[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        NORTHEAST DAIRY COMPACT

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, last summer, the heavens opened and much 
of the Midwest was flooded. We did exactly what we should have done, we 
provided the farmers and others out there with all the help we could.
  I suppose if we had sharpened our pencils and engaged in a bloodless 
cost-benefit analysis we would not have done so. After all, why should 
our tax dollars subsidize other farmers?
  When the Southeast had a serious drought several years ago, our 
farmers went out and got extra hay out of their fields, and I had the 
honor and pleasure and fun of being an engineer on a train that carried 
the hay from one end of Vermont to the other as we collected it and 
sent it down to the Southeast in order that their farmers could make it 
through that very bad summer.
  Farmers in my State have always pitched in to help others, whether it 
was floods in the Midwest or drought in the South.
  But what baffles me today is that some of my colleagues from the 
Midwest were engaged in an even more extreme calculation. Despite the 
fact that the New England dairy compact would have no impact on States 
outside the region, a small group of my colleagues seemed hell bent on 
destroying it.
  The logic escapes me. This bipartisan scorched earth policy seems to 
have so infected this place that spite seems to rule rather than 
reason. Right now we could not ship milk from this place, the somatic 
cell count is so high.
  What is this terrible monster that we propose? It is a simple effort 
by the people of six States to control their destiny. I say the people 
and I mean it. This compact has been the product of six very different 
legislatures, and six very public processes.
  These States, Republicans and Democrats, farmers and consumers, from 
the concrete of the cities to the rocky hillside farms, all pulled 
together to agree on the future of those farms.
  The compact would provide a mechanism for New England States to 
coordinate their efforts to establish price stability for both farmers 
and consumers. We would improve milk markets and milk marketing in the 
compact region. The compact would set up a commission representative of 
the milk producer, marketer, and consumer interests in each New England 
State.
  The bill itself is the formal product of a thorough interstate 
legislative process. The six New England legislatures carefully 
dissected all of the issues involved, assessing and considering 
consumer protection, potential impact on the marketplace, both regional 
and national, and the benefit to the dairy farmers. I believe, as do 
many of my colleagues, that the compact strikes a successful balance 
among the different concerns.
  The compact provides a benefit to the region's farmers and consumers. 
There would be no adverse impact on either the national dairy industry 
or the Federal Marketing Agreement Act which regulates the industry. 
Let me repeat that. There would be no adverse impact on other farmers 
in this Nation.
  On a different day, many of my colleagues who oppose the compact 
would agree with me that it is in the best interest of consumers and 
rural areas that supplying dairy farms remain local, as well as 
productive and stable. Ensuring a local supply of fluid milk to the 
region is in the best interest of the consumers and processors. 
Stabilizing farm prices is one way to help ensure that dairy farmers 
can continue to supply fresh, high quality fluid milk to the local 
markets.
  Our dairy farmers are receiving milk prices well below the cost of 
production. Current milk prices to farmers are as low as they were over 
10 years ago, yet the cost of production and price to the consumer have 
increased. The compact would protect the interests of consumers located 
within the compact region. Farmers and consumers would both benefit 
from the compact's ability to establish a more stable price structure 
for the milk they produce and purchase, removing the fluctuations in 
fluid milk prices, assuring the region a viable supply of locally 
produced milk.
  Mr. President, as you can see, the compact was developed in the best 
interest of the consumers and the farmers. Consumers in the compact 
region have sufficient power to protect themselves. The compact allows 
one State, one vote. Consuming States, such as Rhode Island, with 35 
farmers and 1.3 million people, have equal say in the decision to 
impose a pricing regulation with Vermont, having 2,200 farmers and 
550,000 people. Also, the imposition of a pricing regulation requires a 
two-thirds vote of the compact commission's delegations.
  In Massachusetts consumers outnumber the farmers about 1,800 to 1. 
Yet, the support for the compact is overwhelming. I say God bless them.
  It must be made clear that the compact would not discriminate against 
out-of-region farmers or processors. The compact models or mirrors the 
Federal law of milk price regulation. Under the compact, as under 
Federal law, no burden other than the regulation of the farm price 
would be placed on the interstate shipment of milk. Any dairy farmer, 
without any competitive disadvantage, may market milk in the compact 
region, whether they reside in the region or not. No barriers to trade 
are created. Milk would continue to flow into and from the compact 
region in the same manner as it does under the current Federal law.
  New England produces approximately 3 to 4 percent of the Nation's 
milk supply. Of that only half goes into class 1 or fluid milk, which 
represents 1\1/2\ percent of the Nation's supply. We are talking about 
an extremely small amount of milk in a localized area.
  Yet there are still those who insist that the dairy compact will 
result in a surplus of milk. Those who believe this are wrong. New 
England is a milk deficit area for its fluid milk. Rhode Island, 
Massachusetts, and Connecticut produce milk at levels far below the 
needs to serve consumer's fluid milk. Only Vermont and Maine produce 
more milk than they consume. New England, to meet the demands of the 
consumers, must go well into the New York State area. The fact is, the 
result of the compact would be no increase in milk production in New 
England.

  And for those of us in the North, we cannot ship to Canada, yet 
Canada can ship into our manufactured product market. Our farmers need 
the flexibility of benefiting from our local markets. The compact would 
give us that opportunity. As I say, we cannot ship to Canada. They are 
a highly subsidized area, and yet they can ship to businesses in our 
area.
  The compact would have the authority to set a price on class 1 or 
bottled milk only. Almost all of this fluid milk is produced within a 
300-mile radius of Boston. All other classes of milk purchased for 
manufacturing purposes such as cheese, ice cream, and milk powder would 
be exempt from the compact.
  This past weekend I was back in my home State of Vermont. Dairy 
farmers spent most of the weekend chopping the last of their corn and 
finishing fall chores, getting ready for the cold Vermont winter. Since 
only 1984, almost a third of the 3,170 dairy farms operating in Vermont 
have shut down. The trend continues, not only Vermont and New England 
but other regions of the country as well.
  What does it say about our values and priorities when farmers, who 
perform one of the most basic and important jobs to our society, are 
underpaid and unappreciated? Do we value farmers or do we not? New 
England, along with its Governors, legislatures, consumers, processors, 
and farmers know the importance and value of their dairy farmers. A 
fresh local supply of milk, open productive land, rural economic 
communities, strong family values, and the need for good farmers for 
many years to come is why the consumers of New England are willing to 
pay to farmers the money they deserve.
  Our consumers have proved they are willing to pay 5 to 10 cents more 
per gallon of milk to give the farmers the price they deserve. The 
average family will spend about $5 more per year on milk if the compact 
increased the price to consumers by 10 cents.
  I was asking my colleagues to respect the interstate cooperation 
among the compact region. Concerns of the compact, with respect to 
several of my colleagues, have been addressed with amendments and 
explanations.
  Six years of interstate cooperation has gone into this dairy compact 
to assure those outside the compact region would not be adversely 
impacted.
  New England's dairy industry will continue to slip away, unless the 
region can act together to help protect one of the region's most vital 
resources, its dairy farms. This interstate compact gives us the 
opportunity to do just that. It would give New England the chance we 
deserve to help ourselves.
  As Sam Rayburn used to say, any jackass can kick down a barn, but it 
takes a carpenter to build one. We have the drawings, thanks to the 
people of New England. Now let us raise that barn.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senators from Vermont and 
associate myself with their remarks and with the compact which they 
have fought so hard for.
  Although the dairy industry in Maine is not as proportionately 
significant statewide as it is in Vermont, for those involved it is, of 
course, of equal and total significance.
  Over the past few weekends, I have met with several of the dairy 
farmers in my State and can verify from personal experience and 
knowledge the difficult circumstances that exist as a result of the 
situation described by the Senators from Vermont.
  We believe that the compact would have had the dual benefits of 
assisting farmers in the region without threatening in any way farmers 
in any other region. We regret that not all saw it that way, and we 
regret even more that this important legislation will not be enacted 
this year.
  But I think it inevitable, and I encourage my colleagues to continue 
their efforts. I will not attempt to restate all of the facts set forth 
in their statements or the reasons for the need for such a compact.
  I can only say that I strongly support the compact. I regret that the 
underlying legislation to which it was intended to be offered was 
prevented from being brought to the Senate, and therefore it was not 
possible to complete action in the Senate. In any event, as we know, 
the House did not act on the matter, and therefore it will have to go 
over until the next year.
  In the meantime, many farm families throughout New England will 
suffer through a most difficult winter because of the circumstances 
which now exist.
  And so I conclude by thanking my colleagues from Vermont for their 
leadership and aggressive effort. It has been a pleasure for me to work 
with them on this matter, and I join them in regreting that we were not 
able to enact this legislation this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with no great happiness that I 
must rise in opposition to the S. 2069, a bill which grants the consent 
of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I have a great 
deal of respect for Senator Leahy, the sponsor of this legislation and 
my Chairman on the Agriculture Committee as well as the majority 
leader, Senator Mitchell, and the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. 
Jeffords] as well. I have very high regard for their commitment to 
agricultural producers in their States and throughout the country. In 
particular, there is no one in this body who has worked harder to 
develop and pass national dairy policy for the farmers of this country 
than Senator Leahy.
  Unfortunately, the Compact is the antithesis of national policy--it 
is an approach which divides the U.S. dairy industry by insulating the 
northeast dairy industry from the market conditions that all other 
farmers in this country must face. That is inconsistent with the 
national approach to policy reform that Wisconsin dairy farmers tell me 
is desperately needed.
  I also want to say that I have the utmost respect for the intentions 
of Senator Leahy, the majority leader and the other cosponsors of this 
bill. I understand the plight of their farmers, I understand the pain 
those farmers and the rural northeast communities have experienced, I 
understand the loss of family farms.
  I understand these things because producers and others in Wisconsin 
have experienced these problems more acutely than any other region of 
the country and more than any other individual State. My State of 
Wisconsin, which until last year was the No. 1 milk producing State in 
the country, suffers from the loss of over 1,000 dairy farmers per 
year. We lose more farms per year than the current number of dairy 
farmers in five of the six compact States.
  Wisconsin is not only losing farms but we are also losing milk 
production overall. We are also losing cheese processing plants to 
other regions due to artificial advantages provided to other regions by 
Federal law.
  In the early 1980's we had nearly 45,000 family dairy farmers in 
Wisconsin. Today we have only 29,000. While we still have more 
producers than any other State in this country, our numbers are 
dwindling. A recent survey indicated that in the next 5 years 40 
percent of our remaining farmers will go out of business. That is over 
11,000 family dairy farmers.
  This trend is mirrored in other States throughout the Upper Midwest. 
While we recognize that there are many reasons for this decline, the 
overwhelming message I hear from family dairy farmers in Wisconsin, 
Minnesota and throughout the Midwest is that we need reform of outdated 
federal milk marketing orders which provide artificial advantages to 
other regions of the country driving Wisconsin farmers out of business.
  So I understand the desire of Senator Leahy and others in the 
Northeast to remedy their local and regional problems in their dairy 
industry, however further regionalizing dairy policy is not the answer. 
Milk is marketed nationally and regulated federally. Similarly, 
Congressional changes to dairy policy must recognize the national 
nature of milk marketing as well as the comprehensive and interrelated 
nature of fluid and manufactured milk products.
  I had hoped to work with him on the compact in the context of 
national milk marketing order reform. I had hoped the situation was not 
at a stalemate. I do look forward to working with the chairman on dairy 
policy next year.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________