed Mr. Davis' fantasy with two other articles presented as if they were hot-off-the-press news flashes: ``21st Century Force: A Federal Army and a Militia'' and ``The State Militia.'' In fact, as the Brits say, they were ``mutton dressed up as lamb,'' having been written in 1993 at the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, by COL Charles Heller, who was an Army Reserve advisor. Heller's first article blames the ``inordinate influence'' of the AGAUS and NGAUS for the ``big Army's'' alleged difficulty in structuring a stronger Total Army. Not surprisingly, he paints the Army Reserve and ROA as more responsive to and supportive of the ``big Army.'' Predictably, Heller alleges that the Army Reserve call-up and its service in the Gulf War were exemplary, while Army Guard combat maneuver elements required, ``lengthy post- mobilization training and then [did] not deploy to the Gulf.'' Heller concludes that, ``the Total Army should be organized into two components--a federal Army (Active Army and the U.S. Army Reserve) and a militia (the state Army National Guard.'') He stops short, just barely, of advocating equipping the Army Guard with horses, lances and swords. Heller proposes that the Army Reserve be made responsible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). That's very interesting, since the ROA leadership, which published Heller's musings, now professes to have utterly no interest in seeking new jobs for the Army Reserve. Yet, they feverishly sought and probably still seek passage of the Laughlin Bill (H.R. 1646), which would have interjected the Army Reserve into the National Guard's constitutional state mission. Very solicitous of the National Guard's welfare, Heller worries that the Army Guard will have no time to train adequately for both the state and federal mission, alleging without explanation that the Army Guard failed in the Gulf deployment and in the Los Angeles riots. He proposes of that the Army Guard should concentrate on the state mission. He also advocates USAR involvement in the state, as well as the federal, mission in a contradiction in his argument, which in his exuberance to redesign the Army Guard, he ignores. His opinions and conclusions are heuristic, self-serving, internally contradictory and unsupported by any evidence. All of these allegations are refuted by the actual performance of the Army Guard in the Gulf War. But Heller performs a valuable service by raising an extremely important question: Why have two Army Reserve components? Why, indeed? Certainly, the constitutional framers recognized, as did George Washington, the need to establish a full-time standing army and accordingly gave Congress the power to raise and support armies--and only standing armies were contemplated by that particular language. The Founding Fathers never intended and the sovereign states never granted the federal government the power to organize and maintain a federal militia over which the states would have no control. They recognized the necessity of a well-regulated militia and, in the Militia Clause of the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 16), they made provisions accordingly. It is under this clause that the militia and its modern counterpart, the National Guard, have developed. A propaganda storm has been gathering and thickening around the Army National Guard since the Gulf War. These libels are intended to generate thunderous doubt about the capability of the Army Guard to perform its federal mission; to generate lightning bolts of criticism of the Army Guard from the Congress and ultimately to create a legislative deluge in which the Army Guard will sink into oblivion. This storm has been energized by the hunger of the National Guard would-be competitors to co-opt our missions and the share of the federal military budget that supports these missions. There are two ways to deal with an imminent thunderstorn. One way is to huddle under an umbrella, close your eyes to the lightning, put your fingers in your ears to mute the thunder and hope for survival. The other way is to seed the clouds with a defusing substance like silver iodide, dissipate their destructive energy and make them vanish. The time may be at hand when supporters of the National Guard must resort to the defusing technique, which might very well answer, once and for all, Heller's question. Why have two Army Reserve components? Why, indeed, when the United States Constitution authorizes only one--the National Guard. Note: As this article was being written, troops of the 48th Brigade were packing up to once again deploy to the NTC. On April 23, Mr. Davis' GAO Division notified DoD that it was initiating, on its own authority, a review of ``Roles, Missions, Functions and Costs of the Army Guard and Army Reserve.'' Be assured that the NGAUS will be scrutinizing both events for any signs of dissembling.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. The point I am trying to make is, by way of comparison, we are talking about tens of thousands of metric tons, so the degree of risk is immeasurably greater as a result. Let me turn next to the question of the lawsuit. Much has been made of the lawsuit. The lawsuit changes absolutely nothing, as my colleague pointed out. In point of fact, what the lawsuit said is there is an obligation on the part of the Department of Energy, and we look to the provisions of the contract to determine how that liability will be ascertained. At no time--and I emphasize--at no time was it contended by the utilities that there would be a need to commence some type of transportation on February 1, 1988. In point of fact, in the briefs, the legal briefs filed by the utilities, they make it very clear that they do not assert that there should be a mandatory injunction requiring the transfer of anything, or the movement of anything on January 31, 1998. What they say, and our amendment that we will offer later indicates that, is that becomes a matter of contract adjudication, depending upon the nature of the delay. I believe it is fair to point out the Secretary of Energy makes that point in her letter, that the lawsuit changes nothing. It is a smokescreen. The utilities did not seek nor does the lawsuit decision require the transport of anything on January 31, 1988. At most it would require an adjustment of the fees paid by utilities into the nuclear waste fund, to the extent that they incur additional costs to expand that storage. I might say, parenthetically, the Senators from Nevada have introduced legislation to that effect for the last 7 years. So the lawsuit means absolutely nothing. It is plain the ratepayers are not getting what they paid for. Let me say that certainly is not the fault of the citizens of Nevada. Frankly, it is the fault of the way the nuclear utilities themselves have constantly tried to jam unrealistic deadlines, to make politics rather than science the determiner of this program. The original program suggested we should search the country, find the best site, send three sites, after they have been studied, to the President of the United States, and have the President make the determination. That did not occur. Politics--politics intervened, nuclear politics. The folks in the Northeast, and understandably, said we do not want granite in the study, so they were taken out of the equation. The folks in the Southeast, I can understand, said, ``My gosh, we don't want salt domes.'' So what happened in 1987--and no scientist worthy of the description of scientist would ever contend that from a scientific point of view, forcing all of the study to occur at a single site is the best from a scientific perspective, and the fact they have encountered technical problems dealing with health and safety certainly is not the fault of Nevadans. Frankly, the decision to embark upon nuclear energy carried with it certain risks for the utilities, and part of that risk is the financial responsibility of dealing with the waste. So I simply say to my colleagues that none of the provisions that relate to the heart and core of our concerns--the National Environmental Policy Act, the preemption provisions, the standards or the fiscal impact for the American taxpayers--not a single provision in this new amendment changes the impact from the debate that we had in S. 1936, and none of my colleagues should be misled as a result. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. BRYAN. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I reserve myself 1 minute, and I will yield the remaining minute to the distinguished ranking member. Mr. President, this is an issue that has been before the Senate for a number of years. It deals with the program formerly known as the market promotion program, now referred to as market access program. This is a program in which taxpayer dollars are provided to some of the largest corporations in America to subsidize their advertising account under the dubious proposition that this is for export of American agricultural products abroad. In February of this year, the Senate, by a vote of 59 to 37, approved an amendment which this Senator, together with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and others, offered that would limit the level of funding, previously at $110 million, to $70 million, and we did so on the basis that we were able to eliminate some $40 million that previously had gone to foreign companies. So the thrust of the Bryan-Bumpers amendment was to say that no longer could this money be allocated to foreign companies and by reason of the fact that we eliminated foreign company allocations $70 million kept the program constant. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will support us as they did in February, and I simply say that this will keep the program level.

Mr. BRYAN. The proposal before us is $90 million. That is a 29 percent increase. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I indicate to the majority leader that this has been cleared on this side of the aisle. We have no objection.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this amendment is regarding the Market Access Program. The Market Access Program, or MAP, was created to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of exports of U.S. agricultural products. MAP is the successor to the Market Promotion Program [MPP], which in turn was the successor to the Targeted Export Assistance Program [TEA], established in 1986. TEA was originally created to ``counter or offset the adverse effect of subsidies, import quotas, or other unfair trade practices of foreign competitors on U.S. agriculture exports.'' Since 1986, over $1.43 billion has been spent for TEA, MPP and now MAP. MAP is operated through about 64 organizations that either run market promotion programs themselves or pass the funds along to companies to spend on their own market promotion efforts. In fiscal year 1994, about 43 percent of all program activities involved generic promotions while 57 percent involved branded promotions. The General Accounting Office [GAO] has pointed out that the entire Federal Government spends about $3.5 billion annually on export promotion. While agricultural products account for only 10 percent of total U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture spends about $2.2 billion, or 63 percent of the total. The Department of Commerce spends $236 million annually on trade promotion. While the stated goal of MAP is to benefit U.S. farmers, the program has benefited foreign companies. In fiscal years 1986-1993, $92 million on MPP funds went to foreign-based firms. This amount represented nearly 20 percent of the total funds allocated for brand-name promotions during the 8-year period. In fiscal year 1995, 49 foreign- based firms received MPP funds; in fiscal year 1994 over 110 foreign firms received MPP funds from the U.S. Treasury. I found this to be unfathomable, and I offered an amendment to remedy this to the 1996 farm bill. My amendment passed, and I am pleased to say that MAP money can no longer be given to foreign corporations. Still, many problems exist with the MAP program: First, wasted dollars: There is still no proof that MAP funds are not simply replacing funds that would have been spent anyway on advertising. USDA does not have any good data on this phenomenon. Commercial firms still have the opportunity to substitute MAP funds for promotional activities they would have otherwise undertaken with their own funds. Second, graduation: Current regulations require MAP assistance to cease after 5 years. However, the 5-year clock started running in 1994. This means that some companies will have been in the program for 13 years at the end of 1999. Thirteen years is enough time to overcome barriers and develop markets. Already, 136 firms have participated in this program for 6 to 8 years and have received the bulk of the brand- name funds. Third, efficiency: GAO states that taxpayers do not have reasonable assurance that the considerable public funds expended on export promotion are being effectively used to emphasize sectors and programs with the highest potential returns. MAP supporters use examples of increased exports to defend this program. However, even if a brand-name promotion effort results in identifiable increases in exports, unless the Foreign Agriculture Service [FAS] can convincingly demonstrate that the promotion effort would not have been undertaken without MAP assistance, those increases in exports cannot be attributed to the program. Since 1986 there have been over 100 participants in the program, and yet the Foreign Agriculture Service has completed only 12 program evaluations. Only 9 of 26 participants who have received over $10 million have been evaluated. Fourth, U.S. content: MAP regulations issued in August 1991 do not restrict program participation to products that have 100 percent U.S. content. Regulations permit full funding for products that have at least 50 percent U.S. content by weight. There is no dependable data on percent of U.S. content. The Foreign Agriculture Service relies on statements made in MAP applications about U.S. content and not-for-profit organizations rely on unverified statements regarding U.S. content from their branded participants. In 1993, the Foreign Agriculture Service began to review the support for the certifications made regarding U.S. content during their audits of participants. Their work is limited to the not-for-profit organizations and they do not, as a rule, audit the commercial entities performing brand-name promotions. Who should get these funds? Although new guidelines say small firms should have priority--one third of fiscal year 1994 funds went to large companies. For that reason, large corporations such as Sunkist, Sun- Maid, Welch's, and Pillsbury still receive large sums of money. In 1992, the average amount awarded to the top 50 firms was $1 million. Eight of those firms had sales over $1 billion. There were 17 MAP participants receiving more than $1 million for fiscal years 1993-95: Sunkist, $11.1 million. Ernest & Julio Gallo, $9.1 million. Sunsweet, $4.6 million. Blue Diamond, $4.5 million. American Legend, $2.9 million. North Am. Fur Producers, $2.3 million. Dole, $2.1 million. Tyson Foods, $1.9 million. M&M Mars, $1.8 million. 21st Century Genetics, $1.5 million. Welch Foods, $1.4 million. Pillsbury, $1.3 million. Campbell Soup, $1.2 million. Hansa-Pacific, $1.1 million. Hershey, $1.1 million. Canandaigua Wine, $1.1 million. Seagram, $1.0 million. Private, for-profit companies are the ones who benefit from this program. Taxpayers should not pay for advertising particular products. These companies should take over the costs themselves. MAP, like MPP and TEA before it, is a convenient source of free cash for wealthy businesses, such as McDonald's, to help pay for their overseas advertising budgets. While the Federal Government does have a legitimate role in promoting exports to foreign countries, we should use our considerable Federal expertise to assist companies in cutting red tape in foreign countries and providing them with technical assistance. We should not do it by granting scarce taxpayer dollars to private, for-profit companies for activities they would otherwise conduct on their own. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is nearly identical to the position the Senate took on the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, or farm bill, of 1996. The Senate voted 59 to 37 in February to accept the Bryan amendment on the MPP program. That amendment restricted use of MPP program moneys to small businesses, as certified by the Small Business Administration, and Capper-Volstead cooperatives. Because the amendment eliminated foreign companies from the program, the funding level for MPP was capped at $70 million. In the House-Senate conference on the farm bill, my language prohibiting foreign companies from participation in MPP was retained, but the level of funding was raised to $90 million. So while the conferees were attempting to reform the MPP program by removing foreign companies, they also enacted a 29-percent increase in funding. My amendment would return the MAP program to the originally approved Senate funding level of $70 million. This represents no real cut to the program as foreign companies may no longer participate. This frees up funds for domestic businesses. Mr. President, reiterating, I am renewing an effort that I had been involved in--as Members will be familiar with--for some years. It is a program that was originally known as the Targeted Export Assistance Program. A little later iteration referred to it as the Market Promotion Program, and it has now evolved into the Market Access Program. The historical genesis, as well as the ostensible premise for its continuation, is an effort to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of exports of U.S. agricultural products abroad, originally designed to counter or offset the adverse effects of subsidies, import quotas, and other unfair trade practices. Since 1986, TEA, MPP, and now MAP, has resulted in the expenditure of $1.5 billion. This program is operated through about 64 different organizations, as I know the distinguished Presiding Officer and the chairman of the committee are both very familiar with. In fiscal year 1994, about 43 percent of all program activities involved generic promotions, while 57 percent involved branded promotions. By that, Mr. President, we mean specific products of company A, B, C, or D. We will talk later about some of the companies who have received very generous amounts of taxpayer dollars to support a program which, in the view of this Senator, amounts to a corporate entitlement program that could not have been justified even in the most affluent circumstances at the Federal level. Now, while we are trying to downsize, streamline, cut expenditures, and reach targeted goals for balancing our budget by 2002 or 2003, this is precisely the kind of program that is still a legacy of the past and, in my judgment, one I cannot support on its merits. I think it might be helpful to note that the Federal Government spends about $3.5 million annually on export promotion activities. Agricultural products represent about 10 percent of the total U.S. exports. Yet, of that $3.5 billion spent at the Federal level, about $2.2 billion, or 63 percent of the total amount, is spent on agricultural export promotion. The Department of Commerce, for example, spends about $236 million annually on trade promotion. Now, earlier this year, Mr. President, one of the objections that this Senator and others raised was that a substantial amount of the funding on this program went not to American companies, but went to foreign companies. So joining with the distinguished occupant of the chair, and other colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, we were able to get an amendment through that, as it ultimately worked its way through the legislative process, dealt with one issue which, in my judgment, was inconceivable, unfathomable, in that we would continue to provide money to foreign companies with taxpayer dollars. I am happy to report that, in the legislation that passed, we have now eliminated moneys that previously went to foreign-based firms. So, prospectively, that can no longer occur, and the money that we are talking about here this afternoon will no longer be given to foreign corporations. But the fundamental objections to the programs remain. First, the General Accounting Office, which has evaluated this program, has determined that these are wasted dollars. There is no evidence to support the proposition that money which ostensibly is given to companies to augment or increase their promotional activities has simply not been used to replace existing dollars already in these major corporations' advertising accounts. So rather than a McDonald's spending $500 million a year, if they get $4 million or $5 million, they reduce the amount of their own budget allocation to $496 million --the point being that there is no extra dollar outlay spent on the promotion and advertising of these products. That is to even accept the proposition that you can target or trace a correlation between the amount of money that is spent on advertising dollars and the kind of products that these companies are able to market overseas. So that is the first objection raised, and that is as valid today as it was when the General Accounting Office did its evaluation some 5 years ago that there is no assurance of companies simply not trading their own corporate dollars and replacing them with dollars that the American taxpayers pay. The second is a graduation problem. There is no graduation formula. How long does one remain as part of the program? Current regulations, enacted in response to criticisms made by this Senator and others about the merits of the program, ultimately caused the reevaluation of the regulation so that this MAP assistance will cease after 5 years. However, those who continue to benefit from this financial allocation provided at taxpayer expense target it to 5 years to run prospectively from the date of the enactment of the regulation, so you can still stay on this program up until 1999. Now, for some companies, that would mean being a part of this program for 13 years. That is an incredibly long period of time. If you find any merit to this program--and I must say I am one who finds none--how do you justify keeping a particular company as part of this program for up to 13 years? Already, 136 firms have participated in the program for 6 to 8 years and have received the bulk of the brand- name funds. The third objection is a question of efficiency. GAO states that taxpayers do not have any reasonable assurances that the rather considerable public funds expended on export promotion are being effectively used to emphasize sectors and programs with the highest potential returns. It is frequently said in the course of debate--and I am sure will be again in the context of this amendment--where supporters of this program cite increased exports as an example of why this program is so needed, why it is so beneficial, why it does so much good. But there is no analytical correlation between those increases in exports and moneys being expended from the program. That is to say, would those increases have occurred notwithstanding the allocations made under the MAP program? Since 1986, there have been over 100 participants in the program, and yet the Foreign Agricultural Service has completed only 12 program evaluations. Only 9 of 26 participants who have received more than $10 million have been evaluated. Finally, Mr. President, on the question of U.S. content, MAP regulations issued in August 1991 do not restrict program participation to products that have 100 percent U.S. content. Regulations permit full funding for products that have no more than 50 percent of U.S. content by weight. There is no dependable data on the percent of U.S. content. The Foreign Agricultural Service relies on statements made in MAP applications about U.S. content to ascertain the amount of U.S. content without doing an independent analysis. So these are self-certified statements without any type of independent verification whatsoever. The question is: Who should get these funds? Although new guidelines say some small firms should have priority, one-third of fiscal year 1994 funds went to large companies. It is for that reason that some of the largest corporations in America--among them Sunkist, Sun Maid, Welch's, and Pillsbury--still receive large sums of money. In 1992, the average amount awarded to the top 50 firms was $1 million. Eight of those firms have sales over $1 billion. I am sure most Americans would ponder, with a company that has a sales volume of $1 billion, should the American taxpayer be subsidizing the advertising account of a firm of that size? I must say again that I do not believe that should justify defending those appropriations. But to give you some more current data, there were 17 MAP participants receiving more than $1 million for the past 2 fiscal years, fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1995: Sunkist, $11.1 million; Ernest & Julio Gallo, $9.1 million; Sunsweet, $4.6 billion; Blue Diamond, $4.5 million; American Legend, $2.9 million; North America Fur Producers, $2.3 million; Dole, $2.1 million; Tyson Foods, $1.9 million; M&M Mars, $1.8 million; 21st Century Genetics, $1.5 million; Welch Foods, $l.4 million; Pillsbury, $1.3 million; Campbell Soup, $1.2 million; Hansa-Pacific, $1.1 million; Hershey, $1.1 million; Seagram, $1 million. Mr. President, those are some of the great household names of America. These are companies that have been exceedingly successful, and all of us as Americans quite curiously share in their success. We are delighted when American firms prosper and do well. But why should they do well at the expense of the taxpayer who is being asked to pay his and her hard-earned dollars to supplement the advertising accounts of some of the largest companies in America? I believe that the Federal Government has a legitimate role in promoting exports to foreign countries, but we should certainly use our considerable expertise to assist companies in cutting red tape in foreign countries and providing them with technical assistance. We should not do it by granting scarce taxpayer dollars to private companies, either, for-profit companies, or activities that they would otherwise conduct on their own. So, Mr. President, that brings me to the point of what our amendment that I offer this afternoon would do. It is identical virtually to the position that the Senate took on the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, commonly referred to as the farm bill of 1996. The Senate voted by 59 to 37 in February to accept the Bryan amendment on the MPP program, and that amendment restricted use of MPP moneys to small businesses certified by the Small Business Administration and Capper-Volstead cooperatives. Because the amendment eliminated foreign companies from the program, the funding level for MPP was capped at $70 million. That is to say, based upon the recent experience of the Market Promotion Program, out of an appropriation of $110 million it was projected that $40 million was being allocated to foreign companies. So if you flatten out the program and keep it at its present level, $70 million would continue to fund the program other than for foreign company participation. I make it clear that I think none of my colleagues are misled about this. My preference would be to zero out this program for all of the reasons that I have outlined. And I daresay I think the distinguished occupant of the chair shares the view of the Senator from Nevada. But yielding to pragmatic imperatives, it is clear that this body is not yet prepared to go that far. So what this amendment would do would be to cap the current level at $70 million. The current appropriations bill provides for $90 million. So when you factor out that none of this money can go to foreign companies, in effect, this program would be increased by 29-percent--a 29-percent increase. The amendment that I have offered would return this program to the originally approved Senate funding level of $70 million. That, I believe, is a reasonable compromise, and I believe that my colleagues having voted once before by 59 to 37 to cap the program at that level and to carry out the intent of the farm bill of 1996, we ought to hold the appropriations to the level authorized in that bill. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. If I may very briefly respond to my friend from Mississippi, and then I will yield to my friend from Arkansas, it seems to me that we talk a lot about sacrifice--the need for us to notch up the proverbial belt and slim down, streamline Government, all of these sorts of things, and we ask most segments in our society to do more with less. I must say, with all due respect to my friend from Mississippi, it seems to me that those who are part of this corporate entitlement program that has been culturally ingrained as part of this Federal budget process, we never ask them. I do not think it is asking too much of our friends, the McDonald's hamburger people, Pillsbury, the Welch's, Sunkist, Sun Maid, Seagrams, all these other marvelous corporations to say, look, this is a program we thought we could afford at one time but this is 1996 and you folks have followed our debate on balancing the budget. Both parties, both the Congress and the White House have agreed that a balanced budget ought to be our goal, that ought to be a national priority. There are benefits that inure to our society, to our economy, and we cannot do that if we continue the old ways, as comfortable as they may have become. So I conclude with the observation that the $70 million is $70 million more than I would like to spend, but this appropriations bill sets a funding level of $90 million, so it does represent a 29 percent increase over the $70 million that would be available under the parameters of the farm bill because we have deleted the money for foreign companies. It seems to me that a spirit of sacrifice and fairness would say, look, those who are the giants of corporate America, they ought to be asked to trim their sails and to cut their spending a bit by enabling us to wean ourselves gradually from this program. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. I always find my friend from Mississippi extraordinarily articulate. Without any derogation intended, he has not persuaded this Senator. At this particular point, it would be my intent to ask for a rollcall vote at the appropriate time. And I can assure the Senator I do not intend to prolong the debate tonight, but when he finishes, I might just make a very brief comment.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield?