ACCESS PROGRAM IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE COUNTERWEIGHT FOR THE EXPORT
           PROGRAMS OF OTHER NATIONS. THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, IS ANOTHER
           ARGUMENT THAT I'M SURE THAT WE WILL HEAR, IS THAT OTHER
           COUNTRIES ARE HELPING TO SUBSIDIZE THEIR AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
           AND PROVIDING A NUMBER OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES TO ASSIST THOSE. BUT
           AS THE G.A.O. HAS REPORTED, THIS PROGRAM MAP HAS NOT BEEN AN
           EFFECTIVE COUNTERWEIGHT TO THE EXPORT PROGRAMS DESIGNED BY

           OTHER COUNTRIES. NOW, I MUST SAY THAT THIS HARDLY IS A RINGING
           ENDORSEMENT FOR CONTINUED EXPENDITURES FOR THIS PROGRAM. AND
           THAT IS PUTTING ASIDE THE PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTIONS FOR A
           MOMENT, THERE IS REALLY NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MONEY THAT WE'RE
           SPENDING -- $90 MILLION -- ACCOMPLISHES A THING. BUT LET ME
           SUGGEST THAT THE MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM HAS ANOTHER QUESTIONABLE
           ASPECT TO IT. AND THAT IS WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR

           CONTINUING TO SUBSIDIZE PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS FOR WELL-KNOWN,
           BRANDED NAME PRODUCTS THAT DO NOT NEED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE?
           THESE COMPANIES THAT I'VE CITED -- SUNKIST, BLUE DIAMOND NUTS,
           WELL MUCH'S FOOD, TYSON FOOD AND OCEANSWAY -- THESE ARE HUGE
           COMPANIES IN TERMS OF THEIR SIZE. WHAT JUSTIFICATION IS THERE
           TO USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO SUPPORT, IN EFFECT, AUGMENTING, OR
           INCREASING THE KINDS OF ADVERTISING DOLLARS THAT THESE

           COMPANIES CLEARLY HAVE THE ABILITY ON THEIR OWN?
           THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO HOW THEIR ADVERTISING
           BUDGET SHOULD BE SPENT. THAT IS A PRIVATE-SECTOR DETERMINATION.
           AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS, IN MY JUDGMENT, OF TAKING
           HARD-EARNED TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND SAYING TO EACH OF THESE
           COMPANIES, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU AN ADDITIONAL $2.5 MILLION
           OR $1.5 MILLION TO ADD TO YOUR BUDGET. I HAVE AN OBJECTION TO

           THAT PHILOSOPHICALLY. MOREOVER, WHEN THE G.A.O. HAS CONCLUDED
           THAT THESE DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE SPENT OVER THE YEARS REALLY
           HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING, I THINK IT'S JUST TOTALLY
           INDEFENSIBLE. NOW, IT'S TRUE, MR. PRESIDENT, AS I INDICATED
           EARLIER THAT SOME POSITIVE CHANGES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE
           PROGRAM IN AN EFFORT TO FOCUS MORE EFFORT ON SMALL BUSINESS AND
           NEW EXPORT PRODUCERS. HOWEVER, ONE-THIRD OF ALL MAP PROMOTIONS

           ARE STILL BRAND-NAME BRAND-NAME. THEY ARE PRODUCT-SPECIFIC
           PROMOTIONS, IDENTIFYING A PARTICULAR COMPANY, NOT A GENERIC
           PRODUCT THAT IS BEING EXPORTED ABROAD. AND I THINK WHEN YOU
           LOOK AT HOW THE MONEY IS ACTUALLY SPENT, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING
           THE WELL-INTENTIONED EFFORTS TO FOCUS THIS PROGRAM ON SMALLER
           COMPANIES, WE HAVE REALLY FAILED IN THAT OBJECTIVE. THE TOP-TEN
           BRAND-NAME PROMOTION GRANTS AWARDED BY USDA, THE UNITED STATES

           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, IN FISCAL YEAR 1997 INCLUDE SOME OF
           THE WELL-KNOWN PRODUCTS THAT MOST AMERICANS PROBABLY RECOGNIZE
           FROM U.S.-BASED ADVERTISING. AND THESE ARE THE COMPANIES. AND
           MY POINT IS I THINK IT'S VERY HARD -- I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
           JUSTIFY SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS. SUNKIST, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A
           COMPANY THAT EMPLOYS BETWEEN 500 AND 900 PEOPLE AND POSTED
           SALES OF OVER $1 BILLION; RECEIVED $5 MILLION IN FEDERAL

           ADVERTISING ASSISTANCE IN 1996 AND 1997. WHAT IN HEAVEN'S WORLD
           ARE TH TAXPAYERS DOING SUBSIDIZING THE ADVERTISING BUDGET OF A
           COMPANY WHOSE SALES EXCEED $1 BILLION ANNUALLY?
           YOU SIMPLY CAN'T JUSTIFY THAT. WELCH FOODS, ANOTHER FINE
           PRODUCT, THEY HAVE OVER 1,000 EMPLOYEES, RANG UP MORE THAN $5
           $550 MILLION IN SALES, YET WAS AWARDED OVER $1.5 MILLION OVER
           THE PAST TWO YEARS AS PART OF THIS PROGRAM. THESE EXAMPLES

           ILLUSTRATE WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THAT
           THIS PROGRAM IS A WASTE OF MONEY AND PUBLIC FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE
           USED TO UNDERWRITE PRIVATE CORPORATE ACTIVITY. PROPONENTS OF
           THIS PROGRAM WILL POINT OUT ACCURATELY THAT IN THE LAST FEW
           YEARS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF WARDS HAVE GONE TO SMALL BUSINESSES
           AND COOPERATIVES. BUT MUCH OF THIS IS DUE TO CHANGES IN THE
           PROGRAM THAT WERE PASSED WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE RANKING MEMBER
           OF THE AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE SENATE FLOOR

           THAT GAVE PREFERENCE TO SMALL AND NONPROFIT APPLICANTS.
           HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE OTHER TYPES OF MAP
           RECIPIENTS -- THE COOPERATIVES AND THE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS --
           AS WE'VE POINTED OUT, DO NOT LIMIT THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THEY
           MAKE TO THEIR MEMBERS BASED UPON SIZE. AND THAT'S HOW WE HAVE
           THESE RATHER LARGE COMPANIES RECEIVING A STAGGERING AMOUNT OF
           PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. THAT'S WHY YOU WILL NOT SEE THESE NAMES ON

           MAPS AWARD LIST. LARGE COMPANIES STILL RECEIVE FUNDS THROUGH
           THEIR ASSOCIATION. IN FY 1997 THE CHOCOLATE MANUFACTURERS
           ASSOCIATION, THE COMPANY DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
           MIDAMERICAN INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TRADE COUNCIL PASSED
           THROUGH FUNDS TO M & M MARCHES, MAKERS DISTILLRY AND GENERAL
           MILLS HIVERNING TO PROMOTE NAME-BRAND PROGRAMS OVERSEAS. MR.
           PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT A LIST FOR THE RECORD OF SOME 84

           LARGE COMPANIES THAT ARE AWARDED MAP FUNDS FOR BRAND-NAME
           PROMOTIONS IN 1997. AND I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS
           LIST BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           HEARING NONE, SO ORDERED.
           

           MR. BRYAN: FINALLY LET ME NOTE IN THIS CONTEXT WHEN WE TAKE A
           LOOK AT THE NAMES AMONG THE TOP-TEN AWARDS FOR BRANDS-NAME
           PROMOTIONS, THE TOP TEN FOR BRANDS-NAME PROMOTIONS, IT IS
           INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES RECEIVE ONLY $825,000
           OF THE $7,816,000 THAT WENT TO THESE TEN APPLICANTS. IN
           CONTRAST, THE TOP-TWO NAME BRAND RECIPIENTS -- SUNKIST AND BLUE
           DIAMOND -- RECEIVED MORE THAN $4 MILLION, MORE THAN HALF OF

           THAT $7.8 MILLION TOTAL. WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO TIGHTEN THE
           PROGRAM, TO LIMIT ITS FUNDING, TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF
           PREFERRED PARTICIPANTS. BUT THE SAME LARGE, WELL-KNOWN
           RECIPIENTS YEAR AFTER YEAR CONTINUE TO SHOW UP ON THIS TOP-TEN
           LIST. MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED FIVE AND SIX YEARS
           AGO CONTINUE TO GO UNRESOLVED. AND THIS RECENT REPORT BY THE
           G.A.O. STILL CANNOT VERIFY THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE USDA TO
           JUSTIFY THE MAP PROGRAM. THE DISTRIBUTION, MADAM PRESIDENT, OF

           MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES FOR
           SELF-PROMOTION DOES NOT WIN ANY COMMON-SENSE AWARDS, BUT
           CONTINUED SPENDING ON SUCH A PROGRAM WITHOUT CONFIRMATION OF
           THE PROGRAM'S EFFECTIVENESS IS AN UNFORGIVABLE ABUSE OF
           TAXPAYER DOLLARS. BEFORE I CLOSE MY COMMENTS, I WANT TO PUT
           THIS PROGRAM IN SOME PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I EXPECT MANY OF MY
           COLLEAGUES WILL COME TO THE FLOOR TO DEFEND THIS PROGRAM THAT
           TAKES $90 MILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND USE IT IS FOR FOREIGN

           ADVERTISING. MR. PRESIDENT, THE MAP PROGRAM CANNOT OFFSET
           FOREIGN COMPETITORS EXPORT SUBSIDIES BECAUSE IT IS NOT -- IT
           DOES NOT MAKE U.S. PRODUCTS MORE AFFORDABLE. IT IS AN
           ADVERTISING SUBSIDY, NOT AN EXPORT SUBSIDY. WE NEED TO ENSURE
           THAT OUR AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS PROVIDE REAM AND MEASURABLE
           BENEFITS TO U.S. FARMERS AND CONSUMERS, ESPECIALLY AS FARMERS
           ARE FACING FALLING PRICES AND MAP'S BENEFITS DO NOT IN ANY WAY
           MEET THIS TEST. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. BEFORE DOING

           SO, IF I COULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR MY FULL STATEMENT TO
           BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. BRYAN: I THANK THE CHAIR, AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE RANKING

           MEMBER FOR INTERRUPTING. MR. COCHRAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
           

           MR. COCHRAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM THE
           UNANIMOUS VOTE WE HAD ON THE RESOLUTION WHEN WE STARTED THE
           DEBATE ON THIS LEGISLATION THAT ALL SENATORS AGREE THAT OUR
           AGRICULTURE SECTOR IS UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE. THE CONGRESS
           AND THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO RESPOND TO
           THESE NEEDS IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR BECAUSE OF LOW PRICES IN
           SOME AREAS, BECAUSE OF ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS IN OTHER

           AREAS, BECAUSE OF A DECLINE IN DEMAND, RESULTING FROM THE ASIAN
           ECONOMIC CRISIS. SOME OF OUR STRONGEST CUSTOMERS AND MARKETS
           ARE IN THAT AREA OF THE WORLD. SO, I THINK WE'VE ALL GONE ON
           RECORD AS AGREEING WE NEED TO USE OUR BEST EFFORTS, WE NEED TO
           MOBILIZE OUR AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ON THE
           RESPONSIBILITY OF HELPING TO DEVELOP ACCESS TO NEW MARKETS, TO
           TRY TO HELP EXPAND OLD MARKETS SO THAT WE CAN SELL WHAT WE ARE

           PRODUCING AND CREATE A BETTER PROSPECT FOR PROFIT IN
           AGRICULTURE IN THE PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE SECTOR. SO, I DON'T
           THINK THAT WE'VE SEEN A SITUATION IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS
           WHEN THERE WAS ANY MORE REASON TO HAVE A MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM
           AND TO INVEST IN AN EFFORT TO EXPAND THESE MARKETS AND MAKE
           THEM MORE ACCESSIBLE TO U.S. AGRICULTURE EXPORTS. THE PURPOSE
           OF THE MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM WHICH WE BEGAN IN 1985 WAS TO HELP

           OPEN AND EXPAND FOREIGN MARKETS. SINCE THEN AGRICULTURE EXPORTS
           HAVE DOUBLED. LAST YEAR AGRICULTURE EXPORTS AMOUNTED TO $57.3
           BILLION, WHICH RESULTED IN A $21.5 BILLION AGRICULTURE TRADE
           SURPLUS, PROVIDING JOBS FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION
           AMERICANS. WHEN WE HAD OUR HEARINGS IN OUR AGRICULTURE
           APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE THIS YEAR, WE HAD REPRESENTATIVES

           FROM THE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE TALKING ABOUT THE
           FOREIGN AGRICULTURE SERVICE PROGRAMS. I'M GOING TO READ YOU
           SOMETHING -- I READ THE SENATE SOMETHING FROM ONE OF THOSE
           OFFICIAL'S STATEMENTS. HE SAID, "THE OUTLOOK FOR U.S.
           AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY COMPETITIVE
           PRESSURES THAT DIFFER BY COMMODITY AND CAN AFFECT PRICE AND/OR
           QUANTITY OF SALES. ONE OF THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF THIS PRESSURE

           IS THE RISING VALUE OF THE U.S. DOLLAR, ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE
           CURRENCIES OF OUR MAJOR COMPETITORS. THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF
           MAKING U.S. EXPORTS MORE EXPENSIVE TO OUR CUSTOMERS RELATIVE TO
           THOSE OF OUR COMPETITORS." THEN THERE'S THE DISCUSSION IN
           ANOTHER PART OF THIS WITNESS'S STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THE
           COMPETITORS ARE DOING TO TRY TO ENLARGE THEIR SHARE OF THE
           WORLD MARKET FOR THEIR PRODUCTS. "WE CONTINUE TO FACE STIFF
           COMPETITION IN MARKETS AROUND THE GLOBE. OUR ANNUAL REVIEW OF

           THE EXPORT PROMOTION ACTIVITIES OF THE 22 COUNTRIES THAT
           ACCOUNT FOR OUR MAJOR COMPETITION FOUND THAT JUST LIKE THE
           UNITED STATES, MANY 6 OUR -- MANY OF OUR COMPETITORS HAVE
           AMBITIOUS EXPORT GOALS. THE E.U. -- EUROPEAN UNION -- AND OTHER
           COUNTRS ASSIST THEIR PRODUCERS AND SMALL BUSINESS TO DEVELOP
           FOREIGN MARKETS THROUGH ACTIVITIES SIMILAR TO OUR MARKET ACCESS
           PROGRAM AND FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM." HE GOES ON TO

           SAY THAT IN THE E.U. COUNTRIES, IT'S ESTIMATED THAT $400
           MILLION IN 1995 AND 1996 WOULD BE SPENT FOR MARKET PROMOTION.
           IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND, THOSE GOVERNMENTS HAVE
           STRONG GOVERNMENTAL PROMOTION AGENCIES AND RELY HEAVILY ON
           THEIR STATUTORY MARKETING BOARDS TO CARRY OUT MARKET
           DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR PRODUCERS OF SPECIFIC AGRICULTURAL

           PRODUCTS. WITH THIS INFORMATION AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF
           THE SUCCESS THAT MANY OF THESE COUNTRIES WHO ARE COMPETING WITH
           US FOR MARKET ACCESS AND MARKET GOALS, IT WOULD BE THE HEIGHT
           OF FOLLY, IN MY JUDGMENT, TO ABANDON ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
           PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE HAD TO ASSIST OUR AGRICULTURE PRODUCERS IN
           FINDING NEW MARKETS AND EXPANDING THOSE MARKETS. WE HAVE HAD

           ALMOST EVERY YEAR SINCE I'VE BEEN MANAGING THIS AGRICULTURE
           APPROPRIATIONS BILL BILL, AN EFFORT TO EITHER REDUCE THE AMOUNT
           OF MONEY WE WERE SPENDING ON MARKET ACCESS PROMOTION OR TO
           ELIMINATE THE PROGRAM ENTIRELY. IN THE WRITING OF THE 1996 FARM
           BILL TO TRY TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE CRITICISM THAT HAD BEEN
           DIRECTED TOWARD THIS PROGRAM, IT WAS REFORMED AND CHANGED SO
           THAT THIS YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY SMALL BUSINESSES AND

           FARM COOPERATIVES WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THE BENEFITS OF THIS
           MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM. THERE HAD BEEN CRITICISM THAT ONLY THE
           BIG, WEALTHY COMPANIES WERE BENEFITING. ONLY BRAND NAMES WERE
           BEING ADVERTISED. IT WAS A WAY FOR BIG COMPANIES TO AVOID
           HAVING TO PAY THEIR OWN ADVERTISING COSTS. WELL, LET ME EXPLAIN
           THAT BECAUSE OF THE REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE
           EXPERIENCES THAT MANY HAVE HAD
{END: 1998/07/15 TIME: 17-30 , Wed.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}