Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is one of those issues that if you look at it you would think the California Senators had the high ground. They do not. In 1992 the California Poultry Association went to the California legislature and said, ``We cannot compete. We have to do something.'' These chickens are coming in here at 26, 27, 28 degrees, which they have been for decades. They are not frozen hard. We are not talking about zero degrees. They said, ``We cannot compete.'' So the California Legislature adopted a rule which a Federal court promptly ruled out of order because we had preemption on it. So what happened? They go to the Agriculture Department. The rule we are talking about is exactly what the California Legislature passed. I want to tell you this, we have shipped--Southern and Southeastern States have shipped billions and billions and billions of poultry all over the United States. Not just California, everywhere. One complaint, from the California Poultry Federation. They do not even want to allow you a 2 to 3 percent plus or minus allowance. It is the California Poultry Federation bill.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I can offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Bingaman which has been agreed to on both sides.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have been advised that Senator Heflin has two colloquies. These have not been submitted and will be submitted tomorrow. Mr. President, let me make this unanimous consent request: Following the final vote on the Bumpers amendment, that it be in order if the colloquy has been submitted at that time and accepted by the floor managers, that a colloquy by Senator Heflin and Senator Cochran be eligible to be submitted for the Record, and a Heflin colloquy with Senator Cochran on agricultural weather stations, that those two be in order to be inserted in the Record prior to final vote.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate voted rather decisively--I believe it was 59 to 41--not to abolish the Market Promotion Program. Several Senators said to me they did not much like the program, but some industry in their State benefited from it or some agriculture cooperative in their State benefited from it. And so my objection to the Market Promotion Program is that it is for the very biggest corporations in America, and at a time when we are trying to cut Medicaid and welfare and everything else, to reward the biggest corporations in America with Federal largess is inconsistent and, I think, almost immoral. So Senator Bryan and I have crafted an amendment that we think will meet, certainly meets our objections, and we believe it will meet the concerns of Senators who feel obligated to vote for market promotion every year. There are four points to it. First, we eliminate the eligibility of foreign trading organizations. Right now, roughly $10 million of this money goes to foreign corporations. We eliminate them. Second, we convert it into something of a small business program, because we make small businesses eligible and small business will be determined by the Small Business Administration. Generally, these businesses range in the area of 500 employees and gross sales of $50 million a year. If people want to put their money where their heart is, maybe I should say where their mouth is, here is an opportunity to do something for small business to help them export, because they need more help, where big corporations do not. Third, we make all the agricultural cooperatives in the country eligible. They are eligible now, and they stay eligible, and I know a lot of Members of the Senate voted for this because they have a cooperative. I have one in my State, Riceland Foods, who does a lot of exporting. So we make all cooperatives of all sizes eligible under the amendment. And fourth, we reduce the funding from $110 million to $70 million. You make it an attractive, palatable program that gives small businesses a chance to export. You take care of the agricultural interests because you allow the agricultural cooperatives to still apply for and be eligible for grants to help them export. You eliminate foreign corporations, which I think everybody will applaud and perhaps they will applaud louder for the reduction of $110 million to $70 million than anything else, a savings of $40 million. We do not take the $40 million and allocate it someplace else. It can go on the deficit. You could not find a better place for it. Mr. President, those are all the remarks I care to make on it tonight. I will be glad to yield the floor. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I, like the Senator from Mississippi, thought we put this thing to bed 2 years ago. I may be mistaken. These things have a way of resurrecting themselves, even when Senators think they have taken care of it. But I think the vote, if there is a rollcall vote, will be 100 to zip to discontinue this program, or at least discontinue any Federal taxpayers' money being used in it. I hope either way the Senator will vitiate his request for the yeas and nays because rollcalls take 20 to 30 minutes. My guess is, the way we compute costs of the operation of this body, the rollcall vote will take up almost enough time to cancel out any savings we get by torpedoing the Tea Board. So I hope the Senator will think about that during the day and possibly vitiate his request for the yeas and nays, because I can assure him, every single Senator in the U.S. Senate feels the same way he does.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that, Mr. President.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. Just to refresh my own understanding of this, what was the question and answer of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi as to what the regular order was?

Mr. BUMPERS. That is the amendment on the peanut subsidy?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. In any event, I hope we start voting here. Senator Cochran and I have waited patiently here all day long with not some grace, but, in any event, we have been here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. That is right.

Mr. BUMPERS. Frankly, I think it is important we tell people we are going to start voting sometime after 5:15, that we start voting. I am hoping we can vote either on the Kerrey amendment or the committee amendment. Senator Bob Kerrey is supposed to be on the floor at 5:30. If he is, we will work out an agreement. If he wants to vote right then, first, that is fine. It is fine with the chairman. Then we will vote on that part of the committee amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in relationship to the discussion, I think Senator Bob Kerrey has an amendment that is supposed to be on the floor at 5:30 to debate the amendment. The distinguished chairman of the committee has suggested that we vote on the committee amendment, but I am also told that the committee amendment contains not only the disaster relief as proposed by the chairman, but also the provision that Senator Boxer objects to. We could bifurcate.