Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the pending business is the Brown amendment to the committee amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to table was rejected.

Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, 4 minutes remain in debate time on this amendment. We have agreed Senator Boxer will use the first minute and the managers 2 minutes and then Senator Boxer will close the debate for the remaining 1 minute.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 4 minutes remains to be debated on the amendment before we conclude debate on this subject?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business, I inquire of the Chair?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, before yielding time for others to discuss their views on this, let me just say the temperature threshold and the negative labeling that the California poultry industry has been promoting has only one objective, and that is keeping competitive products out of the California market, to make those products appear less appealing to California consumers. I do not believe the Federal Government should take actions which, like it would in this instance, influence improperly interstate trade and commerce in this matter. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with improving product quality, nothing to do with enhancing food safety. The regulations will not improve consumer information or enhance consumer protection. This is an intraindustry trade dispute between California and the rest of the country where poultry products are produced and sold in that market, and I hope that the Senate will reject the amendment to be offered by the Senator from California.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 on Tuesday for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, again, it is the intention of the leader and the managers to conclude the agriculture appropriations bill by early evening tomorrow. We hope we have the cooperation of all Senators to accomplish that.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote regarding poultry, there be 60 minutes for debate, under the control of Senator Heflin, on the Brown amendment, No. 2688 regarding peanuts, and 30 minutes under the control of Senator Brown, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Brown amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow morning. Under the previous order, there will be a rollcall vote at 9:45 a.m. tomorrow. In addition, at 10:30 a.m., the Senate will begin 2 hours of debate on the committee amendment regarding poultry. Also, under a previous consent, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will begin 30 minutes of debate on the welfare bill. And at 2:45 p.m., three rollcall votes will occur in relation to the welfare bill. In addition, following the passage of the welfare bill, which is the third stacked rollcall vote, the Senate will begin 4 minutes of debate on the poultry committee amendment, followed immediately by a vote on or in relation to the committee amendment. Therefore, four votes will occur beginning at 2:45 p.m. on Tuesday.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I so modify my request.

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. COCHRAN. Would 10 minutes tomorrow before the vote be sufficient?

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

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Monday, September 18, 1995, at 3 p.m. in executive session, to consider and act on the committee's recommendation for the reconciliation bill.