[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 135 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12215-S12226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
      RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask consent that the Senate proceed to the 
conference report to accompany the Agriculture appropriations bill, the 
conference report be considered as read, and immediately following the 
reporting by the clerk and granting of this consent, Senator Jeffords 
be recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. In light of the objection, I now move to proceed to the 
conference report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 
1906) an act making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1906), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record on September, 30, 1999.)
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask consent following my remarks, Senator 
Jeffords be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I say to the membership, if an agreement cannot be reached 
for a total time limitation that is reasonable, I will file a motion 
for cloture on the Agriculture conference report, and that a cloture 
vote will occur on Tuesday of next week at 5:30 unless a consent can be 
worked out to conduct the vote at an earlier time or unless something 
can be worked out to just have the vote on final passage.
  I ask the Senator from Vermont if he is in a position to agree to a 
time limitation for debate at this time on the pending Agriculture 
conference report?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe I can't make that agreement at this time.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleague for his frankness. I understand his 
feeling about it. I know there are Senators on both sides of the aisle 
who have some

[[Page S12216]]

reservations about going forward with this bill. I know they can 
understand the need to move this very important bill on through the 
conference process and to the President for his signature.


                             Cloture Motion

  I send now a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 1906, the Agriculture appropriations 
     bill.
         Trent Lott, Thad Cochran, Tim Hutchinson, Conrad Burns, 
           Christopher S. Bond, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Robert F. 
           Bennett, Craig Thomas, Pat Roberts, Paul Coverdell, 
           Larry E. Craig, Michael B. Enzi, Mike Crapo, Frank H. 
           Murkowski, Don Nickles, and Pete Domenici.

  Mr. LOTT. I ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask consent that the cloture vote occur at 5:30 p.m. on 
Tuesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is now recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is with great disappointment and 
reluctance that I stand before the Senate to express my reasoning for 
opposing the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. This 
bill provides funding for agricultural programs, research, and services 
for American agriculture. In addition, it provides billions of dollars 
of aid for farmers and ranchers throughout America who have endured 
natural and market disasters.
  However, and most unfortunately, it neglects our Nation's dairy 
farmers. I understand the importance of funding these programs and the 
need to provide for farmers. However, dairy farmers throughout the 
country, drought-stricken farmers in the Northeast, have been ignored 
in this bill. Congress is willing to provide billions of dollars in 
assistance to needy farmers across the country. Dairy farmers in States 
are not asking for Federal dollars but for a fair price structure for 
how their products are priced.
  Vermonters are generally men and women of few words. Given that the 
State's heritage is so intertwined with agriculture and the farmer's 
work ethic, whether fighting the rocky soil or the harsh elements, 
Vermonters have developed a thick skin. If Vermonters want advice, they 
will ask it. Until then, it is best to keep one's mouth shut.
  Indeed, a Vermonter will rarely meet a problem with a lot of 
discussion but, rather, with a wry grin and perhaps a shrug. If there 
is a blizzard and the temperature is below zero, the Vermonter will 
most likely put on his boots and grab a shovel. Talking isn't going to 
make the snow melt, but hard work will clear a path so the mailman can 
get to the door.
  A Vermonter will always speak his or her mind with the fewest words 
possible. President Calvin Coolidge was a native Vermonter to the core. 
A woman told Calvin Coolidge, that taciturn 30th President who hailed 
from Vermont, she bet she could get him to say more than two words. 
Coolidge thought a moment and then replied, ``You lose.''
  Vermonters know I must speak my mind about the importance of 
protecting the farm families in our State. They expect me to be 
generous with my thoughts and expressions on just how critical the 
Northeast Dairy Compact is to Vermont. I will not let them down. The 
clock is ticking on the dairy compact and Federal order reform. Every 
moment is valuable.
  As Governor Aiken, a true Vermonter, said:

       People ask what's the best time of the year for pruning 
     apple trees. I say, when the saw is sharp.

  In other words, procrastination has no place in a Vermonter's 
mindset. Assuming every Vermonter owns a sharp saw, the best time to 
get to work pruning an apple tree is right about now.
  America's dairy farmers need our help. Now is the time to help them. 
Congress has the tools and the means, so let us not procrastinate on 
protecting the future of one of our most important resources. The 
farmers in New England have a program that works. It is called the 
Northeast Dairy Compact. Because the dairy pilot program has worked so 
well, no fewer than 25 States have approved compacts and are now asking 
Congress for approval.
  Unlike other commodities such as wheat, cotton, or soybeans, milk 
cannot be stored to leverage a better price from the market. Milk must 
be bottled and shipped to the grocery store as soon as it is taken from 
the cow. Because of the unique situation milk is in compared to other 
commodities and ensuring there is a fresh local supply of milk in every 
region of the country, Congress established a pricing structure to 
protect farmers and consumers. There have been several modifications of 
the 1937 Agricultural Marketing Adjustment Act over the years to comply 
with changes at the marketplace, but the structure of the Federal milk 
marketing orders is as solid and important both to farmers and 
consumers today as in 1937.
  The Federal milk marketing orders have assisted dairy farmers in 
surviving the economy and weathering prices. The Federal milk marketing 
orders over the last 60 years have been, and continue to be, supplying 
the Nation with sufficient supplies of a wholesome product and at very 
reasonable prices. You ought to compare the prices over time with other 
things such as soft drinks and things such as that and you will realize 
what a deal you have. To those who say they do not understand them, who 
make fun of their seeming complexity, I can only reply: They work. 
Because they work, dairy is not looking for a bailout in the form of 
disaster relief; no.

  But dairy farmers do need relief of a different kind. There is no 
need for the expenditure of money. The compact we need to have does not 
cost the Government money; it saves the Government money. It also 
brings about a calm structure to the pricing aspects. It protects the 
producers, protects also the manufacturers, and has worked out 
especially well for consumers, giving them an average price for their 
milk which is lower than the average in the country. Where commodity 
farmers are asking their Government for relief from natural and market 
disasters, dairy farmers are asking for relief from the promised 
Government disaster in the form of a fair pricing structure from the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
  This chart, which I will have here in a moment, will demonstrate so 
those who can see it will understand better what I am talking about. 
What we are here about today is that, basically, we have a very 
reasonable request for the continuation of a compact which has worked 
for many years now, and is so good that, first of all, it has 25 States 
that have passed laws to have another compact. But, most importantly, 
it also, unfortunately I should say at the same time, is keeping 
farmers in business. For some reason or other, those up in the Midwest, 
who have this compulsion to believe they can provide the milk for the 
whole Nation if they just had the chance, they don't like it. Why? It 
is keeping the farmers in business and they want them out of business 
so they can take away their markets.
  Second, you have people who do not like it--although those in the 
area who are using it like it very much--but others outside the area 
are very concerned about it; that is, those who buy the milk are 
concerned because they no longer have a monopoly or they are at the 
mercy of the market. Because when dairy sits there, it spoils, so you 
have to get it right away. If nobody takes it, it is not worth much. So 
the processors do not like this because they do not set the price. They 
do not have a monopoly.
  How does it work? We put together a system for the dairy farmer up in 
northeastern Vermont. They worked out this arrangement. That is why 
Massachusetts, which has very few farms, and Rhode Island, agreed to 
join together, because they found out it would work out for their 
processors, it would work out for the consumers, and it would work out 
for the farmers. But dairy farmers do need relief of a different kind.
  There is no need for an expenditure of money where commodity farmers

[[Page S12217]]

are asking for relief from natural and market forces. They are asking 
for relief in the form of a fair pricing structure from the Secretary 
of Agriculture. This chart says it all. I hope my colleagues remember, 
I had this chart before this body some time ago. It helps us get the 
necessary votes to show a majority understood. From this chart, which 
is the revenue loss resulting from the Federal USDA order proposed--
that is 1-B--you can see why we are having such conflict and why we are 
having a difficult time getting the dairy bill through.
  On this chart, those States in red are the ones that will lose under 
1-B. The States in green are the ones that will gain. Guess where those 
are that will gain. They are in the upper Midwest. Everybody else in 
the country, with a few exceptions, loses. So what does the Secretary 
do? He sets up this scam way of approving the order by saying it is 1-B 
or disaster. How would you vote? Would you vote for 1-B or would you 
vote for disaster? Guess what. 1-B won, but was that the preference of 
the farmers? No. We have gone to court on that and the court agreed and 
said that was a farce. So there is a restraining order to stop the 
imposition of 1-B. But remember that chart because it shows why and 
what this is all about.
  Unless relief is granted by correcting the Secretary's final rule and 
extending the Northeast Dairy Compact, dairy farmers in every single 
State will sustain substantial losses, not because of Mother Nature or 
poor market conditions but because of the Clinton administration and 
the few in Congress who have prevented this Nation's dairy farmers from 
receiving a fair deal.
  Unfortunately, Secretary Glickman's informal rulemaking process 
developed pricing formulas that are fatally flawed and contrary to the 
will of Congress. The Nation's dairy farmers are counting on this 
Congress to prevent the dairy industry from being placed at risk, and 
to instead secure a sound future.
  Secretary Glickman's final pricing order, known as option 1-B, which 
I just talked about, was scheduled to be implemented on October 1 of 
this year. However, the U.S. district court has prevented the flawed 
pricing system from being implemented by issuing a 30-day temporary 
restraining order on the Secretary's final rule. That will expire at 
the end of this month. Hopefully, it will be extended.
  The court found the Secretary's final order and decision violates 
Congress' mandate under the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 
1937, and the plaintiffs who represent the dairy farmers would suffer 
immediate and irreparable injury from implementation of the Secretary's 
final decision.
  The court finds the plaintiffs have a likelihood of success in their 
claim that the Secretary's final order and decision violates the AMAA 
by failing adequately to consider economic factors regarding the 
marketing of milk in the regional orders across the country.
  Again, this chart shows why the court said we had better take another 
look at this. If this is what is going to happen with this order by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, that does not seem to be consistent with 
talking about the regions, making sure the regions are handled fairly.
  The temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. district court has 
given Congress valuable additional time to correct Secretary Glickman's 
rule. We must act now. With the help of the court, Congress can now 
bring fairness to America's dairy farmers and consumers. Instead of 
costing dairy farmers millions of dollars in lost income, Congress 
should take immediate action by extending the dairy compact and 
choosing option 1-A for the Secretary.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill, which includes billions of 
dollars in disaster aid, seems to be a logical place to include 
provisions that would help one of this country's most important 
agricultural resources without any cost to the Federal Government. 
Again, I repeat that over and over again--without any cost to the 
Federal Government. Giving farmers and consumers a reliable pricing 
structure and giving the States the right to work together, at no cost 
to the Federal Government--again, at no cost to the Federal 
Government--to maintain a fresh supply of local milk is a novel idea.
  If you learn about agricultural problems in this country, you will 
realize much of the aid in this bill does not go for disasters of the 
kind of weather or whatever. It is low prices. So what is going to 
happen? The Federal Government is going to put up billions of dollars 
because the farmers did not get the price that they thought was fair. 
That is fine, but why in the world could you, then, deny the area of 
New England an order which helps them to keep their farmers in business 
and doesn't cost any money to the Federal Government?
  That sounds like a convoluted way of running a system, but we may be 
getting used to it.
  It is an idea towards which Congress should be working. Instead, a 
few Members in both the House and Senate continue to block the progress 
and the interest of both consumers and dairy farmers.
  The October 1, 1999, deadline for the implementation of the 
Secretary's rule has come and gone, but with the help of a U.S. Federal 
district court, Congress still has time to act. We must seize this 
opportunity to correct the Secretary of Agriculture's flawed pricing 
rules and at the same time maintain the ability of the States to help 
protect their farmers without additional costs to the Federal 
Government.
  Federal dairy policy is difficult to explain at best. I have been 
here 24, 25 years. When I was in the House, I was fortunate enough, or 
unfortunate as you might say, to be the ranking member on a 
subcommittee dealing with dairy. I point back to that time because that 
was the Watergate years. The reason I got that job was because there 
were not many Republicans left, and all of us received ranking jobs of 
some sort.
  At that time, we had problems, and we have had problems every year I 
have been here. We finally have come across a program that works that 
will prevent the travesties we have witnessed over the years. I have 
seen it for 24, 25 years now, and I finally see there are programs that 
will work, programs that will keep us out of disasters, programs that 
will make us proud of agriculture and protect the consumers' costs and 
protect all the others who work with it. Why do we want to do away with 
it?
  Federal dairy policy is difficult to explain at best. As a Member who 
has served many years, and during my years in the House, I worked very 
closely with dairy programs that impacted dairy farmers and consumers. 
The Federal Milk Marketing Program may be difficult to explain, but its 
intent is simple. The Federal milk marketing orders, which are 
administered by USDA, were instituted in the 1930s to promote orderly 
regional marketing conditions by, among other things, establishing a 
regional system of uniform classified pricing throughout the country's 
milk markets. Milk marketing policy is defined by the fact that milk is 
a unique commodity. It is not something such as grain which is put in a 
storage bin or put in a freeze locker or canned. When you want it, you 
want it fresh and you want to be able to drink it.
  Fluid milk is perishable and must be worked quickly through the 
marketing chain and reach consumers within days of its production. That 
is why if a farmer goes to the person from whom he normally purchases 
milk and he says we don't want it, they are at their mercy: ``Well, 
we'll take it up $2, $3 less a hundredweight if you really want to get 
rid of it.''
  Unlike other commodities, this means that dairy farmers are in a poor 
bargaining position with respect to the price they can obtain from milk 
handlers. In addition, persistent price instability, particularly when 
prices are depressed, serves to drive producers from the market and 
damage the market's ability to provide a dependable supply of quality 
milk to consumers.
  We get this up and down. If there is too much, farmers go out of 
business; if there is too little, then farmers either come back or they 
put more cows out. The interesting thing is, if you look at the 
charts--consumers should be very interested in this--you will see a 
ratchet effect. Every time the price to the farmer goes down, the 
retail price stays up there because the processors keep it up there. 
The farmers lose and the consumers lose. That price should

[[Page S12218]]

go down if the demand goes down, but that does not happen. That is 
another reason why this compact has worked so well because it takes 
that ratchet situation out of the system.
  Based on the Agriculture Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the major 
objectives of the Federal milk marketing orders are as follows: to 
promote orderly marketing conditions for dairy farmers; to equalize the 
market power of dairy farmers and processors within a market and 
thereby obtain reasonable competition; to assure consumers of adequate 
and dependable supplies of pure and wholesome fluid milk products from 
the least costly sources; and to complement the efforts of cooperative 
associations of dairy farmers, processors, and consumers; and to 
provide maximum freedom of trade with proper protection of established 
dairy farmers against loss of the market.
  For dairy farmers increasing production to adjust to market 
conditions is not a matter of sowing more seeds. Price stability is a 
key to dairy farmers' success. That makes sense to me and should make 
sense to anyone who values having a local supply of fresh milk 
available at their local market at reasonable prices.
  Yet while the market order system is basically sound, it still needs 
improvement. It is for this reason that the Congress in the 1996 farm 
bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to revise the pricing 
system.
  This Congress has made its intention abundantly clear with regard to 
what is needed for the new dairy pricing rules. Sixty-one Senators and 
more than 240 House Members signed letters to Secretary Glickman last 
year supporting what is known as option 1-A for the pricing of fluid 
milk.

  On August 4 of this year, you will recall the Senate could not end a 
filibuster from the Members of the upper Midwest but did get 53 votes, 
showing a majority of the Senate supports option 1-A and keeping the 
Northeast Dairy Compact operating. Most recently, the House passed 
their version of option 1-A by a vote of 285-140.
  The House and Senate have given a majority vote on this issue. Thus, 
I was very hopeful that its inclusion would have been secured in the 
Agriculture appropriations bill.
  This unified statement of congressional intent reflected the fact 
that the majority of the country and the dairy industry support option 
1-A. It has a broad support of Governors, State departments of 
agriculture, the American Farm Bureau, and dairy cooperatives and 
coalitions from throughout the country. Even the Land-O-Lakes 
Cooperative in the upper Midwest supports option 1-A and the compacts.
  You can imagine the surprise and disappointment of so many of my 
colleagues and dairy farmers around the country when Secretary Glickman 
instead chose option 1-B for the pricing structure for fluid milk. 
Simply stated, if this option is allowed to be implemented, it will put 
the future of this country's dairy industry at severe risk.
  The pricing provisions of the Secretary's final rule will result in 
lower producer prices by as much as a $1/2 million a day and will 
unnecessarily force farmers out of business. Adequate local supplies of 
fresh milk in our region will then be threatened and consumers will pay 
higher prices for fresh milk which is transported great distances from 
other areas of our country.
  I see my good friend from New Jersey is here. I am ready to go on at 
length. I expect he wants to express himself.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
yielding. I thank him in behalf of the dairy farmers in New Jersey and 
agricultural interests in our State and region for his extraordinary 
leadership in what is a defining moment for those of us in the Senate 
as to whether or not we will stand with agriculture in the Northeast or 
the dairy farmers and the farmers who remain in our region of the 
country are simply to dwindle and die as did so many who came before 
them.
  I could not feel more strongly about this issue at this moment in the 
Senate. As the Senator from Vermont, year after year I have come to 
this well--or in my service in the House of Representatives--as an 
American feeling the need and the pain of others who suffered from 
hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in California, tornadoes in the 
Midwest, floods in the upper Northwest to get assistance to people in 
need.
  Through the years, I voted for agricultural appropriation after 
agricultural appropriation because I understood the hard work of 
American farmers in our heartland and the difficulties they face in 
flood or in diseases to crops, whatever the problem might be.
  You can imagine my surprise to find, when the State of New Jersey, 
New England, and the Mideastern States have suffered the worst drought 
in generations, that our farmers are not receiving the same 
consideration.
  From June through August, in a normal year, the State of New Jersey 
would receive 8 inches of rain. This year, New Jersey received 2 inches 
of rain. Our reservoirs were severely drained. The crops of many fruit 
and vegetable growers were devastated with losses of 30 to 100 percent.
  Yesterday, Senator Santorum noted that this legislation deals with 
the falling prices of crops in the Midwest and offers relief. He 
appropriately said: We wish we had falling prices at which to sell our 
crops.
  The crops of New Jersey farmers are destroyed. Yet this legislation, 
which offers $8.7 billion in relief, goes largely for low crop prices 
in the South and to a lesser degree in the Midwest. Only 10 percent is 
for natural disaster assistance for the entire Nation.
  Not only is it not adequate, it is an insult to the hard-working 
farmers in New Jersey and New England who have been devastated by the 
drought. In my State, 400,000 acres of farmland, on 7,000 farms, have 
sustained what is estimated to be up to $100 million worth of damage.
  Secretary Glickman has estimated there could be $2 billion worth of 
damage in the entire Northeast. The Governors of our States, including 
Governor Whitman in my own State, have estimated it could be $2.5 
billion. That was before Hurricane Floyd brought its own damage to 
North Carolina and New Jersey and other agricultural interests. This 
legislation offers but 10 percent--less than half, probably less than a 
third--of what the need really is at the moment.
  It will surprise some around our country to understand why a Senator 
from New Jersey would take this stand attempting to block the entire 
agricultural appropriations for the whole Nation because of farmers in 
New Jersey.
  New Jersey has not been identified as the Garden State by chance. 
Agriculture in New Jersey is a $56 billion industry. It is the third 
largest industry in the entire State. It matters. The nursery industry 
alone is a $250 million annual business. The sale of vegetables, such 
as tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers, is a $166 million industry. And 
the sale of fruits, such as cranberries, peaches, and blueberries, is a 
$110 million business. Our field crops, such as corn, winter wheat, and 
soybeans, generate $66 million in sales while our dairy industry is a 
$41 million business.
  This is not some ancillary problem in the State of New Jersey. It is 
the economic life of whole counties, entire communities, and thousands 
of people. At $8,300 for an average acre of land in New Jersey, our 
farmland is the most valuable in the Nation, growing 100 different 
kinds of fruits and vegetables for local and national consumption.
  I take a stand against this legislation because I have no choice. I 
join with the Senator from Vermont because of the devastation of our 
agriculture industry but also because I share the Senator's deep 
concern for the future of dairy. The dairy industry was once one of the 
largest and most important in the State of New Jersey. There are now no 
more than 180 dairy farms left, with hard-working people in Salem, 
Warren, Sussex, and Hunterdon Counties.
  I know if the Senator from Vermont does not get consideration for his 
dairy farmers, his dairy industry will become tomorrow what the dairy 
industry has come to be today--prices that do not sustain a quality of 
life and do not allow people to keep the land. Those dairy farms will 
be destroyed.
  In the last decade alone, 42 percent of the dairy farms in New Jersey 
have been destroyed--beautiful lands that sustained families and 
communities and are now parking lots and shopping centers or simply 
vacant, idle land. The fact is, a dairy farmer today in New Jersey 
cannot get a price to sustain the costs of his business. Without

[[Page S12219]]

the compact that the Senator from Vermont is advocating, they never 
will. New Jersey dairy farms have experienced a 37-percent drop in the 
price of their product. It is not sustainable.
  So I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding the time. I pledge 
to return to this floor with him to fight for disaster assistance for 
New Jersey farmers who have lost their crops and need help--not a loan, 
because they cannot sustain a loan; they cannot pay interest on a loan. 
These are small family farms that simply need a Federal grant, a 
fraction of the kind of expenditures that will go to the South and the 
Midwest--a fraction--so they can plant their crops again in the spring 
and have a new crop next year to feed their families and feed our 
communities. For this dairy compact, we need to make sure these few 
remaining dairy farmers are not lost and the 20 percent of the fresh 
milk that goes to New Jersey families can continue to come from our own 
farms.
  For those people who live in the urban areas of New Jersey and in 
suburban communities, who think they are far away from these dairy and 
agricultural needs, this remaining agricultural land in New Jersey must 
not be destroyed, because with every dairy farmer who goes out of 
business, every family farmer who has to sell their land, that open 
space is lost to suburban sprawl, and it affects the quality of life of 
every family in our State.
  So I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding the time. I pledge 
to return again and again with him to try to fight this legislation 
and, if by chance we should fail, to urge the President to veto it. I 
thank the Senator for yielding the time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I commend the Senator from New Jersey for his very 
realistic look at this bill. I would like to emphasize that there is so 
much more than the ordinary disaster in here. It has nothing to do with 
hurricanes and the drought. And the billions of dollars for the 
Northeast, which had the drought and problems and all, have nothing to 
do with farmers. Not only that, the program they have--which costs no 
money and which has given security to the farmers and helped the 
consumers--will not go forward. They rejected our attempts to put it in 
there.
  The Senator from Oregon, I believe, desires to speak on another 
matter. I would like to finish up with a few more remarks, and then I 
would be happy to yield. We may have one other Member coming over to 
speak on dairy. But I know he also supports this effort, and I 
appreciate that very much.
  Let me remind my colleagues that unlike years ago, the Federal 
pricing program has essentially no Federal cost and no Federal subsidy. 
So here we are arguing for something to protect our farmers, to protect 
consumers, to protect the processors with a reasonable price, and we 
cannot get it approved, when billions of dollars are being spent in the 
disaster bill for nondisasters--except a lower price. That is a 
disaster, but it is not the kind of disaster we look to for protection 
by the Federal Government.
  The overall loss to dairy farmers caused by the overall final rule is 
even more startling. We are back on 1-B, the one the Secretary of 
Agriculture jammed down the farmers' throats. Fortunately, the courts 
have put a stop to that.
  The Secretary's final rule will drop the price paid for cheese by as 
much as 40 cents per hundredweight of milk. That is the way we look at 
how we reward the farmers for each hundredweight of milk. Dairy 
economists estimate that U.S. dairy farm annual income will fall in 
total by at least $400 million or more under the Secretary's final 
decision.
  Who benefits from that? Do the consumers? No. There is no evidence 
whatsoever that they will benefit. Who will benefit? The processors, 
the ones that buy the milk. Their profits will go up. The farmers' 
profits will go down. And the consumer prices will go up. What we are 
trying to set up is a system where that does not occur. The Northeast 
is projected to lose $80 million to $120 million per year under 1-
B. The Southeast loses $40 to $60 million. The upper Midwest will lose 
upwards of $70 million, even though, as the chart in red shows, they 
lose a lot less. In fact, they gain. On the other hand, most areas of 
the country will be better off under option 1-A, including the upper 
Midwest. Marginally increasing producer income in most regions of the 
country, option 1-A is based on solid economic analysis, benefiting 
both farmers and consumers. It takes into account transportation costs 
for moving fluid milk, regional supply and demand needs, the cost of 
producing and marketing milk, and the need to attract milk to regions 
that occasionally face production deficits.

  In early August, dairy farmers were given the opportunity to vote for 
option 1-B or reject the Federal Milk Marketing Order Program. That is 
right. There were two choices given to dairy farmers: Either approve 
option 1-B or have no Federal order program. Which is it? It is not a 
surprise that the farmers overwhelmingly chose the lesser of two evils.
  There was no sense to this. There was no reason to allow it to occur. 
Correcting the Secretary's final rule, as part of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, would have prevented dairy farmers across the 
Nation from losing millions of dollars in income.
  Let me also explain briefly, before I turn to my friend from Oregon, 
the votes were in the conference committee to put in what we are trying 
to do. They were there. However, what happened? Just as we were about 
to have that vote, people from processors and others came in, and the 
leaders who were behind this move were able to convince those Members 
not to vote for what we want here, which is basically real help to 
farmers and consumers.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, at least until my good 
friend from Oregon has finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes tonight--
Senator Graham of Florida will be joining me, and Senator Gordon Smith 
of my home State, my friend and colleague, will be joining me as well 
tonight--the three of us want to take a few minutes to talk about the 
important amendment we were able to have added to the HHS 
appropriations bill during the course of the last week.
  In the beginning, we especially express our appreciation to Senator 
Specter and Senator Harkin. They worked with the three of us and our 
staffs over the last week on this particular issue.
  What our agricultural labor amendment does is require the Department 
of Labor to report to the Congress on how the Department plans to 
promote a legal, domestic workforce--specifically, to improve 
compensation, working conditions, and other benefits for agricultural 
workers in the United States.
  Today's agricultural labor program is a disaster for both farm 
workers and for farmers. We have a system that is completely broken. 
Estimates are that well over half of the farm workers in this country 
are illegal. As a result of their status, they can have no power at 
all. They can't even vote. They are subjected to the worst possible 
conditions imaginable, horrendous housing, and, in many instances, 
thrown into the back of pickup trucks and moved by people called 
coyotes, who, for a profit, bring them from other countries. The 
conditions to which our agricultural workers are subjected in so many 
instances are nothing short of immoral.
  At the same time, the growers, who have a dependable supply of 
workers to pick their crops, are also in a completely untenable 
situation, the growers who want to do the right thing. Senator Smith 
and I represent a great many of those growers and farmers in our home 
State of Oregon, who don't know where to turn to find legal workers.

  The General Accounting Office did a report a couple of years ago on 
the farm worker situation in our country. They said there really are 
enough farm workers, but they came to that conclusion only by counting 
the illegal farm workers in our country. Well over half of the farm 
workers in the United States are illegal. It is a situation that 
essentially turns those farmers, when they want to do the right thing, 
into people who have to make a choice as to whether or not they want to 
be felons

[[Page S12220]]

and not comply with the law or simply another individual in the 
bankruptcy line in our country.
  To give you an idea how absolutely unacceptable this situation is, 
just this week I had berry farmers from my home State in Oregon telling 
me they had recently had meetings with the Department of Justice and 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They were told, in effect, 
how to work the system, but they weren't given any hope that what they 
were doing was within the law. In effect, the administration was 
telling the berry farmers in my State, with a wink and a nod, they 
should tolerate this system that is based on workers who can have no 
power and farmers who lack a system that is dependable and reliable so 
they can find legal workers.
  In the last session of Congress, Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and I 
put together a bipartisan proposal to change this wholly unacceptable 
situation and produce a new system for dealing with agricultural labor 
that would be in the interest of both the farm worker and the farmer. 
Under our proposal, workers who were legal would get a significant 
increase in their benefits. Just how significant was documented in a 
report done for us by the Library of Congress, October 21, 1998. At 
page 2 of that report, it states specifically that the Library of 
Congress found that under our proposal--it received 67 votes in the 
Senate--the legal farm worker would get significantly higher wages, 
under what the Senate voted for. In addition, there would be benefits 
for housing, transportation, a variety of benefits that are so critical 
to the farm workers.
  But after 67 Members of the Senate voted for our proposal, the 
administration said: It is unacceptable. We are going to veto it. It is 
not good enough. We have other ideas.
  At that time, Senator Smith, Senator Graham, and I entered into a 
series of discussions with the Clinton administration asking them for 
their plan on how to produce this system that would address the 
legitimate concerns of both the farm workers and the growers. We have 
been at that for more than a year.
  I see our good friend Senator Graham coming to the floor, and I will 
yield to him in just a moment.
  Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and I have been at the task of trying 
to get from the administration their plan to deal with agricultural 
labor for more than a year. We told them, if they don't like our 
proposal--67 votes in the Senate; the Library of Congress said it will 
produce higher benefits, wages, improved transportation, and improved 
housing for so many legal workers--since it wasn't good enough for the 
Clinton administration, we would like to see their proposal. We decided 
we would, in the spirit of comity and a desire to get an agreement with 
the executive branch, wait for their proposal.
  We are still waiting to this day. The administration remains on the 
sideline to this day, unwilling to come forward with any specific ideas 
that would be in the interests of both the workers and the growers. 
Just this week, they told the berry farmers in my home State--and we do 
a lot of things in Oregon well; frankly, what we do best is grow 
things; our farmers are very important to our State--the administration 
basically told them, just wink and nod at the rules that are out there 
today.
  In December of 1998, Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor, sat in a 
meeting in Senator Graham's office with Senator Graham, Senator Smith, 
and myself. Alexis Herman told us, three Members of the Senate, that 
the administration would give us a specific proposal for dealing with 
this agricultural labor situation by the end of February 1999.
  No such proposal has ever been delivered. In a moment, I am going to 
yield to my friend from Florida because he has essentially laid out a 
timeline that demonstrates how many times we have tried to get the 
administration off the sidelines and to join us in a bipartisan effort 
to produce a system that would work for the farm worker and for the 
grower.
  By its inaction, the administration is perpetuating a system that is 
a disaster for both the farm worker and the farmer. It is a system that 
is totally broken--a system that has condemned the vast majority of 
farm workers to some of the most terrible and immoral conditions 
imaginable. It is a system that has made it impossible for the farmers 
who want to do the right thing to know where to turn.
  In the last Congress, Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and myself 
brought a legislative proposal that would change that, which the 
Library of Congress said would produce a significant amount of 
additional benefits for the legal farm worker. The Clinton 
administration said that wasn't good enough, and we have waited and 
waited for their ideas.
  Well, tonight, as a result of the action taken in the Labor-HHS bill, 
we are calling, as a matter of law, on the Clinton administration to 
give us their plan as to how to produce a legal domestic workforce, 
which would have improved compensation, improved working conditions, 
and improved benefits that those farm workers are entitled to as a 
matter of simple justice.
  So I am hopeful that we will get the administration off the sidelines 
soon. I am hopeful that they will do what they promised to do well over 
a year ago.
  If the Senator from Vermont is willing, I would like to break my 
remarks off at this point and allow the Senator from Florida to speak 
for a few minutes. We want to be courteous to our colleague from 
Vermont because he is dealing with an issue of great importance to him. 
We will be brief.
  I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                          Library of Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1998.

                              [Memorandum]

     To: The Honorable Ron Wyden; Attention: David Blan.
     From: American Law Division.
     Subject: Agricultural Labor Proposal.

       In your letter of October 15, 1998, you asked for a 
     memorandum comparing the basic federal protections available 
     to farm workers with the protections that would have been 
     extended to farm workers under the proposed conference 
     agreement to the Commerce State Justice bill/H2A provision. 
     The letter stated that you are ``especially interested in 
     whether the agricultural labor proposal before the 
     Appropriations Conference Committee would have offered farm 
     workers, and particularly the more than 99.5% of U.S. farm 
     workers who work on non-H-2A farms new or expanded benefits 
     compared to current law.''
       The proposal would have required the Secretary of Labor to 
     establish state and regional registries containing a database 
     of eligible United States workers seeking temporary or 
     seasonal agricultural jobs, in order to inform those workers 
     of available agricultural jobs and to grant them the right of 
     first refusal for available jobs. Basically, farmers would 
     have to apply to the registry for U.S. workers, and hire all 
     referred U.S. workers, before they could seek nonimmigrant 
     alien temporary agricultural workers under the immigration 
     program known as ``H-2A.'' Agricultural employers could not 
     import any workers unless the registry failed to refer a 
     sufficient number of registered workers to fill all of the 
     employer's job opportunities. Therefore, the employer could 
     only acquire as many imported workers as would be needed in 
     addition to those U.S. workers referred.
       The proposal would have had an impact on domestic farm 
     workers in addition to its effect on alien workers. The 
     general legislative scheme was to condition the right of an 
     agricultural employer to request and hire temporary alien 
     workers on the employer's requirement, first, to seek 
     domestic workers from the registries maintained by the Labor 
     Department, and, then, to extend the protections granted to 
     H-2A aliens under the proposal to all workers in the same 
     occupation on the same farm. Under the proposal, agricultural 
     employers seeking domestic and foreign workers through the 
     registries were required to assure that they would not refuse 
     to employ qualified individuals, and would not terminate them 
     unless there were ``lawful job-related reasons, including 
     lack of work.'' Employers were also required to comply with 
     the following specific assurances.


                                 wages

       Under current law, agricultural employers, unless they are 
     exempt as small farmers, must pay the applicable minimum wage 
     and overtime rates under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (FLSA) or 1938, as amended. 29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 201-19. Under 
     that law, farm workers must receive the greater of the 
     applicable federal or state minimum wage.
       Under the conference agreement, the employer must pay the 
     greater of the prevailing wage in the occupation or the 
     adverse effect wage rate to the workers. The employer using 
     the registry must provide assurances that the wages and 
     benefits promised to the workers hired from the registry 
     would be provided ``to all workers employed in job 
     opportunities for which the employer has applied [from the 
     registry] and to all other workers in the same occupation at 
     the place of employment.''


                       migrant worker protection

       Under current law, agricultural employers who hire migrant 
     and seasonal workers must

[[Page S12221]]

     comply with the provisions of the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSWPA). 29 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 1801-72. The MSWPA, however, does not cover any 
     temporary nonimmigrant alien authorized to work in 
     agriculture employment under the H-2A program. See 29 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1802(8)(B)(ii).
       Under the proposal agricultural employers were required to 
     comply with all applicable federal, state, and local labor 
     laws, including laws affecting migrant and seasonal 
     agricultural workers, for all United States workers as well 
     as all alien workers on the farm.


                                housing

       Under current law, employers have no responsibility to 
     provide housing or housing assistance to their workers. Under 
     the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 
     (MASWPA), any person who owns or controls housing must comply 
     with substantive federal and state safety and health 
     standards applicable to that housing. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1823.
       Under the conference proposal, employers are required to 
     provide housing at no cost to all workers in jobs for which 
     the employer has applied to the registry, and to all other 
     workers in the same occupation as the place of employment, if 
     the workers' permanent place of employment is beyond normal 
     commuting distance. The employer may provide a housing 
     allowance as an alternative.


                          workers compensation

       Under current law, workers compensation coverage is 
     exclusively a subject of state law, which may not cover all 
     agricultural employees, especially those considered casual or 
     temporary.
       Under the proposal, the employer was required to provide 
     insurance coverage providing benefits equivalent to those 
     under state law, at no expense to the worker, for any job 
     that was not covered by the state workers compensation law.


                               head start

       Under current law, migrant employees find barriers to 
     participation in Head Start programs.
       Under the proposal, the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start 
     Program would have been established, removing barriers to 
     participation by the children of migrant farmworkers.


                             transportation

       Under current law, employers are not obliged to provide 
     transportation to workers. If transportation is furnished, 
     the employer and any farm labor contractor must comply with 
     the motor vehicle safety requirements of the MSWPA. 29 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1841.
       Under the conference proposal, a worker who completed 50 
     percent of the period of employment would be reimbursed for 
     transportation expenses to the job, and a worker who 
     completed the period of employment would be reimbursed for 
     the cost of transportation back to the worker's permanent 
     place of residence.


                       enforcement of labor laws

       Under current law, labor laws are enforced primarily by the 
     U.S. Department of Labor and by the responsible state labor 
     enforcement agencies.
       Under the proposal, the Secretary of Labor was required to 
     establish an expedited complaint process, including a written 
     determination of whether a violation has been committed 
     within 10 days of the receipt of a complaint.
       Workers on farms where the employer did not seek workers 
     through the Labor Department registry would not have been 
     affected by the proposal. Agricultural employers who hire 
     migrant and seasonal workers must comply with the provisions 
     of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker protection 
     Act (MSWPA). 29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801-72.
       In conclusion, the proposed agricultural registry program 
     would have required farmers to extend the protections of the 
     federal migrant and seasonal worker law to all workers in the 
     same occupation on the site. The proposed agricultural 
     employment bill could well have expanded employment 
     protections for U.S. workers beyond current law. If an 
     agricultural employer applied to a registry and found enough 
     U.S. workers for some or all of the available job 
     opportunities, then those U.S. workers would have been 
     entitled to the enhanced wage, housing, transportation, and 
     other benefits and protections made applicable to all 
     employees in the same work on the same site.

  Mr. WYDEN. I am going to yield the floor at this time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has a brief 
statement to make on the bill that we are talking about. I know the 
Senator from Florida has a brief statement, and I have no objection to 
the Senator from Florida leading. I also thank my friend from Oregon 
for his remarks about a very serious topic.
  I yield to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Vermont and 
Maine for their always courteous generosity, and my colleague from 
Oregon, with whom I have been working so closely for approximately 2 
years-plus now on this important issue.
  There is one thing I believe we can agree on, and that is that the 
status quo of agricultural farm workers in America is unacceptable. It 
is unacceptable to have somewhere between 35 and 50 percent of all of 
our migratory farm work done by people who are here illegally. It is 
unfair to the individuals involved because it puts them in the shadows 
of our society.
  If I may, I will state a personal experience. Immediately after 
Hurricane Andrew, which hit south Florida in August of 1992, there was 
great concern about communicable diseases such as cholera; therefore 
the Public Health Service wanted to inoculate the whole population 
against the potential of these diseases. There is a substantial migrant 
farm worker population that lives in the southern part of our State, 
and many of those people refused to come forward to be inoculated, nor 
would they allow their children to be protected against communicable 
diseases because they live in such a dark shadow because of their 
undocumented status. They were fearful that if they came forward, even 
with firm promises and commitments by the Public Health Service that 
they would not be reported for any other purpose, they were still not 
willing to take the risk. So they put themselves, their families, and 
the entire community at risk. That is one anecdote of the degree to 
which, by our acceptance of the status quo, we have placed hundreds of 
thousands of people into a status of servitude and in the dark closet 
of our society.
  We also have placed honest farmers in an extremely difficult 
situation. They are frequently presented with documents that appear to 
be credible. They hire people to do necessary work during the brief 
period that is available to harvest the crops, and then they find out 
later that these people had fraudulent documents, were undocumented, 
and that they might be subject to various sanctions.
  We also know that because of the current system, we have farm 
workers--both those who are legal citizens or residents of the United 
States, as well as those who are undocumented--living in horrendous 
circumstances of housing, being transported in vehicles that don't meet 
basic safety standards, being placed in a position where their salaries 
are held each week in order to pay off previous debts, and they live in 
conditions that are reminiscent not of the 21st century but of the 17th 
or 18th century. These people are doing extremely difficult work, work 
that is vital to our Nation and vital to our Nation's economy. They 
deserve better from us, the policymakers of America, than we have done 
for them in the past.
  One thing we also know, in addition to the fact that the status quo 
is unacceptable, is the status quo will continue until we decide that 
this issue is important enough to engage in a serious debate in which 
we can analyze what the problems are with the status quo, and what the 
range of solutions to those problems are, and which of those solutions 
appear to be most appropriate. And it is regarding that which the 
Senator from Oregon has mentioned that we have had a series of efforts 
to try to elicit from the administration their plan.
  Now, why have we focused so much on the administration? Well, first, 
they happen to have a unique perspective on the problem, since they are 
responsible to the Department of Labor, and, secondarily, the 
Department of Agriculture, for the implementation of the status 
quo. Therefore, they should be in a specially advantaged position to 
analyze and recommend alteration to the status quo.

  We also know in this form of government we have that while the 
legislature's responsibility is to enact law, the President, because of 
his role and because of his constitutional veto authority, plays a key 
position in terms of legislation and the law.
  So beginning in June of 1997, we have been meeting with 
representatives of the administration, heads of departments, as well as 
representatives of the White House. Senator Wyden and myself, sometimes 
accompanied by others, have met face-to-face, occasionally by 
conference telephone call, and occasionally by correspondence with the 
administration on 12 separate occasions between June of 1997 and May of 
1999.
  Each one of those had a common theme: What is your proposal? What is 
your diagnosis of the problem? What is your prescription against this 
problem?

[[Page S12222]]

 As of today, in early October of 1999, we have yet to receive a 
credible response to that question.
  Thus, the amendment that was accepted to the bill we have just 
adopted directs the administration to submit to the Congress such a 
plan. It is my hope that the administration will do so with a sense of 
expedition. I hope within a period of 60 or 90 days we receive its 
recommendations so that, if not at their first session of the 106th 
Congress, then at the earliest point in the second session of the 106th 
Congress, we would be in a position to have the administration's views 
as to how this very vexatious problem could be resolved.
  I might say that the fact we have made this request, and have made it 
now for the better part of 30 months, is not an indication that we are 
going to desist until we have heard the administration's plan. While we 
would like to have their guidance and suggestions, we consider it to be 
our ultimate responsibility, as we did in 1998 when we presented to the 
Senate and the Senate adopted by a margin of well over 2 to 1, the 
proposal that we submitted. We will continue to take effective action 
to keep this issue on America's agenda because we cannot tolerate a 
continuation of the status quo which places hundreds of thousands of 
human beings into a position of servitude and which places hundreds of 
thousands of legitimate farmers in a position in which they must 
operate at the fringe of the law when what they want to do is to be 
law-abiding citizens.
  Before this 106th Congress concludes, I hope we will have had the 
wisdom to reject the status quo and to have adopted humane, effective 
public policy which will erase the stain of the status quo of American 
farm workers, which will have lifted this cloud of illegality from 
American farmers, which will assure standards of treatment that we as 
fellow human beings would consider to be dignified and respectful for 
other human beings, and that we can move forward with a new era in 
America agriculture.
  I appreciate the work of my colleague from Oregon. I also commend our 
other colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. It is an outstanding 
example of the people of Oregon who have sent to us these two Members 
of the Senate, who happen to be from different parties but understand 
their ultimate commitment is to America and to what is best for this 
great Nation. They are giving us, in this case, as in other areas, an 
example of what bipartisanship means and what bipartisanship can 
accomplish. For that, as well as for their friendship, I extend my 
gratitude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know my good friend from Maine is 
desirous to speak, and I certainly appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Agriculture 
conference report. I rise in strong opposition to the conference 
report.
  First, I wish to commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, 
for his leadership, for his perseverance, for his hard work and 
determination on behalf of all the small dairy farmers, not only in his 
State of Vermont but in the State of Maine and throughout New England. 
I thank him. I commend him for the extraordinary effort he has 
displayed and exhibited throughout this process.
  It is only regrettable that those members of the conference committee 
in resolving the differences between the House and the Senate on the 
Agriculture conference report did not recognize the position that has 
been held by all of us who represent the New England States for the 
Northeast Dairy Compact. That is why I rise in strong opposition to the 
Agriculture appropriations conference report because it does not extend 
a reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact.
  This issue is a States rights issue more than anything else. Quite 
simply, it addresses the needs of the States in the Northeast, and most 
specifically those in New England, that have organized in a way that we 
can allow fair prices for locally produced supplies of fresh milk.
  All the legislatures have approved the compact in New England, and in 
the Northeast, and all that is required is the sanction of Congress to 
reauthorize this compact. The compact has protected New England farmers 
against the loss of their small family dairy farms and consumers 
against the decrease in the fresh supply of local milk. The compact has 
proven to be an effective approach to address farm insecurity. The 
compact has stabilized the dairy industry in this entire region and has 
protected farmers and consumers against volatile price swings.
  As I say, we are talking about small dairy farmers. In my State of 
Maine, the farmer has an average of 50 cows on their farm. They are 
trying to preserve a way of life, a way of life that has been there for 
families for generations. We are trying to protect them through this 
dairy compact.
  All we are asking from this Congress is a reauthorization so we can 
extend this way of life to small dairy farmers--not agribusiness, not 
big business, not co-ops, just small dairy farmers who want to produce 
milk so they can sell it to the consumers in my State of Maine, to 
Senator Jeffords' State of Vermont, and within the New England region.
  Over 97 percent of the fluid milk market in New England is self-
contained. Fluid milk markets are local due to the demand for freshness 
and high transportation cost. So any complaints raised from other parts 
of the country about unfair competition is quite disingenuous.
  All we are asking for is a continuation of the Northeast Dairy 
Compact, the existence of which does not threaten or financially harm 
any other dairy farmer in the country--not any other dairy farmer in 
the country. It is to help our dairy farmers within New England, to 
help the consumers, to help a way of life. The Northeast Dairy Compact 
currently encompasses the New England States and only applies to fluid 
milk sold on grocery store shelves in the Northeast.
  Only the consumers and the processors in the New England region pay 
to support the minimum price to protect a fair return to the areas' 
family dairy farmers and to protect a way of life important to the 
people of Northeast.
  All six of the New England States have supported this through the 
acts of the legislature, and through all of their Governors, because 
each Governor has signed a resolution supporting the Northeast Dairy 
Compact.
  Let me repeat. Every Governor and every State legislature in New 
England have supported the dairy compact. Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents support the dairy compact through acts of the legislatures 
because they recognize how important this compact is to the small dairy 
farmers in the Northeast.
  Under the compact, New England retail milk prices have been among the 
lowest and the most stable in the country. The opposition--again, we 
have heard it day in and day out--has manufactured arguments against 
the compact, saying that increased milk prices.
  Let's look at dairy prices over the past few months around the 
country for a gallon of fresh milk. The price in Augusta, ME, ranged 
from $2.89 to $2.99 per gallon from February to April of 1999; in 
Boston, MA, the market price stayed perfectly stable at $2.89 from 
February to April of 1999; the price in Seattle ranged from $3.39 to 
$3.56 over the same time period. Washington State is not in the 
compact. Yet their milk was approximately 50 cents higher per gallon 
than in the State of Maine. The range in Los Angeles was from $3.19 to 
$3.29; in San Diego, the range was from $3.10 to $3.62. California is 
not in the compact. Las Vegas prices were $2.99 all the way up to $3.62 
in that time period; not much price stability there. And then Nevada is 
not in the compact. In Philadelphia the range was $2.78 to $3.01 per 
gallon, not as wide a shift as Nevada but a much wider price shift than 
the Northeast Compact States.
  That is why Pennsylvania dairy farmers want to join us. That is why 
Pennsylvania supports joining the compact.
  Denver, CO, on the other hand, is not in the compact. A gallon of 
milk in Denver has cost consumers anywhere from $3.45 to $3.59 over the 
past few months, over one half a dollar more than in New England.
  The Northeast Dairy Compact has not resulted in higher milk prices in

[[Page S12223]]

New England in spite of what the opposition has said, but milk prices 
are among the lowest in the country and are among the most stable.
  Opponents also say consumers are getting a raw deal having to spend 
more on milk. Obviously, based on what I have said thus far in terms of 
prices around the country, this claim is inaccurate, as prices are 
among the lowest in the Northeast Compact area and reflect greater 
price stability.
  Also, where is the consumer outrage from the compact States for 
spending a few extra pennies for fresh fluid milk so as to ensure a 
safety net for dairy farmers so they can continue in an important way 
of life. Where is that consumer outrage? It isn't in New England. I 
have not heard of consumer complaints in my State over the last 3 years 
as a result of this dairy compact, even in instances where milk prices 
might have gone up a few pennies because consumers support our dairy 
farmers. They realize that this pilot program is very important to a 
way of life, to the kind of milk they want in their region, and they 
are willing to support it. They recognize this dairy compact has been a 
huge success.
  The Compact Commission sent out over $4 million in checks to 
Northeast dairy farmers this past month. That averages to over $1,000 
for each dairy farmer--enough to help keep small family farmers in 
business and continue a historical way of life that is so important.
  The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has provided the very safety 
net that we have hoped for when the compact passed as part of the 
Freedom to Farm Act, the omnibus farm bill of 1996. The dairy compact 
has helped farmers maintain the stable price for fluid milk during 
times of volatile swings in farm milk prices.
  In the spring and summer months of 1997 and 1998, for instance, when 
milk prices throughout most of the country dropped at least 20 cents a 
gallon while consumers' prices remained constant, the payments to the 
Northeast Interstate Compact dairy farmers remained above the Federal 
milk marketing prices for class 1 fluid milk because of the dairy 
compact and I might add, at no expense to the Federal Government. The 
costs to operate the dairy compact are borne entirely by the farmers 
and the processes of a compact region.
  Also, consider what has happened to the number of dairy farmers 
staying in business since the formation of the dairy compact. Another 
goal of the compact is to preserve a way of life of the small dairy 
farmer. It is now known throughout New England there has been a decline 
in dairy farmers going out of business. This is a clear demonstration 
that with the dairy compact, the dairy producers were provided a safety 
net, which is what we had hoped for. The results have been just that.
  In addition, the compact requires the Compact Commission to take such 
action as necessary to ensure that a minimum price set by the 
commission for the region does not create an incentive for producers to 
generate additional supplies of milk. There has been no rush to 
increase milk production in the Northeast, as has been stated. Oh, we 
heard time and time again by the opposition that it would increase milk 
production.
  We inserted in the compact legislation back in 1996 compensation 
producers that have been implemented by the New England Dairy 
Commission specifically to protect against increased production of 
fresh milk. That legislation in the 1996 farm bill required the 
commission to reimburse the USDA for any portion of the Government's 
cost of purchasing surplus dairy products that could be attributed to 
an increase in milk production in the Northeast in excess of the 
projected national average. This provision was included in the farm 
bill in response to critics' concern that the compact price would lead 
to overproduction of milk in the Northeast and thus cause Government 
purchases of surplus milk under the dairy support program to rise.

  Between March and September of 1998, the commission placed $2 million 
in escrow in anticipation of a potential liability to USDA for surplus 
purchases. The commission ended up paying $1.76 million to the USDA 
toward the end of the fiscal year and returned unused escrow funds of 
$400,000 to the Northeast producers who did not increase milk 
production during fiscal year 1998.
  I welcome anybody in this Chamber to cite any other commodity farm 
program that actually paid back the Federal Government money, that 
didn't cost the Government any money. I daresay there is no other 
instance of any other commodity farm program that actually reimbursed 
the Federal Government, that didn't cost the Government one dime--other 
than the New England Dairy Compact.
  How can other regions of the country feel threatened by a Northeast 
Dairy Compact for fluid milk produced and sold mainly at home in our 
region of the country? This compact did what it said it would do: 
Preserve its way of life, create price stability; it didn't cost the 
Government money; it didn't increase production, and if it did in any 
small way, we reimbursed the Government so it wouldn't cost any money.
  Despite what has been stated by the opposition, again there has been 
no additional cost to the Federal nutrition programs, no adverse price 
impact in the WIC Program--the Women's, Infants and Children Program--
or the Federal school lunch and breakfast program. In fact, the 
advocates of the programs support the compact and serve on its 
commission.
  It should be noted that in the farm bill conference in 1996, the 
Secretary of Agriculture was required to review the dairy compact 
legislation before implementation to determine if there was compelling 
public interest for the compact within the compact region. In August 9, 
1996, and only after a public comment period, Secretary Glickman 
authorized the implementation of the dairy compact, finding that it 
was, indeed, in the compelling public interest to do so.
  In addition, another mechanism for guaranteeing that this was in 
their interest, that it wasn't going to cost money to the Federal 
Government, the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 1998 directed the 
Office of Management and Budget to study the economic effects of the 
compact and especially its effect in the Federal food and nutrition 
programs. Key findings of the OMB study released in February 1998 
showed that, for the first 6 months of the compact, the New England 
retail milk prices were 5 cents per gallon lower than retail milk 
prices nationally.
  Also, a GAO study stated that the compact economically benefited the 
dairy producers, increasing their income from milk sales by about 6 
percent, with no adverse effects to dairy farmers outside the compact 
region.
  These were independent studies. We had OMB, GAO, we had every safety 
mechanism and precaution in this legislation, and it has demonstrated 
time and time again it is in the best interests of our small dairy 
farmers, not costing the Government money--in fact, to the contrary.
  The consumers in the Northeast Compact area are showing their 
willingness to support this compact, to pay a little more for milk if 
the additional money is going directly to the dairy farmer. Because we 
are not talking about big corporate farms, we are talking about the 
small dairy farmer whose family has been in business 100 years, 150 
years--generational. That is what they want to do--to maintain their 
families, to maintain a way of life, and to sell their milk to their 
local consumers.
  Environmental organizations have supported dairy compacting as the 
compact helps to preserve dwindling agricultural land and open spaces 
that help combat urban sprawl.
  I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint 
resolution from the Legislature of the State of Maine that was passed 
last spring. I have it here on this board. It shows strong support, on 
a bipartisan basis, in the Maine State Legislature, and how enormously 
important this compact is to the near 500 dairy farmers in Maine who 
produce annually over more than $100 million in the State of Maine, and 
how it is in the best interests of Maine's consumers and businesses 
that this compact be reauthorized. It is that important.

  So we have Republicans and Democrats in the State legislatures, we 
have an independent Governor who supports it, we have everybody across 
the political spectrum who supports this dairy compact because they 
understand the value of it.

[[Page S12224]]

  I also will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
July 15, 1999, letter from Maine's Commissioner of Agriculture, who 
wrote:

       I am writing to urge your continued support of Maine's 
     dairy farmers. As you know there is legislation pending 
     before Congress relating to the reauthorization of the 
     Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, and reorganization of the 
     Federal Milk Marketing Orders. These issues are of the utmost 
     importance to Maine dairy farmers and the dairy industry and 
     the infrastructure in this State as a whole.
       We need only look at the recent volatility of milk prices 
     to see the Northeast Dairy Compact has been a great success.

  He goes on to say:

       I cannot stress enough the importance of this issue to the 
     Maine dairy industry.

  I also will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
September 29, 1999, letter from the Council of State Governments, 
Eastern Regional Conference, signed by Senators and Representatives and 
heads of the departments of agriculture of Maine, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
  These State elected officials from States all over the Northeast 
wrote:

       The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, in setting minimum 
     regional prices for milk, has been an essential stabilizing 
     force with respect to the price that the northeast dairy 
     farmers receive for the milk they produce. Because of its 
     regional focus, it has been extremely successful in promoting 
     adequate local milk production to meet the needs of consumers 
     for fresh milk at an affordable price.

  I am also submitting for the Record the Council of State Governments' 
resolution of August 11, 1999, in support of the reauthorization of the 
compact.
  Last, I will ask consent to have printed in the Record a September 30 
editorial from the Bangor Daily News in my State of Maine, which 
states:

       The compact helps keep local farmers in business, not only 
     through price support but also by keeping enough other 
     farmers at work. That means a dairy infrastructure of grain 
     dealers, truck drivers, and farm machinery salespeople will 
     remain. And that means jobs where they are needed most, in 
     the smallest towns whose residents cannot simply turn to 
     alternative industries. This is not mere nostalgia for the 
     bucolic past, but an immediate dollars and cents issue.

  The editorial goes on to say:

       Certainly there would be less support for the compact as it 
     stood alone as the sole agricultural support states enjoyed. 
     But the sheer number and variety of Federal programs for 
     crops or for not growing crops, for research and marketing, 
     for electricity, grazing water, etc., makes singling out this 
     relatively small program seem more than a little short-
     sighted.

  That raises an important point. We do not get any support. We do not 
get the kinds of subsidies that other parts of the country, other 
commodity programs, have received. Our dairy farmers work hard. They 
work hard for the sole interest of producing a small amount, so they 
can sell to their local consumers, to their neighbors, to their 
community, to their State. That is all they ever want.
  This editorial goes on to say:

       None of the Midwestern representatives so angry about the 
     compact have suggested, for instance, that Congress end the 
     millions of dollars spent on local farm research or cut the 
     power lines at the Hoover dam.
       Yet the dairy compact is in no sense different than these 
     programs--or it is different only in the sense it helps 
     farmers in this region rather than the usual pattern of 
     helping farmers in the Midwest. Unless Congress has some 
     hidden reason to single out punishment for New England dairy 
     farmers, it should support the compact as a sensible part of 
     our Nation's agricultural policies.

  That is an important final point. As one who served 16 years in the 
House of Representatives, and now in my fifth year in the Senate, I 
have seen a huge disparity in our farm programs between the policies 
and programs providing support for the big, the very big, farmers, and 
the lack of support for the small family farmer, who is so indicative 
and characteristic of my State and I know the State of Vermont that my 
colleague, Senator Jeffords, represents. It is the small family farmer 
who just wants to survive, wants to go about doing his business each 
and every day. Yet we are not going to allow them to do that and to 
continue a way of life.
  The pattern I have seen in these agricultural programs that are 
supported here in this conference report, time and time again over my 
20 years, has been to the exclusion of the small family farmer and to 
the benefit of the big agribusiness in America. I say that is a 
travesty of justice. I say it is unfair. I say it is not right.
  That is why this dairy compact is so important. Indeed, it is 
shortsighted on the part of the conferees who did not support the 
reauthorization in this conference report. It is shortsighted of those 
who are unwilling to give it their support once again, raising the most 
bogus of arguments, which we have dispelled. We have refuted all of 
their arguments, not just based on our hearsay alone, but we have had 
OMB studies, we have had GAO studies--by everybody's reckoning. We even 
have legislatures in all the New England States and in the Northeast 
that support this dairy compact, and the Governors. Can they be all 
wrong? Could they be misrepresenting their constituency? I say not.
  I hope we can defeat this conference report. It simply is not right. 
It is simply not fair. I ask you to support the small farmers and the 
way of life they want to embrace, that they cherish, and that they want 
to sustain. We owe them that much.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for doing 
yeoman's work on behalf of these small dairy farmers in his State and 
my State, throughout New England and the other States that want to join 
because they have seen the success of this compact over the last 3 
years. It was a very effective and successful pilot program, and it 
deserves to be continued.
  Mr. President, I now ask consent that the material I referred to be 
printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    State of Maine Joint Resolution

       Whereas, Maine has nearly 500 dairy farms producing milk 
     valued annually at over $100,000,000; and
       Whereas, maintaining a sufficient supply of Maine-produced 
     milk and milk products is in the best interest of Maine 
     consumers and businesses; and
       Whereas, Maine is a member of the Northeast Interstate 
     Dairy Compact; and
       Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact will 
     terminate at the end of October 1999 unless action is taken 
     by the Congress to reauthorize it; and
       Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact's mission 
     is to ensure the continued viability of dairy farming in the 
     Northeast and to ensure consumers of an adequate, local 
     supply of pure and wholesome milk; and
       Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has 
     established a minimum price to be paid to dairy farmers for 
     their milk, which has helped to stabilize their incomes; and
       Whereas, in certain months the compact's minimum price has 
     resulted in dairy farmers receiving nearly 10% more for their 
     milk than the farmers would have otherwise received; and
       Whereas, actions taken by the compact have directly 
     benefited Maine dairy farmers and consumers; now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved: That We, your Memorialists, respectfully urge and 
     request that the United States Congress reauthorize the 
     Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact; and be it further
       Resolved: That suitable copies of the Memorial, duly 
     authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to 
     the Honorable William J. Clinton, President of the United 
     States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 
     States, each member of the United States Congress who sits as 
     chair on the United States House of Representatives Committee 
     on Agriculture or the United States Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the United States 
     Secretary of Agriculture and each Member of the Maine 
     Congressional Delegation.
                                  ____

         State of Maine, Maine Department of Agriculture, Food & 
           Rural Resources
                                       Augusta, ME, July 15, 1999.
     Sen. Olympia J. Snowe,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Snowe: I am writing to urge your continued 
     support of Maine dairy farmers. As you know, there is 
     legislation pending before Congress relating to 
     reauthorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact Commission and 
     reorganization of the Federal Milk Marketing Orders. These 
     issues are the utmost importance to Maine dairy farmers and 
     the dairy industry and infrastructure in this state as a 
     whole.
       We need only look at the recent volatility in milk prices 
     to see that the Northeast Dairy Compact has been a great 
     success. The Compact was designed to provide dairy farmers 
     with a safety net against huge drops in prices. While much of 
     the rest of the country saw recent reductions in prices by up 
     to one third, the blow to dairy farmers of the northeast, 
     while substantial, was cushioned by the

[[Page S12225]]

     floor price established through the Compact. The Compact 
     worked! For many Maine dairy farmers, the Compact has been 
     the difference between existence and extinction.
       There is no question that the Federal Milk Marketing Orders 
     needed reform. Consolidation of orders and updating of 
     standards and definitions was long overdue. However, adoption 
     of the pricing changes to the different classes of milk as 
     proposed by USDA will have enormous impacts for Maine dairy 
     farmers. Even by the most conservative estimates produced by 
     USDA, farm income in the northeast will decrease $84 million 
     dollars per year under the new proposed pricing system. Most 
     estimates indicate the loss to farmers will be in excess of 
     $100 million dollars.
       Pending legislation would reauthorize the Northeast Compact 
     (along with authorization of a Southern Compact), require 
     USDA to adopt the so called 1-A option of pricing class I 
     milk and require USDA to hold rulemaking hearing on pricing 
     of class III milk. I urge your continued support and hope you 
     will encourage uncommitted colleagues to support the 
     Jeffords/Leahy amendment legislation. I can not stress enough 
     the importance of this issue to the Maine dairy industry.
       Please contact me with any concerns or questions you have 
     regarding these important matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert W. Spear,
     Commissioner.
                                  ____



                                       Council of Governments,

                                              Septembver 29, 1999.
                           Re: Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
       The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, in setting minimum 
     regional prices for milk, has been an essential stabilizing 
     force with respect to the price that northeast dairy farmers 
     receive for the milk they produce. Because of its regional 
     focus, it has been extremely successful in promoting adequate 
     local milk production to meet the needs of consumers for 
     fresh milk at an affordable price.
       As you know, the Dairy Compact is due to expire on October 
     1, 1999. Twenty five states, including all of those in the 
     Northeast, have adopted the Dairy Compact. If it is not 
     reauthorized, the resulting volatility in milk prices will 
     cause regional dairy farmers to suffer devastating financial 
     consequences. Therefore, we urge you to promote the extension 
     of the Northeast Dairy Compact, as well as ratification of 
     the Southern Dairy Compact, by Congress in an effort to 
     secure the financial future of our region's dairy farmers.
       In summary, we believe prompt action is necessary on both 
     of these matters that are so critical to maintaining he 
     viability of the region's agriculture industry and, thereby, 
     our overall economy and quality of life. The financial losses 
     endured by our farmers are substantial and immediate. We 
     respectfully request that you and your Congressional 
     colleagues from the Northeast support the measures we are 
     proposing and promote regional solidarity to assist the 
     struggling northeast farmers.
       Please feel encouraged to contact any of the signatories 
     below or our staff in the Council of State Governments' 
     Eastern office with responses to this letter and any 
     recommendations for immediate follow-up action.
           Sincerely,
         Representative Jessie G. Stratton, Co-Chairwoman, Joint 
           Environment Committee, CT.
         John F. Tarburton, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, 
           DE.
         Representative V. George Carey, Chairman, Environment & 
           Natural Resources Committee, DE.
         Senator John M. Nutting, Co-Chairman, Joint Agriculture, 
           Conservation & Forestry Committee, ME.
         Jonathan Healy, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, MA.
         Stephen Taylor, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, 
           Markets & Food, NH.
         Assemblyman William Magee, Chairman, Assembly Agriculture 
           Committee, NY.
         Representative Italo Cappabianco, Minority Chairman, 
           Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, PA.
         Ken Ayars, Chief, Division of Agriculture & Marketing, 
           Department of Environmental Management, RI.
         Representative Douglas W. Petersen, Co-Chairman, Joint 
           Natural Resources & Agriculture Committee, MA.
         Assemblywoman Connie Myers, Vice-Chair, Agriculture & 
           Natural Resources Committee, NJ.
         Representative Thomas E. Armstrong, Member, House 
           Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, PA.
         Senator William Slocum, Minority Chairman, Senate 
           Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee, PA.
         Leon C. Graves, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, 
           VT.
                                  ____

         Council of State Governments, Eastern Regional 
           Conference,
                                  Burlington, VT, August 11, 1999.

   Reauthorization of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and the 
                   Ratification of a Southern Compact

       Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has 
     maintained a successful track record of stabilizing the price 
     dairy farmers receive for the milk they produce and has 
     created a beneficial partnership between consumers and dairy 
     farmers; and
       Whereas, it is in the best interest of the general public 
     to perpetuate our existing dairy industry and insure the 
     continuance of local production to adequately meet the demand 
     of all consumers for fresh milk at an affordable price; and
       Whereas, dairy compacts have received the support of 
     diverse coalitions, representing state and local governments, 
     consumers, environmentalists, land conservation interests, 
     financial institutions, equipment and feed dealers, 
     veterinarians, the tourism industry, and agricultural 
     organizations; and
       Whereas, compacts are complimentary to the Federal Milk 
     Marketing Order System, which provides the basis for orderly 
     milk marketing through a uniform federal minimum pricing 
     structure; and compacts take into account regional 
     differences in the cost of producing fluid milk, and 
     therefore permit a more localized determination of milk 
     prices, allowing the compact to work in concert with the 
     Federal Order System; and
       Whereas, there has recently been a drop in the Basic 
     Formula Price of $6 cwt, emphasizing the volatility that 
     exists within the dairy industry; and
       Whereas, the Constitution of the United States expressly 
     authorizes the states to enter into interstate compacts with 
     the approval of Congress and twenty-five states have passed 
     legislation seeking authority to enter into an interstate 
     dairy compact; and
       Now, therefore be it Resolved, That, we request that the 
     106th Congress of the United States take immediate action to 
     reauthorize the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and ratify 
     a Southern Compact.
                                  ____


              [From the Bangor Daily News, Sept. 30, 1999]

                             Milk and Money

       As a strict measure of its faithfulness to letting the 
     market choose winners and losers, the Northeast Interstate 
     Dairy Compact fails entirely. As policy for promoting 
     economic diversity, food safety and open space, however, it 
     is an important program for the region.
       The compact helps dairy farmers by guaranteeing a minimum 
     price for milk. Though it has cost consumers approximately 15 
     cents per gallon since 1996, it returns to them at least that 
     much value through other means. As members of Congress debate 
     the future of the compact--which was set to end tomorrow but 
     has been postponed by a judge's ruling Tuesday--they should 
     keep in mind that their decision affects far more than a few 
     small farmers.
       The compact helps keep local farms in business not only 
     through the price support but also by keeping enough other 
     farmers at work. That means a dairy infrastructure of grain 
     dealers, truck drivers and farm machinery salespeople will 
     remain. And that means jobs where they are needed most, in 
     the smallest towns whose residents cannot simply turn to 
     alternative industries. This is not mere nostalgia for the 
     bucolic past, but an immediate dollars and cents issue.
       Having a healthy dairy industry is far more useful and 
     considerably less expensive to Maine taxpayers than sitting 
     by and watching these farms go under, then setting loose its 
     retraining programs and hoping for the best. On a national 
     level, the compact prevents an overdependence on a few large 
     Midwestern sources for this important and highly perishable 
     food. And it gives New England states more local say on 
     controversial issues such as bovine growth hormone.
       Certainly, there would be less support for the compact if 
     it stood alone as the sole agricultural support states 
     enjoyed. But the sheer number and variety of federal programs 
     for crops or for not growing crops, for research and 
     marketing, for electricity, grazing and water, etc., makes 
     singling out this relatively small program seem more than a 
     little short-sighted. None of the Midwestern representatives 
     so angry about the compact have suggested, for instance, that 
     Congress end the millions of dollars spent on local farm 
     research or cut the power lines at the Hoover Dam.
       Yet the dairy compact is in no sense different than these 
     programs--or it is different only in the sense that it helps 
     farmers in this region rather than the usual pattern of 
     helping farmers in the Midwest. Unless Congress has some 
     hidden reason to single out for punishment New England dairy 
     farmers, it should support the compact as a sensible part of 
     the nation's agricultural policies.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be finishing quickly. I would 
like to point out--exactly where the Senator from Maine left off--why 
we are here. It may be a little confusing why we are involved in a 
conference report, but it was pointed out in the farm bill of 1996, we 
got agreement that we should run a pilot program in New England of a 
very exciting idea, of a compact where the States would get together 
and handle the problems of their dairy farmers by having an organized 
marketing system.
  We would show this kind of a system where people from the States 
would sit down on a commission and make sure the price of milk was held 
at a level which would guarantee a supply of

[[Page S12226]]

fresh fluid milk, which is a basic part of agricultural law, and that 
the demonstration program would be reviewed when the milk orders were 
to be implemented.
  What happened? Did the program work? That was the problem, it did. 
That is why we are here tonight because the program did work.
  As the Senator from Maine pointed out, the opponents of this, in the 
Midwest in particular, were so confident it was going to fail, they 
went out and got the OMB, who they figured would be most friendly to 
them being of the administration, many Democrats--whatever, that is 
beside the point--but so certain were they that it would be a failure, 
they got OMB to do a study.
  Lo and behold, what happened? The study came back, and the GAO later 
came back and said it worked great, it is a wonderful program. That is 
why 25 States now have said that ought to be a program in which they 
can get involved. Half the States in the country have already said it 
is a success. OMB said it is a success.
  What is the problem now? Why? Because of the desire of those in the 
Midwest to take over and supply these areas with milk themselves and 
not the local dairy farmers, which helps make sure we have that fresh 
quality milk available, they decided they will put them out of 
business.
  They cannot put them out of business because it is working. The 
processors, who have been used to setting the price themselves--in many 
cases there are one or two; there are not many processors, so when 
there is a good supply of milk, they can go to zero. That has stopped. 
It is working well.
  The Department of Agriculture was not going to do the pilot program. 
We had to get it extended.
  That is where we are. We wanted to extend it, and when we had one, at 
least we thought we had one in the conference committee that we would 
have approved because the majority in the House and Senate agreed it 
was a good program and ought to be extended, what happened? Forces came 
in and put pressure on Members and we ended up without a majority in 
the committee. Therefore, we got thrown out into the cold.
  We are here to make sure this bill, which belonged on that conference 
report, that everyone seemed to agree to, goes forward. That is why we 
are now trying to hold up this bill to get action. We are not going to 
try to hold up the bill for the disaster payments. We will get into a 
further discussion of this whole bill and the stuff in it.
  The one part that worked so well that does not cost any money and 
prevents disasters, we cannot get it put into law. That is why we are 
here. We are going to continue. We are going to fight as long as we 
possibly can to make sure the dairy farmers in our States, the family 
farms, the small, beautiful hillsides that have their nice wonderful 
cows will be there for people to look at, and we will have a fresh 
supply of milk from our local farms.
  Hopefully, since it was such a successful program, the 25 States that 
have already passed laws through their legislatures to participate in 
the compact will have the wonderful opportunities that have been so 
successful in New England.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________