[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S12289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUDGE IN MINNESOTA BLOCKS CLASS I DIFFERENTIALS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this week Senator Leahy and I addressed
the Senate about our concerns and disappointment with the recent order
by the U.S. District Court of Minnesota which enjoined the Secretary of
Agriculture from enforcing class I differentials in 28 of the current
33 Federal milk marketing orders. If the November 3, 1997, ruling
stands, it will throw the entire milk pricing system into chaos
threatening the continued existence of thousands of dairy farms
nationwide.
Mr. President, it is imperative that Secretary Glickman move
immediately to seek a stay and file an appeal to the court's decision.
I am joining several of my colleagues in a letter to Secretary Glickman
to formally request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture appeal the
decision. I urge others to contact Secretary Glickman to recommend that
he act swiftly in this request as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter
being sent to Secretary Glickman appear in the Record.
This ruling should not impact the current reforms of the Federal milk
marketing orders with respect to the basic formula price and class I
differentials. It is important that the Department of Agriculture
continue to use sound public policy in determining a pricing structure
that is in the best interest of dairy farmers and consumers alike. Both
the Senate and the House of Representatives have expressed in
overwhelming fashion to the Secretary of Agriculture the support and
importance of maintaining our class I differentials. Recently, 48
Senators wrote to Secretary Glickman supporting class I differentials
and endorsing the Department's option 1-A proposal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of October 10,
1997, regarding overwhelming support for option 1-A appear in the
Record.
Mr. President, those of us who value dairying in our States should
recognize the dangerous precedent of this ruling. The success of an
appeal to overturn in this case is of vital importance to the survival
of dairy farmers across this Nation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 10, 1997.
Hon. Dan Glickman,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Glickman: Considering the recent district
court decision out of Minnesota, we want to reconfirm our
views on milk marketing orders and strongly recommend that
the USDA seek a stay and appeal the decision.
In reviewing the various options for the pricing of Class 1
fluid milk, it is still our view that Option 1-A is the most
viable and economically sound approach to the future pricing
of fluid milk.
Last month forty-eight Senators and one hundred and
thirteen Members of the House of Representatives indicated to
you that Option 1-A reflects good public policy necessary for
effective milk marketing order reform. Our support for Option
1-A is based upon a number of important factors:
It recognizes the transportation costs involved in moving
fluid milk from the farm to the consumer.
It takes into account the importance of balancing the
supply and demand for milk, ensuring adequate production to
meet all fluid milk needs.
It recognizes the costs of producing and marketing milk
and, therefore, does not inflict economic hardship on dairy
producers in any one region to benefit others.
It is sensitive to the need for attracting supplemental
milk supplies to regions of the country that occasionally
face production deficits.
These are some of the reasons that most of the dairy
producing regions of the country support Option 1-A for the
regional pricing differentials for fluid milk.
Under the November 3, 1997, court decision in Minnesota
Milk Producers, et al. v. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of
Agriculture would be required to end the Class I
differentials in the milk marketing order system. If this
decision stands, it will throw the entire milk system into
chaos threatening the continued existence of thousands of
dairy farms nationwide.
Appealing the court's ruling is in the best interest of
milk producers and consumers across the country.
We look forward to your comments and to working closely
with you on the federal order reform process.
Sincerely,
Jim M. Jeffords.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 10, 1997.
Hon. Dan Glickman,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Glickman: In reviewing the various options
for the pricing of Class 1 fluid milk, it is clear that
Option 1-A is the most viable and economically sound approach
to the future pricing of fluid milk.
Option 1-A reflects good public policy necessary for
effective milk marketing order reform. Our support for Option
1-A is based upon a number of important factors: It
recognizes the transportation costs involved in moving fluid
milk from the farm to the consumer; it takes into account the
importance of balancing the supply and demand for milk,
ensuring adequate production to meet all fluid milk needs; it
recognizes the costs of producing and marketing milk and,
therefore, does not inflict economic hardship on dairy
producers in any one region to benefit others; and it is
sensitive to the need for attracting supplemental milk
supplies to regions of the country that occasionally face
production deficits.
These are some of the reasons that most of the dairy
producing regions of the country support Option I-A for the
regional pricing differentials for fluid milk.
As part of the reforms to the Basic Formula Price (BFP), we
urge the Department to seriously consider partially
``decoupling'' fluid milk prices from the volatile cheese-
based pricing system that has resulted in wide fluctuations
in milk prices.
This pricing system has dramatically reduced farm milk
prices and has left permanently high consumer prices. In our
view, maintaining price stability is an extremely important
order reform goal for both dairy farmers and consumers.
We look forward to your comments and in working closely
with you on the federal order reform process.
Sincerely,
James M. Jeffords; Patrick Leahy; Susan Collins; Lauch
Faircloth; Chris Dodd; Bob Graham; Alfonse D'Amato; Joe
Biden; Mary L. Landrieu; Bill Roth; John Breaux; Jesse
Helms; Jeff Bingaman; John F. Kerry; Tim Hutchinson;
Max Cleland.
Connie Mack; Daniel P. Moynihan; John H. Chafee; Patty
Murray; Joe Lieberman; Edward Kennedy; Larry E. Craig;
Charles Robb; Paul Coverdell; Barbara A. Mikulski; Ron
Wyden; Richard Shelby; Pete V. Domenici; Mitch
McConnell; Jack Reed; Jeff Sessions.
Ernest Hollings; Olympia Snowe; Strom Thurmond; John W.
Warner; Dale Bumpers; Bob Smith; Slade Gorton;
Christopher Bond; Thad Cochran; Rick Santorum; Arlen
Specter; John Glenn; Dirk Kempthorne; Mike DeWine; Judd
Gregg; Paul S. Sarbanes.
____________________