WASHINGTON, D.C. — An amendment to the 2012 farm bill that would have reduced funding for the Market Access Program (MAP) by 20 percent was defeated in the U.S. Senate last week by a vote of 69-30.

The amendment was one of several proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). Under the Senate’s version of the farm bill (S. 3240), passed last Thursday, MAP was funded at the current level of $200 million per year.

The Coburn amendment would have reduced spending by $40 million annually and limited marketing activities. A wide range of ag groups advocated against the amendment. MAP monies go to open new export opportunities around the world, and according to many ag leaders, the program has a long record of success.

“MAP funding in conjunction with other smaller funding programs has been an important contributor to the success of U.S. coarse grain and DDGS (distillers dried grains) exports worldwide. U.S. agriculture trade is one of the few U.S. trade areas that maintains a surplus. Without MAP funding, U.S. grains exports will face a much tougher uphill battle,” said Wendell Shauman, chair of the U.S. Grains Council.

In fiscal year 2010, agriculture’s trade surplus was $29.7 billion, jumping to $42.7 billion in FY 2011 and is forecast to be $27 billion for FY 2012, according to USDA.

“This is one of the few export programs that has been colossally successful over time,” said Steve Kopperude, government affairs consultant to the American Feed Industry Assoc. (AFIA). 

According to the USDA, since MAP’s creation in 1985, U.S. agricultural exports have increased by more than 400 percent. The export forecast for FY 2012 is estimated to be $134.5 billion, second only to the all-time record $137.4 billion achieved in 2011.

Data show a return of $35 for every $1 invested in market development, according to an analysis by IHS Global Insight in 2010. With Europeans and others investing heavily in marketing their exports, the field is extremely competitive, ag leaders said.

Coburn expressed his displeasure over the defeat of the MAP amendment, saying it would have prevented waste in a tough economy. “I’m disappointed the Senate refused to take a modest step of reducing funding for the market access program by 20 percent, which the Obama administration has supported in the past,” he said.

“The Senate’s decision to protect taxpayer funding for reality TV in India and pet shampoo promotion speaks volumes about why the American people have lost confidence in our ability to set priorities and make rational decisions.”

Ag leaders said Coburn’s statement was misleading.

“We talk in sound bites without really understanding the issue. The reality TV was a design competition to promote the use of cotton in India, a big market for cotton. He may have confused our program with farm market development, which has a different purpose. The pet shampoo promotion would have been in that program’s area,” said Danny Murphy, first vice president of the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA).

About 50 percent of U.S. soybeans and soybean oil are exported, he said. “Another way to look at it is about one of every two rows is exported (nationally). In some states like Iowa or Illinois, where animal agriculture is greater, that percentage is less. In my home state of Mississippi, we export 80-90 percent of our soybeans.”

The United States is the largest producer and exporter of soybeans, according to USDA statistics.

“MAP funds are really important to us. We use the funds to go into foreign markets, including 80 different countries around the world. We help those growers increase production and show them how to process and use soybeans efficiently,” Murphy said.

“It’s no doubt soybean exports have grown leaps and bounds. It’s important to note that private industry has to match those (MAP) funds. The soybean checkoff has spent in excess of $20 million (to expand exports).”

ASA, on behalf of the U.S. soybean industry, has received about $4.5 million annually in MAP funds in recent years. Since private industry is investing its own money in addition to public funds through MAP, that money is spent carefully, Murphy noted.

Under MAP rules, participants submit market development plans to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, which determines what activities merit funding. In his recent report on public funds, Coburn argued that big, successful name-brand companies were benefitting from MAP funds; however, Kopperude disputed that claim.

“According to the rules of the program, MAP funds are restricted to generic products. When we open a market as industry representatives, we inform our members, and it’s up to those companies (who are qualified) to pursue that market,” he said.

Many ag groups came together to support MAP, including the National Corn Growers Council, the National Sorghum Producers, the National Barley Growers Assoc. and others. The U.S. House will work on its own version of the farm bill as early as July 11.