Mr. Coburn: I address my comments to amendment 2289. I would ask that the amendment be considered as read without objection. This is an amendment that falls in line with what the recommendation of the administration is as well as every outside group that's ever looked at this program. The department of agriculture has five marketing programs. This is just one of them. The administration recommended a 20% reduction. We have put forward an amendment to reduce it by 20%. We spend $2 billion over the next ten years on market access. American contribution to total world agricultural products is on the decline in spite of these program, and the waste in these programs, if you loo where the money is spent, is unbelievable. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. Stabenow: thank you, mr. President. I would rise to oppose my colleague's amendment. The relate thank you for us that american agricultural exports are the only real area where we have a surplus right now, and we to continue that. The current program that the senator is speaking about is all about exports. It's all about jobs. For every $1 invested in this particul market access program, $35 is generated back in economic activity. I think that's a pretty good investment. We knowhat a very important part of the future, not only for our traditional production agricultural parts of the country but for smaller, value-added food products really is in exports. And this supports that. And so I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Coburn: I would assume by the chairman's response that she supports the $20 million that went into a reality tv show in india to purchase cotton other than made in the united states. That's where $20 million of it went. That's what's wrong with this program. I'm not objecting to the fact that we ought to have market access programs, but when we're wasting $20 million on something that has no connection whatsoever with American agriculture.