[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14644-14652]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           DAIRY LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk tonight with some of my 
friends who I see are already here on the floor about dairy 
legislation. June is National Dairy Month. We are coming to really a 
fateful decision on dairy policy.
  The Secretary of Agriculture has proposed an option for dairy policy 
that really does not work for most of the country. In fact, I have a 
chart here, Mr. Speaker, that shows the impact of this policy if it had 
been in existence over the last 5 years. There would only have been 1 
year where America's dairy farmers would have been above the line of 
break even. The average for those 5 years would have been a loss of 
$196 million.
  Dairy farming families certainly cannot continue to stay in business 
with those kinds of statistics and those kinds of odds. We are really 
in a process here where, after some time, I would have thought adequate 
time for study and lots of impact from Members of Congress, we came up 
with a very disappointing result.
  Tomorrow in full committee markup H.R. 1402 will be marked up by the 
Committee on Agriculture that really follows a policy that a majority 
of the Members of the House and Senate have advocated. The bill, H.R. 
1402, has 228 cosponsors.

[[Page 14645]]

  Last year, as this policy was approaching a decision by the 
administration, by the Secretary of Agriculture, 238 House Members and 
61 Senators wrote to Secretary Glickman asking that Option 1-A, a 
continuation of an option with a more consolidated, more effective, 
more updated series of marketing orders, would become the dairy policy 
for the country.
  So we are here tonight to talk a little about this, and National 
Dairy Month, as dairy farmers all over the country are having a harder 
and harder time making ends meet, having a harder and harder time 
breaking even.
  One of the leaders in this debate has been my friend, the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), from my neighboring district in 
Arkansas. My district is in Southeast Missouri, and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) represents northwestern Arkansas.
  Both of those districts have been great dairy districts over the 
years, but both of those districts have seen a significant decline in 
the number of dairy farms and dairy farmers.
  In fact, in my district in southwest Missouri, at one time the eighth 
biggest dairy-producing district in America, and we do not rate nearly 
that high now, and we have been losing our dairies at the rate of about 
8 percent a year.
  Northwest Arkansas has been a great dairy area, and the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has been a real advocate for dairy 
farmers and dairy farming families.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. 
Speaker, and also for his leadership on this very important issue on 
behalf of dairy farmers.
  I likewise am concerned, being from Arkansas. In my two counties in 
northwestern Arkansas we have had a loss of 43 percent of our dairy 
farmers. Ryan England came to me and asked me to do something to help 
him. I just have this chart that shows a little bit of the difficulty 
that our dairy farmers have faced.
  We know that if we look back over the last 18, 19 years to 1980, if 
we look at the price of milk, the all farm price we would have of milk 
versus the retail price we have in the store, of course everyone knows 
that the retail price of milk has gone consistently up. Yet, the farm 
price of milk has remained steady through that time, with some 
fluctuation primarily downward.
  We know that during that time the cost of production for our farmers 
has not remained steady, it has gone up. The cost of fuel, the cost of 
feed, everything that they would need to produce the milk on the farm, 
electricity, all has gone up, yet they have not received any benefit of 
the rising prices. So it has been a very difficult time for the 
farmers.
  One of the options that have been considered is a dairy compact. This 
has worked very well in the Northeast. I know some of my colleagues 
here from the Northeast have indicated that it has worked very well for 
them, but 21 Governors, 21 Governors have signed legislation in their 
States requesting Congress to delegate its regulatory authority over 
their States' milk markets.
  Right now, of course, as my friends know, Mr. Speaker, the Federal 
system is that we have the prices set out of Washington, a Federal 
price marketing system. We believe there should be more reflection of 
the prices in the States and more control being returned to the States. 
So the Governor has said Congress should delegate some of that 
regulatory authority back to the States, the regions, to have a dairy 
compact in the Southeast, a Southern Dairy Compact, as they have had in 
the Northeast, which worked very well for consumers as well as for the 
dairy farmers and the processors.
  I say to my friend, I believe that is important. I just want to thank 
everyone for being interested in this, supporting the dairy farmers. 
Hopefully the legislation that my friend from Missouri is sponsoring 
will move forward, as well as this dairy compact legislation. I thank 
the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUNT. One of the things I might mention while that chart is 
still up there, Mr. Speaker, is that farm prices have stayed the same, 
have taken dips along the way, but the retail price has increased. One 
of the things the studies show on this proposed Option 1-A is that it 
does have benefits for farmers, but the benefit for consumers is the 
benefit of a fresh product being available, there continues to be 
competition in production, and consumers continue to have not only a 
good product but they have a competitive price, because we do not see 
this continued consolidation that we are seeing and that all 
projections would show that we would see under the other options being 
proposed.
  Any time we have met with the Secretary of Agriculture, people from 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture on this issue, one of the people 
that has been in the room has been the gentleman from Maine. I yield to 
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) on this topic.
  Mr. BALDACCI. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for his 
leadership on this issue, and for his organizing those meetings with 
the Members and the Secretary to raise the awareness of how important 
agriculture and dairy farmers are, not only to his district but to the 
Nation as a whole.
  In Maine the dairy industry is a vital component of the agricultural 
economy. Sales of milk generate cash receipts totalling almost $100 
million a year. That was before the bottom fell out. Those sales from 
about 600 farms 20 years ago, it was nearly twice that number.
  The loss of family farms in Maine and the loss of farmer income not 
only affect related industries, such as equipment and feed suppliers, 
but it ripples through the rural economy.
  I think, as we have heard here earlier, the debate in terms of an 
option of 1-A versus 1-B is relating to having farmers get at least 
some meager return for the amount of work and effort and resources and 
sacrifice they have put into the work they are doing.
  The work that they are doing extends beyond just the farm itself, but 
into the community. Their children and family members are involved in 
4-H, in community projects. Because of the loss of farm families in the 
agricultural community, I believe that has been one of the problems in 
rural America and in all of America, is that it has not reinforced that 
family unit, that community sense and that responsibility that we have 
to each other that I believe emanates a lot from agriculture.
  Maine recognizes that there is a compact between the farmers and the 
consumers. That is why we support the dairy compact. There is a 
realization that the flat prices that the dairy farmers have been 
getting as the prices have been escalating, it reminds me of the story 
that was pointed out to me that the prices go up by pony express, but 
they end upcoming down by bottle.
  I think that is what we have recognized from our dairy farmers, is 
that they have received a very, very meager return for their 
investments.
  The bill put forward by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) 
on the Dairy Compact is a bill which will keep that process going, 
where our dairy farmers in the Northeast and the Southeast and West and 
all parts will be able to enjoy some sort of floor, and they will 
realize a return on their investment.
  I want to thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this 
issue, and to work with my colleagues from Pennsylvania and North 
Carolina and throughout the country here to make sure that our farmers 
get a fair deal.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for his comments. 
Certainly in virtually every district, and I know every district of 
Members on the floor, and there are 228 cosponsors of this legislation 
as of today, in virtually all of their districts, in virtually all of 
their States, dairy farmers and dairy farming families have declined 
and declined dramatically. This option, Option 1-A, really does create 
the difference.
  Somebody in a hearing the other day said, well, it is only pennies a 
gallon.

[[Page 14646]]

Anybody who knows anything about dairy knows that pennies a gallon is 
the difference between whether you continue to milk those cows or you 
stop. Most dairy farmers, as much as they love the dairy farm, do not 
do it solely for their health, they do it because of the necessity to 
feed their families, to make a profit, and those pennies make a 
difference.
  In fact, this option alone in Missouri, in the Seventh District, if 
we went to Option 1-A rather than Option 1-B that the administration, 
that the Department has proposed, there would be almost $2 million of 
additional income every year to southwest Missouri dairy farmers.
  I can guarantee the Members that that is the difference in whether 
you divide that up into profit among the hundreds of farm families we 
still have, or you simply create a situation where there is no profit 
and we go out of business.
  Mr. BALDACCI. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman's point is exactly right. Also what is happening in Maine, 
what we do under the option that has been put forward by the 
administration is lose significantly over what little we are getting 
now, and all the option that the gentleman is sponsoring and I am 
cosponsoring, working together with many other Members, it is going to 
just put us back where we are now, which is still struggling. We are 
not going to reap any kind of gain from being able to have 1-A put back 
in, but just be able not to lose as much.
  I think there is not going to be an increase in the consumer prices 
from the support of this 1-A.
  Mr. BLUNT. I think all of the studies indicate that in fact 
maintaining competition is what maintains not only a good product but a 
low price. There is no study that indicates that the price that 
consumers pay is affected in any significant way by what we are 
proposing.
  What we are proposing is to continue to have a product that it takes 
a while to get to the market. You do not just decide in the spring to 
be a dairy farmer and harvest a milk crop in the fall. It is a 
different commitment than that, it is a different time commitment than 
that.
  We think this bill really creates the relative assurance in a very 
difficult economic environment on a dairy farm, the relative assurance 
that producing that product is still going to be profitable for your 
family.

                              {time}  1930

  One of the leaders, Mr. Speaker, in this whole area of milk in the 
Congress for years and dairy policy was the gentleman from New York, 
the outstanding chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Solomon. When 
he left the Congress at the end of last year, he was replaced by 
somebody who has very much taken that heritage of being concerned about 
dairy farming families to heart and certainly has become a real leader 
in this issue. I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I was standing 
here listening to the exchange between you and the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Baldacci) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and I 
look around the room and see a number of our colleagues throughout the 
Nation, and it strikes me that this issue of equity in the dairy 
industry and the debate over the legislation attendant to Option 1-A 
really does not know any geographic bounds. We have a number of people 
who are supportive of our endeavor.
  As the gentleman pointed out earlier, nearly 300 Members of the House 
and Senate wrote to Secretary Glickman concerned that he was headed 
down the wrong path when reforming the Federal milk marketing audit 
program. Unfortunately, despite that, the Secretary chose to ignore the 
consensus by rejecting Option 1-A, instead selecting Option 1-B, as 
well as is the case from our friend from Maine, also affects New York 
in an adverse way. This is not a question of trying to enrich the New 
York dairy industry, but a question of trying to hold the line and stop 
the bleeding, which has been profuse.
  Congress has been very consistent in its position with respect to 
dairy policy, as the gentleman pointed out. Farm groups, dairy 
producers, have coalesced behind Option 1-A and built a pretty 
convincing coalition. I want to talk about a couple things as we start 
out this evening, if I could, to give you a little perspective on New 
York State generally and talk a little bit about the perishable nature 
of milk.
  You touched on some of those issues, but in New York the Option 1-B 
as proposed by Secretary Glickman will probably cost us something in 
the range of $200 million to $300 million. We cannot absorb that kind 
of cost.
  Our dairy industry ranks third in the Nation. Milk production is 
vital, and by far is one of the greatest contributors to the State's 
agricultural economy, as well as prominent contributor to the rural 
character of upstate New York which I happen to represent a portion 
thereof.
  Dairy farms generate over $1.5 billion in milk receipts annually, and 
the dairy industry supplies my State something in the range of 80,000 
jobs, especially in areas of the State where we have a great deal of 
economic strife existing.
  Despite the prominent role of this industry, our dairy farmers have 
been in a precarious position for some time and the volatile markets 
have jacked up retail prices while eroding the farm share for the 
consumer. Record highs have been followed by record lows, and dairy 
farmers no longer plan a steady income.
  It is tough for a farmer to plan a steady income, as you pointed out, 
and it is important to understand that the product dairy farmers 
provide sets them apart substantially from other agriculture producers. 
As providers of a very, very perishable product, dairy farmers lose the 
ability to ride out or boycott unattractive markets. Dairy producers 
cannot simply turn off the faucet of the cow when the price goes south 
and cannot withhold raw milk from the market in order to bargain for a 
higher price. They are at the beck and whim of that marketplace.
  This places them at the mercy of the volatile dairy market, which 
just this last spring we saw a 40 percent drop in the price farmers 
receive for fluid milk and an unprecedented plunge. Imagine what a 
terrifying experience it would be if you saw your income drop by 40 
percent and then recognize that while you still have to pay your bills 
and expenses, the prices were going to drop at that rate.
  No matter how much you receive for your milk, fields still have to be 
plowed, Mr. Speaker, cows still have to be fed, mortgages still have to 
be paid. It is no wonder that the independent dairy farmers are losing 
their farms at an alarming rate in New York State and elsewhere, as 
well as in many other regions of the nation.
  Aside from the perishable nature of the raw milk, there are other 
more ominous forces that work against our dairy farmers. Rapid 
consolidation in the dairy industry is putting market power in the 
hands of very few. My colleagues from urban areas in New York State 
have argued for some time that they are concerned that Option 1-A and 
the Dairy Compact and inclusion thereof will create a false pricing 
structure that will somehow cost their constituents. That is not true, 
and they need to be very concerned that as the rural upstate family 
dairy farmer is in greater peril, so are their consumer constituents in 
greater peril, because they will be left with fewer options and have to 
go greater distances to purchase the dairy products, the milk products, 
that they choose to.
  I would only direct you to the problems and those who would question 
Option 1-A and inclusion in the Dairy Compact, that the problems that 
we now have with market concentration and poultry, beef, and pork 
industries, and contend that dairy is headed down the same road if we 
do nothing to prevent it.
  So I want to applaud the gentleman for your efforts in this regard. I 
want to applaud all of my other colleagues for their efforts as well. I 
think this is probably one of the most significant

[[Page 14647]]

economic issues for my region certainly and my district and for much of 
rural America.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman from New York. One of the things to 
point out here too is that as these dairy farms are lost in areas, that 
jobs that relate to that are lost. The State of Missouri, in the last 
few years, we have lost two fluid milk plants, we have lost 11 plants 
that process dairy products, because we simply do not have the 
production that we used to have to justify those jobs, those off-farm 
jobs, that did not relate necessarily to producing milk on the farm, 
but certainly are not there any longer when that milk is no longer 
produced on the farm. So it does matter.
  As the gentleman from New York said, Mr. Speaker, we have had already 
this evening people like me from Missouri and my colleague the 
gentleman from an adjoining district in Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), from 
Maine and from New York.
  One of the people that is always in that room when dairy policy is 
discussed too is our colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), to 
go to another area of the country. I would like to go to him right now. 
I certainly appreciate all that the gentleman does, not only being one 
of the original cosponsors of this bill, but also the leadership that 
you play as a member of the Committee on Agriculture where this bill 
will be marked up tomorrow. I would like to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to 
thank the gentleman for holding this special order on dairy legislation 
this evening as it comes up before Congress tomorrow. We will be 
marking it up. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor of 1402 as it is scheduled before the 
committee tomorrow.
  The gentleman talked about 1-A, how important it is. It is critical, 
it is significant, and, as the gentleman indicated, over 200 Members of 
this body would not have signed it otherwise.
  It simply provides an incentive for farmers in small regions of the 
country to continue to produce fresh milk. That is really what it is 
all about. The gentleman has talked about the dollars, and the same 
would be true for my region.
  In the last 10 years, we have lost half of our farmers, our dairy 
farmers. Let me say this evening, we are talking about dairy farmers, 
but this is symptomatic of the problems throughout agriculture today in 
a lot of areas, because every commodity is down, but this is one we can 
do something about tomorrow or start the process with.
  As the gentleman indicated, it is unlike many of the other 
agricultural issues we deal with, because many of those go from spring 
to fall, and with this one it takes awhile to build that herd and 
sustain that herd and the investment that goes into it.
  My dairy farmers and yours already are reeling from the volatility of 
the fluid market over the last several months. We have seen tremendous 
drops. I hope that over the next few weeks we also get a chance to deal 
with another piece of legislation dealing with dairy, and that is 1604, 
which is the ratification of the Southern Compact and reauthorization 
of the Northeast Compact. Our friend from Maine just touched on that a 
few moments ago, how that levels out the price that dairy farmers get 
and how important that is, because they need to have that to plan as 
they invest in herds, as they invest in equipment and they pay their 
bills.
  Let me say to the gentleman and the folks listening in this evening, 
it is a shame, while the executives of some of the large conglomerates, 
and we talked about it earlier and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) did, about the difference in what farmers are getting now 
and what they have got even over the last 10 or 12 years, and the 
difference in that price and the cost of milk. The cost of milk has 
gone up about 35 percent since 1980, and we saw from the chart what 
farmers get has been pretty flat.
  It is pretty obvious, the farmers are not getting it. They are 
producing more, but the costs of their input of what they are paying 
for feed, for labor and everything else is going up, and they are 
getting squeezed by the cost of raw milk they are getting.
  What 1-A does, it says that we are not going to adopt the 1-B that 
they talked about, which is going to subsidize just a few producers in 
one small area of the country and flood that milk to the other parts of 
the country and drive our people out of business, so we do not have 
fresh raw milk for our processors nor the fresh raw milk to go to the 
grocery stores.
  So the people who would benefit under this are not only the farmers 
we are going to keep in business, but it benefits the consumer, because 
they are going to have a fresh supply of milk at the store every day, 
and milk is an important product in this country for the very young and 
for the very old. Those of us in between like to enjoy some too. But it 
is important.
  I think sometimes we forget that when we are talking about the other 
issues. It is an important consumer issue and it is important to the 
American people.
  As I said, since 1980, the retail price of milk has risen 35 percent. 
The farmers would feel pretty good if they had gotten 35 percent 
increase in their cost of milk at the farm, but they have not gotten 
it. It has been driven down.
  That is what this is about, at least about stabilizing, so when they 
go to the bank to borrow money, and do not ever forget, that dairy 
farmer borrows money just like any other farmer in this country, but at 
least they know there will not be spikes in the price they are getting, 
so that they can do some planning.
  The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. The thing 
that I fear if we do not pass it, and this is why I think it is so 
important and I thank you for your leadership and having the 
opportunity to work together, if we, if we continue to lose our dairy 
farmers, we will have more and more concentration in a very few hands, 
and ultimately then the American consumer will wake up one morning, and 
all of a sudden the price of milk will be up and there will be no way 
to get it down because there will be so few producers, they will 
control the market. They are not able to do that at the current time. I 
think we have a chance now to take care of that.
  Milk is just too important to let that happen. This piece of 
legislation is not only important to the farmers, it is important to 
all of us. But right now our farmers, certainly in my part of the 
country, are bleeding. We can do more than put a tourniquet on, we can 
do more than put a band-aid on, we now have the opportunity to take 
care of that bleeding for the long term, if we will deal about it. I 
look forward to the work we are going to do tomorrow.
  Let me finally say that some folks say it is easy for them to get up 
and say let the free market work, it is all about the free market 
working.
  I am all for the free market, if it is free. The problem is, the 
foreign governments are subsidizing their farmers in a variety of ways. 
We cannot get products in Europe because of tariffs, and it is true in 
every other part of the country, and our farmers are paying the price. 
We have the most open market in the world, in the United States, right 
now, and if our farmers benefited from that on the free market, then we 
would not need to be able to make sure they stay in business. But this 
is about our farmers getting a fair shake, getting a fair chance at the 
marketplace.
  I thank the gentleman for it, and I look forward to working with you 
so we can say to our consumers they are going to get a fair price in 
the market price, they can go in the grocery store and know they are 
getting fresh milk, and our farmers are going to be in business for the 
long haul and we can encourage the next generation of dairymen to get 
into it, because if we do not give them the tools to work with today, 
we will continue to see the auction of cows, auctions of farmland, and 
we are going to be turning our dairy farms into shopping malls and 
housing projects. Not only do we lose the benefit of the production, we 
also lose a green way and environmental part of this country and a way 
of life we will not be able to replace. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership.

[[Page 14648]]



                              {time}  1945

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And on his comments 
about competition, I think one of the things that the gentleman sees, 
and I saw when we served on the Committee on Agriculture together, was 
the constant concern about concentration in beef and pork and poultry 
and the many problems that relate to concentration. This legislation is 
focused on continuing competition. It is focused on continuing to have 
people producing that product.
  The gentleman mentioned the very young and the very old. As a former 
chief state school officer, I think the gentleman would appreciate the 
other day when I was at Stadly Elementary School at Carthage talking to 
4th graders, and one question was, ``Do you know President Clinton?'' 
And I said, yes, I had been in a meeting with President Clinton the 
week before when we were in the middle of Kosovo. And the next serious 
question from the next 4th grader at Stadly Elementary School was, 
``Did you know Abraham Lincoln?''
  So the very old is sort of a relative term. I had to allow that I was 
a pretty old guy, but I had not been around quite long enough to know 
Abraham Lincoln, and so I could not admit to that, but I said I admired 
Abraham Lincoln.
  Mr. Speaker, when I am going to a dairy meeting, as I think about the 
complexities of the problem, the formula involved, the different 
categories of this product, and my staff would be one of the first to 
say this as well, one of the early questions I ask before I know just 
how well prepared I have to be is, is the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh) going to be at the meeting? And if the answer is yes, I heave a 
little sigh of relief because I know I do not have to be quite as well 
prepared as if the gentleman from New York were not going to be at the 
meeting.
  The gentleman from New York understands these issues, he cares about 
them, he can debate anybody anywhere in the country and particularly 
anybody from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the fine points of 
dairy policy. And here we are talking about a policy that is the 
difference in staying in business and not staying in business for many 
of the dairy farmers both he and I represent. And with real 
appreciation for his understanding of this issue, I am pleased to yield 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very 
gracious comments, and let me return the compliment. The gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has been a leader on this issue. And, frankly, 
without the gentleman's hard work and without his dedication and 
devotion, we would not have this opportunity to come forward tonight 
and to talk about what is I know shared in America and is understood to 
be a very, very important issue.
  We have heard about the Compact tonight, but, as the gentleman noted, 
we have a very important markup tomorrow in the Committee on 
Agriculture dealing with a very complex issue with respect to milk 
market orders. I, like many of us, have listened over the past several 
weeks, heard the discussion from those Members who do not share our 
perspective, I have read their statements, and I think, unfortunately, 
there is a great deal of misunderstanding, there is a great deal of 
misinformation as to the particulars of milk marketing and milk market 
reform.
  I think, however, we can all agree on one thing, and that is that the 
current system of milk marketing in America is extraordinarily complex. 
Some would say it is arcane. And it is true, the proliferation, the 
really fragmented evolution that has surrounded the growth of marketing 
orders in America today has really provided us with what I think we can 
all agree upon is a very ineffective system. But for all of that 
complexity and for all of the need for change, I think that the need 
for the market order system today, in 1999, is as evident and is as 
important as it was back in the 1930s.
  Clearly, some of the things from 60-plus years ago, when the original 
market orders were first constructed, exist today as they did then. 
Milk production, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has noted 
today, and others have as well, is a long-term undertaking. It is 
seasonal as well. One cannot, as the gentleman noted, just take a dairy 
cow and start milking it tomorrow for market. There is an intensive 
capital input and an extraordinary amount of time necessary to raise a 
calf into the age and position where it can be a productive animal.
  The seasonality is a factor of life today as it was 60 years ago. 
Cows produce more milk in the spring, less milk at other times, and 
that is a very important factor. Farmers cannot shut down a factory 
line, cannot lay off cows during times of less demand, and those are 
realities that have not changed.
  And I think most importantly is the recognition behind the original 
orders that milk is, indeed, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge) just said, a wholesome product, that the vast majority of 
Americans wish to provide it for their families, wish to provide it for 
their children, and that was a very important policy position behind 
the formulation of those markets back in the 1930s.
  Things are different. I have heard our friends on the other side of 
this issue say that refrigeration now can change the way in which milk 
markets operate; that you can ship fluid milk to further distances; 
that, clearly, the population centers of America are different today 
than they were in the 1930s and that the reason behind original 
markets, the increased production, to ensure there was an adequate 
supply, are no longer reflective of those changes in population. But 
those have limits as well. And, quite honestly, that thought, that 
recognition was behind the 1996 farm bill.
  I become confused when I listen to some folks who, for all of their 
good intentions, were not part of the formation of that 1996 bill, who 
were not there in the negotiations, suggest that it was somehow the 
intention of the Congress to do away with market orders; that market 
orders were, by definition, a relic of the past and that Congress 
expressed an intent in that bill to do away with market orders.
  Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The Congress spoke 
very clearly. They understood that at that time the 31 designated 
regions of milk markets were no longer relative to the 1990s, that they 
needed to be reconstructed, but they very specifically dealt with the 
issue of the elimination of market orders, of the elimination of what 
is called Class 1 differentials, that price-plus that is paid to 
farmers for fluid milk, and gave very clear instructions in that bill 
to the Secretary of Agriculture that, indeed, milk market orders should 
continue; that the process and the practice of Price 1 differentials 
should not be unduly disrupted in whatever market order reform came 
about.
  That is why I think the Secretary's ruling is so perplexing. The 
record clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of individuals and 
organizations that expressed their interest during the formal hearing 
or informal hearing process was in support of the so-called I-A Option. 
It has been mentioned on this floor this evening. Congress spoke loudly 
both at the time when the bill was on the floor and in follow-up 
meetings with the Secretary.
  It was expressed very clearly in letters to the Secretary. 238 
Members of the House, 61 Senators, who normally could not agree on what 
day of the week it is, said that they wanted the Secretary to support 
1-A as the most viable and the most effective option. Even the 
Secretary's own dairy price structure committee, the in-house United 
States Department of Agriculture Advisory Committee, the experts, 
including many prominent economists, supported 1-A.
  The reality is if we were not under an informal rulemaking process, 
that if this bureaucratic decision had to be done under a formal 
rulemaking process, it could have never and would never withstand legal 
scrutiny, because the record simply does not support the implementation 
of a 1-B Option. And I think that is a very important point of this.

[[Page 14649]]

  But I have to say, if I could continue for just a moment longer, the 
saddest aspect in all of this to me, as someone who has tried to work 
on these issues in a positive way for more than 20 years now, is how we 
seem to pit dairy farmers against dairy farmers, that somehow good 
dairy policy has to help one at the expense of the other. And I think 
it is very important that we go on record tonight to say that all of us 
recognize there are no dairy farmers in good shape today. Whether they 
are milking cows in the Northeast or the South or the Midwest, the 
upper Midwest, out on the West Coast or anywhere in America, they are 
not receiving a fair return on their labor and on their products.
  We have heard the figures here tonight, and they are really 
startling. If people would just stop and think about what it would mean 
in their own lives, as my good friend and neighbor, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney) stated, if overnight an individual's income was 
reduced by 40 percent. Farmers are receiving in real terms the same 
dollar for their product today as they did in 1978. Cost of living, 
input, production costs, as we have heard, since 1982, have increased 
60 percent; and that is a reality whether a farmer is in New York or 
Wisconsin.
  And it saddens me deeply to have to find ourselves time and time 
again opposing representatives who are good of heart, who are trying to 
represent their dairy farmers as well, as though somehow we have to 
hurt some to even marginally help another. New York's dairy history is 
a sad one in recent years. Built on a proud tradition, we have lost 
more than 8,000 dairy farmers over the past 10 years or so. Milk cows 
in New York have decreased by some 23 percent.
  So there are no winners in this. And what really confuses me in the 
fight that we will see tomorrow on 1-A and 1-B is that somehow the 
folks who think that by adopting 1-B their dairy farmers will prosper 
are simply wrong. Every region of the country, including the upper 
Midwest, who seem to be most supportive of this, will, at the end of 
the day, when the market order reforms are taken into consideration and 
when the pricing structures for Class 3 milk are taken into 
consideration will lose money. The class pricing changes for Class 3 
will mean a loss of some $30 million to farmers in the upper Midwest.
  So 1-A, 1-B is not a fight of who will do well but rather a fight of 
who is going to be hurt less, and I think that is a very, very 
disturbing aspect.
  And there is another important point that for all of the debate I 
have heard in support of 1-A and 1-B, particularly those who are 
favoring 1-B, that somehow other farmers are receiving more for their 
milk. Well, as my boyhood hero Paul Harvey used to say, ``Here is the 
rest of the story.'' The reality is that when we factor in all of the 
price components, what a farmer is paid for his or her milk, dairy 
farmers in the upper Midwest have traditionally, historically, and 
continue today to receive more than the farmers do in, say the 
Northeast.
  In the Chicago regional market, for example, when we factor in the 
cost under the market order support, when we factor in the various 
premiums that they receive, those farmers obtain 55 to 66 cents per 
hundredweight more than farmers in the Northeast. So while my heart 
goes out to those farmers and while I definitely and strongly support 
things that we can and should be doing to help them as well, this 
action, 1-A versus 1-B, will not be the salvation, will not reach out 
and help dairy farmers in the upper Midwest, will not, as I have heard 
time and time again, level the playing field.
  We cannot have a responsible dairy policy that indeed encourages the 
production of fluid milk, affordable, wholesome fluid milk in every 
part of the country, a policy objective that I think is so very sound, 
so very important, by taking away annual farm income, depending on 
whose figures you read, anywhere from $360 to $560 million a year. And 
that is why this is so very, very important.
  In our part of the world, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
and myself, and I know it is reflected in the districts of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci), and all the other Members, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Etheridge), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and I 
know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) is going to speak 
shortly, in all of our regions dairy farmers are important for what 
they do, for what they produce.
  But it is more than that. We have to help people understand that when 
a dairy farm goes out of business, it is not just a few buildings 
becoming vacant, it is not just that no longer is that field populated 
with dairy cows. It is a loss of business of devastating proportions to 
our local communities, a loss of an incredibly important, I would argue 
irreplaceable, fabric in the social and economic fabric of a community.

                              {time}  2000

  We lose our neighbors. They no longer shop at the local supermarket. 
They do not go to the feed store, implement store. They are no longer 
purchasing products from the hardware store on down to the local book 
store.
  So it is an important thing for consumers. It is an important thing 
certainly for the preservation of, in the State of New York, the 
largest segment of our largest industry, agriculture. And it is 
important, too, that we preserve this way of life.
  I would like to believe that over time we can begin to work together 
with all of our friends here in this Congress who care very deeply 
about their dairy farmers as well and evolve a policy that helps all of 
these folks stay in business, to the betterment of each and every 
American.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for 
the chance to be here this evening.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being here and for 
his comments.
  Certainly, as he pointed out, in the milk marketing order, there are 
some significant revisions of this map. The two directives from the 
Department of Agriculture, and there were only two directives in this 
regard, were to create a new consolidated set of orders that reduced 
from the 31 that are in place today to no more than 14 or less than 10. 
They came back with 10 orders, basically, that does reflect some of the 
transportation, refrigeration, the other elements.
  But this is, as the gentleman knows, a highly perishable product. 
There is a particular, I think my colleagues would probably call it 
junk food, but I like it, that I will not mention the name that I like 
to buy. The shelf life is forever. It does not matter how long it takes 
to get to the store where I buy it. It does not matter how long I keep 
a box of this particular item at my house. It is going to be just as 
good, I guess, 10 years from now as it is today. My wife would argue 
about the quality of my product choice there.
  But we do not have a forever life with this product. And keeping that 
supply reasonably close, and we are saying now that it is with three 
times as easy to get that product to the store on the store shelf as it 
was when the milk orders were first designed, so we are going to 11 
helpful milk orders. That was one requirement. The other requirement 
was that if the State of California wants to be exempted and have its 
own order, they would be allowed to do that.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) knows, Mr. Speaker, those 
were the only two requirements that USDA had. There was no requirement 
to eliminate the policy. There was no requirement that fresh milk would 
no longer matter after 1999 or 2002 or any other date. Those are the 
requirements. This order reflects that.
  And of course this is a product that, in its fluid form, that we 
really do not have extra days. When we look at that date on the carton 
when we buy it at the store, it is not months or years in advance, it 
is just a few days in advance. And a week or a day or two days off the 
life of that product makes a big difference in the quality of the 
product and whether somebody wants to rush back to buy another gallon 
or half gallon or pint of that product.

[[Page 14650]]


  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the gentleman. 
Who amongst us has not walked up to the dairy case in our local 
supermarket and reached to the back to try to find the expiration date 
that is furthest away? And it is true, refrigeration has made a 
difference in how we can ship dairy product. But it is not a total 
answer. There is a very substantial cost to be paid in terms of 
lessening the shelf life when that product reaches our market shelves, 
a very substantial degradation in the quality of the product of milk.
  If my colleagues are interested in increasing consumption amongst 
Americans of this very wholesome product, it seems to me that that kind 
of loss of quality, that kind of loss in consumer convenience in terms 
of the compressed expiration date is absolutely critical.
  And there is one final reality that those who argue that market 
orders are no longer necessary because we can ship from California to 
New York or from New York to Florida or wherever conveniently choose to 
ignore, and that reality is simply that transportation is a significant 
cost factor in the retail price of milk; and the further they have to 
ship over time, it will have an irreversible and a very significant 
factor on the price of milk to the consumers. And it seems to me that 
one of our primary objectives has to be in all of this dairy policy, 
because we are not just formulating policy to help farmers, we have to 
take the broader public interest into mind, is that we stabilize 
prices, not increase them artificially, and particularly not do it in a 
way which is proposed through 1(b) that would be so devastating to the 
producers.
  So, again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, one of the ways that I like to drive to 
Washington is through Pennsylvania. Before I was in Congress, when my 
family and I would come to Pennsylvania, when my children and I would 
come to Washington when my children were growing up would be through 
Pennsylvania. One of the things, as a person who was born on a dairy 
farm, that we enjoyed the most was that roadside view of those great 
dairies.
  I notice that there are fewer of those dairies. And dairies that we 
used to look at and admire the cows as we were driving by and the 
painted buildings and the white fence and all the things that went 
along with those great dairy farms, many of those that I see now do not 
have that. I know one of the people that has been concerned about that 
in the Congress as we have dealt with those issues is the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink), and I would like to yield some time to 
him to talk about this very important issue to Pennsylvania and really 
to all of the States of the country.
  I think what the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) said about the 
struggle that dairy farmers are having everywhere is something that we 
all want to keep in mind as we deal with this legislation.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I want to tell the gentleman first of all that I thank him for his 
leadership on this matter. He has brought a great amount of fortitude 
and insightfulness and inventiveness in helping to find out ways that 
we can bring attention to the plight of the farmers. I appreciate his 
doing this special order and having us here. And I also very much 
appreciate his driving through Pennsylvania and hope that when he does 
that he will spend a little bit of money and keep Pennsylvania green. 
We appreciate that, as well.
  Let me say that I think all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle just have done a tremendous job of talking about what is at risk 
here. What this is really about in Option 1(a) is giving the farmers of 
America a fair shake. 1(a) is based on location-specific cost. It 
recognizes, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) said, I think 
said so well, the value of having a fresh supply of milk produced 
locally.
  He is right, there is refrigeration. But there is this whole idea of 
the family farmer, once they are gone, once we have only the big 
industrial farms, who is going to control the price of milk at that 
point?
  The interesting thing I think for those of us who have grown up in 
farm life, I think what we understand here tonight is that we are 
fighting specifically for a way of life. I know that the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt) referred to this earlier. If we go back to the 
founding of this Nation, it was an agrarian society, and it is only 
when the farmers were able to produce more that it freed up some of our 
families to go and do other things, take industrial jobs.
  So what we are really fighting for today is for that farmer to be 
able to continue to produce the food, and in this case it is milk 
products, and to be able to get a fair price for that product. And if 
we cannot talk about location-specific costs, if we cannot have a 
program like 1(a) that specifically realizes we have to have a fresh 
supply of milk forever in each region, where are we going as a Nation? 
Where in the world are we going?
  Some of my farmers, we toured around, we talked about this, we talked 
about the Northeast Compact, we talked about milk prices falling. I do 
not think that people out there who are not familiar with the dairy 
industry and they are not familiar with farming do not realize how 
difficult it is for farmers. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh) touched on it earlier about they just do not buy a cow and 
start milking it right away. There is a whole lot of investment that 
goes into it.
  How many farms in all of our areas were bought where somebody came in 
first generation and put up the barns, bought the land, built the 
sheds. Fortunately these are second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, 
seventh generation farms. If they were not, if these farms had not been 
handed down, if these farmers today had to make the capital expenditure 
to buy that land to build the barns, to buy all the cattle, they would 
not be making anything. And they are barely making anything, and in 
some instances they are not making anything.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) is right, there are farms 
that are disappearing in Pennsylvania, in all of our States. And with 
that is that fresh supply of milk.
  Now, the farmers get started. Maybe they are fourth, fifth, sixth 
generation farmer. Then here comes the dairy and they are buying the 
milk from them and they tell us what is Class 1, they tell us what is 
Class 2, Class 3, and we get a different price based on not what 
quality of milk they have, Madam Speaker, but it is on what they are 
using that milk for. They are paid as a farmer for what they are using 
that milk for.
  Now, if they sell a bail of hay, it is the going price of a bail of 
hay. If they sell a bushel of wheat, it is the price of a bushel of 
wheat. But they pay the farmers for the milk depending on what they are 
going to use that milk for.
  I have had farmers tell me and they kind of laugh and they look out 
of the side of their eye with a twinkle and they say, ``Now, you show 
me which one of my cows produced Class 3 milk and I will make hamburger 
out of them because I cannot afford to feed them anymore.'' There are 
so many things going against these farmers, they have to milk twice a 
day, every day, seven days a week. All we are saying is give them a 
fair shake.
  H.R. 1402 is well thought out. This is a good bill. It is going to be 
marked up tomorrow. It is an important piece of legislation. As my 
colleague said, I think we have 228 cosponsors. That is a majority of 
this House. It is the right thing to do. It is a thoughtful thing.
  And to both of the gentlemen from New York, we are right behind them. 
They are the third largest State. We are the fourth. We are trying to 
gain on them, but with farms shutting down, we are not quite getting 
there.
  Some of my colleagues have mentioned earlier about the number of 
jobs. We have 17,000 jobs in Pennsylvania tied directly to the dairy 
industry. And then the spin-off, another 12,500 jobs indirectly tied to 
the dairy industry. The people who are suppliers, those people where 
they do their shopping and the things that they do. And

[[Page 14651]]

it is estimated if we have a 2-percent decline in our dairy industry in 
Pennsylvania, it would be a loss of 600 jobs. Six hundred families 
would have to go find something else to do, another way to pay the 
bills, another way to pay the mortgage, may have to leave the family 
farm.
  This is important. It is important in dollars. It is important in 
jobs. It is important to have that rural family farm way of life.
  We were talking over the past couple of weeks a lot on this floor of 
the House about morality, about solving social problems. There is 
nothing greater to bring people together than to give them a little 
taste of what happens in farm country. Dairy farms are about a way of 
life. They get up early, work long, work hard, enjoy each other's 
company.
  Do we want to see the family farm wiped out because we have not given 
them a fair shake and have only large industrial farms out there? They 
will set the price of milk. If the consumers think they got a bad deal 
now, they got nothing. The farmers out here are watching the price of 
milk. On March 5 of this year in Pennsylvania, the price of our milk 
dropped 37 percent to the farm. They went back to what they were making 
in 1962.
  All the consumers out there saw was maybe a nickel, six cents, seven 
cents difference. It was not that big. There was no real notice when 
they went in, pulled their dollar bills out and tried to buy a gallon 
of milk.
  So it is important that we give these farmers the opportunity to have 
a good fresh supply of milk produced locally, let them recoup their 
local costs, whether it is labor costs, whether it is transportation 
costs. Whatever the cost is, whether they have got to get their feed 
ground, whatever it is they have to do, they have to be able to recoup 
that cost.
  Some of the other speakers talked and we have to talk again about the 
dairy compact, because we are going to be back here I know talking 
about this issue. And it is important that we also, and I know that we 
are supportive of 1604, to reauthorize the dairy compact and to create 
a southern compact.
  I am very proud that in Pennsylvania our State assembly since the 
last time we talked passed legislation to allow Pennsylvania to join 
the compact. The governor signed it into law. And now our farmers are 
going to have that shot. Now, the difference is that now they are 
making a little over $12 per hundred weight. It costs 13 and a half 
bucks to produce that milk. The compact differential is going to be the 
difference between paying the bills, staying in business, and not being 
in business. That is how important this compact legislation is.
  So I thank my colleague for having me here to be part of this to let 
me along with I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) here 
to be able to speak up on behalf of our farmers in Pennsylvania. But I 
just want to point out one thing again in case it was missed, Madam 
Speaker, and that is this: We have got people here from the Midwest, 
from the South, from the Northeast. We are not against each other's 
farmers. We are all here today speaking out for all of these dairy 
farmers, speaking out for fairness against each and every one of them. 
I am not against the farmers in Missouri or New York. We want a fair 
shake for all of them. And someone said it earlier, we do not have to 
pit American farmers against each other.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in 
this effort. And he has already recognized one of his colleagues here 
on the floor who, from the first day he joined us this year, came up to 
me and said, ``Dairy is important in my district. I want to be involved 
in getting this legislation passed.''

                              {time}  2015

  If the proposed option would go into effect, the average herd of 100 
cows, that family would lose $6,000 to $15,000 a year depending on 
other price factors. Most of us would not want to take a $6,000 to 
$15,000 a year family pay cut. That is the difference in these options. 
That is why we are supporting 1-A. That is why it is going to be marked 
up in committee tomorrow.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has been an advocate 
of this policy since he got here and has been working hard to see that 
we get to this point of reversing this decision, passing 1-A. I yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise to support my colleague from 
Missouri's bill to have 1-A pricing as the best solution for producers 
and consumers across the country.
  The Secretary of Agriculture's reform policy for the Federal milk 
marketing order is poor policy. It favors a small segment of the dairy 
industry in the northern Midwest and could lead to reductions in income 
of more than 6 percent to family dairy farms in other parts of the 
country.
  Madam Speaker, we have had far too much reduction in dairy farms in 
Pennsylvania already. When I was a young boy growing up after the 
Second World War, my uncle had a dairy farm in a bend of the 
Susquehanna River, an area known as North Eaton. He would run his can 
truck out and pick up milk from seven farmers in that peninsula. Today 
there is not a dairy cow or a pound of milk produced in that peninsula 
along the Susquehanna River.
  I grew up in the small town of Nicholson. There were three creameries 
and four feed mills. Today there is not one of either. When the farmers 
made money, the little communities prospered, the churches were full, 
the charities were in good shape. As we let our family farm base wither 
away, we are not doing our society any good.
  Family farmers do not want anything from us that is not fair. I am a 
very free enterprise person. Farmers are very individualistic. They are 
not asking for anything from the government except a chance to compete. 
Option 1-A gives them a fair mechanism in which to produce their milk, 
and you will then continue to have farm-fresh milk throughout the 
country. Dairy farms are the engine of the economy in small communities 
across the country.
  I support this bill because it is the soundest, fairest policy for 
those hardworking families which help create dairy products and jobs in 
my home region. My friend Carl Aten retired from hauling milk a few 
years ago. He told me when he started he had 140 farmers. When he quit, 
he had 40 farmers. This is an industry that, if we do not treat it 
fairly, will go out of business. We do not need to be in the business 
of forcing family farms to go out. We do not need to penalize regions 
of our country which have long, proud histories of dairy farmers. We do 
not need to force consumers to receive only products that have been 
shipped from faraway regions. We need, along with the 200 other Members 
of the House, to support Option 1-A.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record this editorial from the 
Wisconsin-based dairy magazine ``Hoard's Dairyman'' which is entitled 
``On Federal Order Reform . . . First, Do No Harm.'' I think it puts it 
in perfect perspective. What it essentially says is that Federal orders 
are put in place for dairy farmers, to be approved by dairy farmers. 
While USDA's proposal addresses some pricing aberrations, we cannot be 
expected to embrace a plan that reduces income for this high-capital, 
low-margin, physically demanding business of producing milk.
  I suggest we take the advice of this upper Midwest authority with the 
national interests of the dairy industry in mind. First do no harm and 
reform the dairy program in a way that does not hurt dairy farmers.

               [From the Hoard's Dairyman, May 10, 1999]

            On Federal Order Reform . . . First, Do No Harm

       Think back to when the federal order reform package being 
     debated now was being drafted. The 1996 Farm Bill that 
     mandated reform was to be the start of getting government out 
     of farming or, at least, away from regulating (or supporting) 
     the price of farm products. ``Market orientation'' and 
     ``global competitiveness'' were the ag policy watch words.

[[Page 14652]]

       Now, USDA's final rule proposes Class I differentials that 
     would be ``flatter.'' Across all orders, differentials would 
     average 29 cents a hundredweight less than existing levels.
       The so-called make allowances would be raised for plants 
     making butter and cheese under federal order jurisdiction. 
     The intent is to make federal order plants more competitive 
     with those in California which operate under higher make 
     allowances. But there is only so much value in a 
     hundredweight of milk. Boosting margins for plants leaves 
     less money to pay producers.
       The National Milk Producers Federation estimates that dairy 
     farmer income in federal orders would have averaged $196 
     million a year less during the past five years had USDA's 
     final rule been in effect. That figure may be inflated 
     somewhat as it does not include overorder and other premiums 
     that would be paid. Still, we're talking about less money in 
     dairy farmers' bank accounts.
       Having said this, let's remember that much has changed 
     during the past two years since the Farm Bill was passed. 
     Feed grain and wheat prices have been in the pits. The pork 
     picture needs no explanation. Beef prices are stagnant, at 
     best. And our milk prices soared to record highs, followed by 
     the lowest level in eight years. In short, today's ag policy 
     environment is much different than it was just two years ago.
       Accordingly, the medical motto ``First, do no harm'' comes 
     to mind. Federal milk orders are put in place for dairy 
     farmers, to be approved by dairy farmers. While the order 
     proposal addresses some pricing aberrations, we can't be 
     expected to embrace a plan that reduces income for this high-
     capital, low-margin, physically-demanding business of 
     producing milk.
       Rather than market orientation, we should be concerned 
     about the nearly 8,000 families that sold their cows during 
     1998, many because they couldn't make ends meet. Rather than 
     global competitiveness, we should be concerned that the 
     highest milk prices ever (1998's average mailbox price was 
     $15.05) were well under the total economic cost of production 
     in five of six regions of the country, according to USDA 
     analysis.
       Congress is to react to the reform plan by early summer. 
     There will be heated debates on divisive issues, such as 
     differentials and make allowances, both within and beyond the 
     Beltway. Dairy farmer leaders from across the country need to 
     put aside regional differences and bring to Washington a 
     unified voice that asks for best possible price for all diary 
     farmers.

                          ____________________