Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for recognizing the need of three Vermont towns to upgrade, modernize and acquire technology for their police departments in this Conference Report. Allowing these police departments to improve their technology will permit them to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the services they provide. Reflecting the needs of the police departments, the $1 million in technology funds for these three towns should be divided on the following basis: one-half ($500,000) to the Burlington Police Department, one-third ($333,000) to the Rutland Police Department, and one-sixth ($167,000) to the St. Johnsbury Police Department. Again, I appreciate his help in addressing the technology problems these towns' police departments are facing. I look forward to working with him to get this important appropriations bill signed into law.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Bond for all of his hard work on the FY 2000 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, and the attention he paid to priorities in my home State of Vermont. I would like to briefly discuss with the Senator from Missouri the $600,000 provided in the Conference Report for the Vermont Rural Fire Protection Task Force. It is my understanding that the funds provided are for the purchase of personal safety equipment that includes, but is not limited to the following: self-contained breathing apparatus, fire resistant turn out gear (helmets, coats pants, boots, hoods, gloves, and the like), personal pagers, personal accountability system to fulfill requirements of OSHA's two in two out rule, portable radios and personal hand lights. The need for new firefighting equipment is great in Vermont, because of the new OSHA regulations. I hope that the funds provided in this bill will be matched 50 percent with non-federal funds. Further, it is my understanding that the funds will be administered by the Vermont Rural Fire Protection Task Force supported by the George D. Aiken and the Northern Vermont Resource Conservation and Development Council.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it is a real pleasure and a privilege for me to be here to honor my colleague. We came into the Congress together. That moment is most memorable to me. I was at a reception and missed the first vote in the House. I thank the Senator for never burdening me with that. I am privileged to be his colleague. For four decades, Pat has served Vermont. At the time he was a Chittenden County prosecutor, I was attorney general. We worked very closely together to make sure that Vermont was protected. In his position, he has gained national and international recognition on many issues. He has led the fight to rid the world of landmines and continues to aid victims of these weapons through the Leahy War Victims Fund. He has helped bring the computer age to the Senate, helped educate all Members on the value of the Internet, and continues to champion environmental issues. He always remembers his roots. I am sure I speak for him when I say that his proudest accomplishments are those that make Vermont a better place. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that Vermont receives full consideration before the Senate. He has protected Vermont dairy farmers, maintained funds for programs to preserve the waters of Lake Champlain, and helped fulfill George Aiken's legacy by adding lands to the Green Mountain National Forest. Patrick Leahy is a man of his word. He is a trusted friend who has the courage of his convictions, and plays to win for the right cause. Many times he has been on the winning side for the benefit of Vermont and the Nation. I have worked on his side on many occasions and have always marveled at his sense of the democratic process, at his commitment to constituents, and his dedication to friends and his family. I am proud to call Pat Leahy a friend of mine, and I have valued and have enjoyed our interaction in the Halls of the Senate, from the good- natured competition of our annual intrastate softball game to marching in Vermont's miniparades. With this vote, Pat Leahy becomes only the 21st Member, as has been pointed out, out of 1,851 men and women who have served, to respond yea or nay 10,000 times. It is wonderful to be with you, Pat. Congratulations.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to stand before the Senate today and speak of an organization that has, for the past 25 years, been committed to ending violence toward women and children. The organization is called Women Helping Battered Women (WHBW) and their goal is simple: create a living environment for women and children that is free from fear of battering--sexual, physical, emotional or financial. On the occasion of their 25th anniversary, WHBW, through their direct service, their advocacy and their educational and outreach programs stands as an example for us all and, unfortunately, are as crucial today as they were 25 years ago. We must not shy away from the impacts of domestic violence. In the United States, a woman is battered by a partner every seven seconds and thirty percent of Americans know a woman who has been physically abused by their husband or boyfriend in the last year. In my home state of Vermont, I shudder when I hear that domestic violence touches over 16,000 Vermonters each year. In Chittenden County alone, an overwhelming 59% of all reported crimes since January 1998 have been domestic-related disturbances. We often perceive Vermont as one of the safest states in the nation, however, the incidence of domestic violence in Vermont continues to rise. As a result of WHBW's work, over 3,500 Vermonters' lives were positively touched during difficult and dangerous times in their lives. I'd like to highlight their PARADIGM project, a joint educational partnership with the Woman's Rape Crisis Center. The PARADIGM project serves to educate students, churches and professional and community groups, in the hope of breaking the cycle of violence in the home and in our communities. Mr. President, you may see me and others wearing a purple ribbon, to symbolize our commitment to ending violence against women and children in our state, and across the nation. Yet it is the day to day work of Women Helping Battered Women--it is their strength and advocacy--that continues to make a difference and helps Congress focus on this issue. Congress made a commitment to the women behind the statistics when we passed the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). I will continue to work to fulfill this pledge to millions of women and families who have suffered, by fully funding this important Act which supports shelters, counseling, training, and law enforcement. In fact, my work helped to double the fiscal year 1997 allocations for community level demonstration projects and to increase the domestic violence hotline funds. Congress also included funding targeted exclusively to combat domestic violence in rural areas--especially important in my home state of Vermont. We must continue the work we began with the passage of VAWA and pass a reauthorization of these vital programs. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 51, the Violence Against Women Act II. I pledge to work with my colleagues to get this needed legislation passed in the near future. I applaud WHBW's leadership and the creative initiatives they have undertaken to build and maintain a multi-cultural organization which empowers staff, volunteers, and the women and families they serve. I commend Woman Helping Battered Women for their crucial work in breaking the silence for victims, supporting women and children in meeting their most basic needs in times of great difficulty, educating our communities, and working to heighten public awareness of this growing epidemic. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to provide my colleagues with a shining example of a group of dedicated individuals actively engaged in the war against domestic violence. I join other Vermonters in offering my heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Women Helping Battered Women for their many years of good work.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the completion of the Lake Champlain/Saint Albans Historical Diorama. This interactive educational exhibit at the Saint Albans Historical Museum is ambitious in its geographic and historic scope. It spans the entire Champlain Valley, from Fort Ticonderoga to the Richelieu River and also spans time, from pre-history to the present. The people of Saint Albans have a tremendous understanding and respect for their history, as seen by the fact that this exhibit was funded entirely through local contributions and completed in just over a year, with most of the work done by residents of Saint Albans and neighboring towns. It is a beautiful addition to one of Vermont's finest historical museums. The Champlain Valley is the birthplace of the United States and Canada. For two hundred years the Champlain Valley was the stage for conflicts between the French and the English, and then for the most critical campaign of the Revolutionary War. In times of peace, the Champlain Valley has been an important corridor of commerce. Important sites from this history are displayed and interpreted in the Diorama, including wonderful scale models of the region's lighthouses. The Diorama also depicts the local history of Saint Albans, displaying her historic structures, rail yards and neighborhoods in great detail. These events and places are brought to life in three dimensions, engaging and educating the viewer as is possible with no other medium. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the Saint Albans Historical Society and all of the others who have helped to create the diorama. This is a significant contribution to the heritage of Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as we begin the debate on campaign finance reform to discuss my thoughts and hopes on the actions the Senate will be taking in the coming days. First, let me thank the sponsors of the legislation, Senators McCain and Feingold, for their tireless perseverance to enact campaign finance reform. Without their hard work and vast knowledge, we would not be at this important point. I would also like to thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, for working with Senators McCain and Feingold to schedule this time for what I hope will be a full and open debate on this important issue. I look forward to hearing and debating the many ideas of my colleagues and believe the Senate should strive over the next couple of days to show why we are considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Mr. President, I was first elected to Congress following the Watergate scandal, right around the time Congress last enacted comprehensive reform of our campaign finance system. I have watched with growing dismay over my almost 25 years in Congress as the number of troubling examples of problems in our current campaign finance system have increased. These problems have led to a perception by the public that a disconnect exists between themselves and the people that they have elected. I believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections in recent years. While some may point to surveys that list campaign finance reform as a low priority for the electorate, I believe that the public actually strongly supports Congress debating and enacting comprehensive reform this year. It is important to reverse the trend of shrinking voter turnout by reestablishing the connection between the public and us, their elected representatives, by passing comprehensive campaign finance reform. As I said earlier, I look forward to a full and open debate on the issue of campaign finance reform including the amendments that will be offered. At the end of this debate, the Senate should be able to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. That to me is the most important aspect of any bill the Senate may pass, it must be comprehensive. If we fail to address the problems facing our campaign finance system with a comprehensive balanced package we will ultimately fail in our mission of reforming the system. Closing one loophole, without addressing the others in a systematic way, will not do enough to correct current deficiencies, and may in fact create new and unintended consequences. Mr. President, we have all seen first-hand the problems with the current state of the law as it relates to sham issue advertisements. I have focused much time and effort on developing a legislative solution on this topic with my colleague Senator Olympia Snowe, and was pleased that this solution was adopted by the Senate during the last debate on campaign finance reform. I was also proud to cosponsor the comprehensive campaign finance bill Senators McCain and Feingold introduced earlier this year that included this legislative solution. While I understand the rationale my colleagues used in crafting the base legislation that we are debating, I feel strongly that the legislation the Senate must ultimately vote on include some kind of changes to the current law concerning sham issue advertisements. I feel that we have crafted a reasonable, constitutional approach to this problem and will be offering it as an amendment during this debate. That does not mean, though, that we will stop working with our colleagues to craft additional, and perhaps different, ideas to address the problems with the current law on sham issue advertisements. My ultimate goal is to create a comprehensive campaign finance bill that will garner the support of at least 59 of my other colleagues, and hopefully more. Mr. President, I look forward to the upcoming full and open debate on this important issue, and pledge to continue working with my colleagues to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform into law this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the DrugGap Insurance for Seniors Act of 1999, which will provide much- needed insurance coverage for medicines for low-income seniors, and will allow all other seniors, for the first time, to purchase an affordable, drug-only insurance policy to protect them against the runaway cost of drugs. Mr. President, we are all aware that prescription drug costs continue to grow at an alarming rate. Seniors are being forced to spend greater and greater portions of their fixed incomes on prescription drugs that they need to live. Research and development of prescription drugs have come a long way since Medicare was originally enacted in 1965. Today, drugs are just as important, and in many cases more important, than hospital visits. It does not make sense for Medicare to reimburse hospitals for surgery, but not provide coverage for the drugs that might prevent surgery. That is why I am committed to modernizing the Medicare program so that it does not go bankrupt in the next 10 to 15 years. In addition, we must ensure that any Medicare reform proposal we consider includes a prescription drug benefit that helps all seniors. This is a basic coverage problem that we must address as we modernize the Medicare program, and it is one of my top priorities. Ideally, it should be part of broad Medicare reform. Even if we are not able to achieve broad reform in the Medicare program this year, we must at least do something to address this basic need for seniors. Today, I am introducing a bill that will target the most needy seniors. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries can purchase private insurance plans, called Medigap plans, to pay certain health care expenses that are not covered by Medicare. The law allows Medigap insurers to offer ten standardized plans to beneficiaries. However, only the three most expensive Medigap plans cover prescription drugs. My plan calls for three new Medigap insurance plans to be developed that will cover only prescription drugs. The federal government will use a small portion of the budget surplus to purchase these new ``DrugGap'' policies for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who do not already have prescription drug coverage under Medicaid or through an employer sponsored plan. This bill provides all seniors the option of purchasing affordable, comprehensive coverage for prescription drugs even if they do not qualify for the federal government purchase plan. The bill also includes reforms to the Medigap system to give seniors more choice, and to keep Medigap premiums affordable. Mr. President, this bill offers several significant advantages to Medicare beneficiaries who need coverage for prescription drugs. First, nothing will change for those Medicare beneficiaries who like their current Medigap plans. This bill will offer more choices for Medicare beneficiaries, but will not make seniors change coverage that they like. Second, this plan does not mandate prescription drug benefits on the current standardized plans, which some critics have argued will raise premiums. Indeed, one of the goals of this legislation is to make Medigap more affordable, and to seek solutions to the problem of the spiraling cost of Medigap premiums. This bill offers a way to accomplish this goal. This bill also gives DrugGap policy holders access to the deep discounts on drugs that HMOs get, even if the beneficiary has not met the policy's deductible, and makes it clear that insurance companies can issue drug discount cares to Medigap policy holders even if the policy doesn't cover prescription drugs. Finally, this bill will provide federal grants to the states for counseling for seniors regarding this new benefit. Mr. President, this bill is not a substitute for the much-needed Medicare reform and Medicare drug benefit, but it is a positive step that we can take right now to protect Medicare beneficiaries until Medicare reform can be achieved, and a broad drug benefit is implemented. I hope my colleagues will support this moderate approach to helping Medicare beneficiaries deal with the runaway costs of prescription drugs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the DrugGap Insurance for Seniors Act of 1999, which will provide much- needed insurance coverage for medicines for low-income seniors, and will allow all other seniors, for the first time, to purchase an affordable, drug-only insurance policy to protect them against the runaway cost of drugs. Mr. President, we are all aware that prescription drug costs continue to grow at an alarming rate. Seniors are being forced to spend greater and greater portions of their fixed incomes on prescription drugs that they need to live. Research and development of prescription drugs have come a long way since Medicare was originally enacted in 1965. Today, drugs are just as important, and in many cases more important, than hospital visits. It does not make sense for Medicare to reimburse hospitals for surgery, but not provide coverage for the drugs that might prevent surgery. That is why I am committed to modernizing the Medicare program so that it does not go bankrupt in the next 10 to 15 years. In addition, we must ensure that any Medicare reform proposal we consider includes a prescription drug benefit that helps all seniors. This is a basic coverage problem that we must address as we modernize the Medicare program, and it is one of my top priorities. Ideally, it should be part of broad Medicare reform. Even if we are not able to achieve broad reform in the Medicare program this year, we must at least do something to address this basic need for seniors. Today, I am introducing a bill that will target the most needy seniors. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries can purchase private insurance plans, called Medigap plans, to pay certain health care expenses that are not covered by Medicare. The law allows Medigap insurers to offer ten standardized plans to beneficiaries. However, only the three most expensive Medigap plans cover prescription drugs. My plan calls for three new Medigap insurance plans to be developed that will cover only prescription drugs. The federal government will use a small portion of the budget surplus to purchase these new ``DrugGap'' policies for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who do not already have prescription drug coverage under Medicaid or through an employer sponsored plan. This bill provides all seniors the option of purchasing affordable, comprehensive coverage for prescription drugs even if they do not qualify for the federal government purchase plan. The bill also includes reforms to the Medigap system to give seniors more choice, and to keep Medigap premiums affordable. Mr. President, this bill offers several significant advantages to Medicare beneficiaries who need coverage for prescription drugs. First, nothing will change for those Medicare beneficiaries who like their current Medigap plans. This bill will offer more choices for Medicare beneficiaries, but will not make seniors change coverage that they like. Second, this plan does not mandate prescription drug benefits on the current standardized plans, which some critics have argued will raise premiums. Indeed, one of the goals of this legislation is to make Medigap more affordable, and to seek solutions to the problem of the spiraling cost of Medigap premiums. This bill offers a way to accomplish this goal. This bill also gives DrugGap policy holders access to the deep discounts on drugs that HMOs get, even if the beneficiary has not met the policy's deductible, and makes it clear that insurance companies can issue drug discount cares to Medigap policy holders even if the policy doesn't cover prescription drugs. Finally, this bill will provide federal grants to the states for counseling for seniors regarding this new benefit. Mr. President, this bill is not a substitute for the much-needed Medicare reform and Medicare drug benefit, but it is a positive step that we can take right now to protect Medicare beneficiaries until Medicare reform can be achieved, and a broad drug benefit is implemented. I hope my colleagues will support this moderate approach to helping Medicare beneficiaries deal with the runaway costs of prescription drugs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a brief summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill. I oppose the Agriculture funding bill not because of what's in the bill, but because of what has been left out. I have listened to several of my colleagues speak in support of the disaster aid in this bill. They have spoken passionately on how we need to help our family farms. I, too, support providing relief to farmers and ranchers across the nation who have suffered from weather and market related disasters. However, this bill has ignored one of this nation's most important agriculture sectors--our dairy farmers. The bill, which provides $8.7 billion in aid to farmers, in large part as direct payments, has neglected dairy farmers, not only in my home state of Vermont, but the dairy farm families in the entire country. Unlike the commodity farmers throughout the country, dairy farmers have not asked for assistance in the form of federal dollars. Instead, they have asked for relief from a promised government disaster in the form of a fair pricing structure from the Secretary of Agriculture and the extension of the very successful Northeast Dairy Compact, at no cost to the federal government. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues from the states and regions of the country that will be receiving billions of tax payer dollars in aid for their farmers, that the Northeast Dairy Compact has no cost to the federal government and has no adverse impact on any farmer outside the compact region. If my colleagues who have opposed our efforts to bring fairness to all dairy farmers truly supported family farms across this country they would support my efforts to help protect the dairy farmers in my state as well as the dairy farmers in the rest of the nation. While Congress is providing needed government assistance to commodity farmers across the nation, I would like to remind my colleagues on just how well the Dairy Compact helps dairy farmers protect against sudden drops in the price of their products. This no cost initiative has given farmers and consumers hope. In large part based on the success of the Northeast Compact, which includes the six New England states, no less than nineteen additional states have adopted dairy compacts. In total, twenty-five of the states in the country have passed compact legislation. During the past year Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia, Kansas, and Missouri have all passed legislation to form a southern dairy compact. Texas is also considering joining the Southern Compact. The Oregon legislature is in the process of developing a Pacific Northwest Dairy Compact. In addition, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania have passed state legislation enabling them to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. The Northeast Dairy Compact, which was authorized by the 1996 farm bill as a three-year pilot program, has been extremely successful. The Compact has been studied, audited, and sued--but has always come through with a clean bill of health. Because of the success of the Compact it has served as a model for the entire country. One look at the votes cast by each state legislature, and you can see that there is little controversy over what is in the best interest for the consumers and farmers in each respected state. For example, in Alabama and Arkansas, both legislative chambers passed compact legislation unanimously. It passed unanimously in the North Carolina House. In the Oklahoma State Senate, it passed by a vote of 44-1 and unanimously in the Oklahoma House. It passed unanimously in the Virginia State Senate and by a vote of 90-6 in the Virginia House. In Kansas, the bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 39-1 and an impressive 122-1 in the Kansas House. The Northeast Dairy Compact was also approved on overwhelming votes in each of the New England state's legislative bodies. Mr. President, given its broad support among the states, we all know that the issue of regional pricing is one that will continue to be debated. I am pleased with the tremendous progress the Southern states and other Northeastern states have made to move their compacts forward. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Cochran, Senator Specter and others progress has been made. While the debate continues, we must allow the Northeast Compact to continue as the pilot project for the concept of regional pricing. I am, of course, aware that some of my colleagues oppose our efforts to bring fairness to our states and farmers by continuation of the Northeast Dairy Compact pilot project. However, why do Members who share my admiration and respect for family farms oppose an initiative that has no cost to the federal government and has no adverse impact on farmers outside the region? Unfortunately, Congress has been bombarded with misinformation from an army of lobbyists representing the national milk processors, led by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the Milk Industry Foundation. These two groups, backed by the likes of Philip Morris, have funded several front groups such as Public Voice and the Campaign for Fair Milk Prices to lobby against the Dairy Compact and other important dairy provisions. The real fight over dairy compacts should not come from Members of the Senate that support protecting small farms and consumers, but from the National Milk Processors who work against all farmers to the benefit of their bottom line, because they control the price now, and that gives them higher profits. All we want is a fair price. It is crucial that Congress debate the issues presented on dairy compacts on the merits, rather than based on misinformation. When properly armed with the facts, I believe you will conclude that the Northeast Dairy Compact has already proven to be a successful experiment and that the other states which have now adopted dairy compacts should be given the opportunity to determine whether dairy compacts will in fact work for them as well. Mr. President, federal dairy policy is difficult to explain at best. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I served as the ranking member of the Dairy and Livestock Subcommittee. During my years in the House, I worked very closely with the programs that impacted dairy farmers and consumers. I know the industry, I know the policies, and the compact is a raving success. Of all the programs and efforts by the federal government to help our nation's dairy farmers and protect the interests of consumers, the most effective and promising solution I have seen thus far is the creation and operation of the Dairy Compact. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues have not yet seen the benefit of compacts and may be basing their reasons on misinformation. In addition to being sound public policy, the Dairy Compact represents a state's right to do all it can under the law to protect its farmers and consumers. The courts agree that the Compact is legally sound. Last January, a federal appeals court rejected a challenge to the Dairy Compact by the Milk Industry Foundation. The Court found that the Compact was constitutional and the U.S. Agriculture Secretary's approval of the Compact was justified. In November of 1998, a Federal district court judge also ruled in favor of the Compact Commission in a challenge brought by five New York-based milk processors. The court found that the Commission had the authority to regulate milk that is produced or processed outside of the region but distributed within the Compact region. In each case, the courts found that the work of the Commission is of firm and legal grounds. Mr. President, in recent weeks Governors from throughout the Northeast and Southeast sent a letter to the Majority Leader of the Senate and House, urging Congress to consider and support the Dairy Compact legislation. The Governors of the Compact regions speak not only for their farmers and consumers but for the rights of the States. The message to Congress from Governors nationwide has been clear. ``Increase the flexibility of states and support legislation that promotes state and regional policy initiatives.'' Governors from the twenty-five Compact states represent diverse constituents. They have all considered the benefits and potential impacts by compacts on all those in their states. In the state of Rhode Island for example, there are nearly six million consumers and only 32 dairy farmers. Yet, the dairy compact passed overwhelmingly in the Rhode Island State legislature and is supported by the entire Rhode Island delegation. A similar story is true for Massachusetts. As I mentioned previously in my statement, nearly all the states supported the Dairy Compacts overwhelmingly. The success of the three year pilot program of the Northeast Dairy Compact, has created an opportunity for a partnership between Congress and the States, to help strengthen the fundamental federalism movement. The New England states by joining together as one are doing what any large state can do under the law such as California. A large State can do it. We can't because of the commerce clause. We have to join together and get a compact. We did that. The reauthorization of the successful experimentation of the Northeast Compact and the creation of a Southern Compact as a pilot program will help maintain that the States' constitutional authority, resources, and competence of the people to govern is recognized and protected. Mr. President, the Compact also stands on firm constitutional grounds. Does Congress possess the authority to approve the Northeast Interstate and Southern Dairy Compacts? The answer to this question is clear, simple, and affirmative. Under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, states are expressly authorized to seek congressional approval of interstate compacts, even states in the Upper Midwest. And congressional approval, once given, endows interstate compacts with the force of federal law. The Compact Clause, and the Compacts that Congress may license under it, are important devices of constitutional federalism. Despite what some of my colleagues have said, the Northeast Dairy Compact is working as it was intended to. Instead of trying to destroy an initiative that works to help dairy farmers with cost to the federal government, I urge my colleagues to respect the states' interest and initiative to help protect their farmers and encourage that other regions of the country to explore the possibility of forming their own interstate dairy compact. For many farmers in Vermont and New England, the Compact payments have meant the difference between keeping the farm and calling the auctioneer. Dairy farming in Vermont represents over seventy percent of the agricultural receipts in the state. No other state relies on one sector of agriculture more than Vermont depends on dairy. What we were trying to accomplish in the Agriculture Appropriations bill was about helping farmers and protecting consumers. Farmers deserve our support and recognition. It is sometimes easy to forget just how fortunate we are in this country to have the world's least expensive and safest food supply. Dairy farmers work harder than many of us realize. The cows have to be milked at least two times a day, 365 days a year; farmers work on the average 90 hours per week, an average of 13 hours a day; farm owners receive an average hourly wage of $3.65, take few if any vacations or holidays and have no sick leave. That is why they are so sensitive to something which may destroy or reduce the prices. Prices received by farmers in the month of October will be lower than the prices received over 20 years ago. Can you imagine maintaining your livelihood or business with salaries of 20 years ago? Think about what that means to consumers also. The price of milk, if you look on an inflationary scale, is well below what it would be for softdrinks or anything else. I am certain that my colleagues will agree with me that dairy farmers deserve a fair price for their product. What does it say about our values when some of the hardest working people, our farmers, are underpaid and unappreciated? Mandating option 1-A and continuing the dairy compact ensures that dairy farmers will have the needed tools to help face the challenges of the future. In Vermont, dairy farmers help define the character of the state. I am proud to work to protect them to protect the traditions and special qualities of the state. Dairy is not just a farming operation for Vermont and other states in New England, it is symbol of our culture, history and way of life. Its survival is a highly emotional subject. Vermonters take pride in their heritage as a state committed to the ideals of freedom and unity. That heritage goes hand and hand with a unique quality of life and the desire to grow and develop while maintaining Vermont's beauty and character. Ethan Allan and his Green Mountain Boys and countless other independent driven Vermonters helped shape the nation's fourteenth state while making outstanding contributions to the independence of this country. Today, that independence still persists in the hills and valleys of Vermont. Vermonters have worked hard over the years to maintain local control over issues that impact the charm and quality of the state. Vermont's decision to enhance and protect its wonderful scenic vistas by prohibiting bill boards along its highways and roads was a local, statewide decision. Because of the vision Vermonters many years ago had, driving throughout Vermont enjoying the beautiful landscapes and nature beauty is a pleasurable experience. And it would not be without cows on the hillside. Vermonters choose to control their state's destiny. They should, as any other state have the right to protect their consumers, farmers and way of life. Most Americans know Vermont as a tiny state in the Northeast that has good skiing, great maple syrup, and beautiful fall foliage--a charming place where the trees are close together and the people are far apart-- far from the problems that plague many communities across the country. It is nearly impossible to drive down any country road in Vermont and not pass a farm with a herd of cows. Dairy farms still define the nooks and crannies of the rolling hills. Maybe there's a small pond nearby and a few horses or sheep. Or maybe there's a pasture with bales of hay and cows lining up at the barn waiting for milking time. The look of Vermont distinguishes it as a throwback to a bygone, simpler time. Vermont is the home of stone fences, covered bridges, and red farmhouses. Vermonters have a special place in their hearts and lives for farmers. Vermonters of today are struggling to keep step with the modern world while holding onto the state's classic rural charm and agriculture base. It's a difficult task requiring much thought and work. But then again, overcoming difficulties through hard work is what the native Vermonter is all about. Farm families know all about hard work. Mr. President, dairy farmers did not ask Congress for billions of dollars in disaster aid? Instead, and most appropriately, they asked Congress to provide them with a fair pricing structure and the right of the states to work together at no cost to provide a structure that would help them receive a fair price for their product--not a bail out from the federal government. Therefore, I must oppose the Agriculture Appropriations bill and suggest that Members whose farmers will be getting federal dollars in disaster assistance take a close look at how the Northeast Dairy Compact helps protect farmers and consumers with no cost to the federal government or any adverse impact on farmers outside the compact region. I urge my friends to watch closely what is happening to dairy and to give us the opportunity to continue to live in a beautiful State with cows on the hillside. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senate finds itself in a very uncomfortable position today. We have before us one of the most important treaties negotiated this decade, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is not perfect. It does not do everything we wish it would. Its verification provisions are not air-tight, and its sanctions for violators are not particularly stiff. I understand many of my colleagues' uneasiness about the treaty. Prior to last week, there had been no deliberate consideration of the CTBT before any Senate committee. Members have had little opportunity to learn about the treaty and have their questions addressed. A significant portion of the Senate has just in the last two weeks begun to carefully examine the details of the treaty. This is no way to conduct the ratification process on a matter of such importance to national security, and puts Senators in a very uncomfortable position. For some time, I have urged the Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings on this treaty and allow this debate to begin. But for better or worse, this is the situation we find ourselves in, and having exhausted appeals for a delay in the vote, I trust my colleagues will do their best to thoroughly evaluate what is now before them. Implementation of the CTBT would bring, however, a significant improvement in our ability to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Test Ban Treaty would constrain the development of new and more deadly nuclear weapons by nations around the globe by banning all nuclear weapon test explosions. It would also establish a far-reaching global monitoring system and allow for short-notice on-site inspections of suspicious events, thereby improving our ability to detect and deter nuclear explosions by other nations. The fact that the CTBT was signed by 154 nations is a major tribute to American diplomacy. Many of these nations are now looking to America for leadership before they proceed to ratification of the treaty, and under the provisions of the treaty, it will not enter into force until the United States has ratified. Rejection of the test ban treaty could give new life to dormant nuclear testing programs in countries like Russia and China. It could also renew dangerous, cold war-era nuclear arms competitions. And we would have a very difficult time asserting our leadership in urging any nation to refrain from testing. Not only would we lose an historic opportunity to lock in this agreement among nations, we would undermine the power of our own diplomacy by not following through on an initiative that we have spearheaded. Critics charge that we cannot be 100 percent certain that we can detect any test of any size by any nation. I would concede that is true. But when it comes to national defense, nothing is 100 percent certain. We can never be sure any weapon will work 100 percent of the time. We can be certain, however, that this treaty will improve our ability to constrain the nuclear threat today and in the future. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to add this important weapon to our defense arsenal. I urge my colleagues to vote for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for all his tremendous work on this bill. Most of what I wanted, however, did not succeed. It was not because of his lack of effort. He has put a tremendous amount of time in trying to make the bill more acceptable to those of us who live in the Northeast. It is with great disappointment that I stand before the Senate to express my reasoning for opposing the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill, the bill that provides funding for agriculture programs, research and services for American agriculture. In addition, the bill 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 relief for farmers. However, dairy farmers throughout the country and the drought stricken Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions have been ignored in this bill. For these reasons, I must vote against this bill. The Agriculture appropriations bill provides $8.7 billion in assistance to needy farmers across the country. I believe they should receive the help of the Federal Government. What is troubling is that dairy farmers are not asking for Federal dollars, but instead are asking for a fair pricing structure for their products, at no cost to the Government. The drought-stricken Northeastern States are not asking for special treatment, just reasonable assistance to help deal with one of our region's worst drought. Weather-related and market-related disasters do occur and we must as a nation be ready help those in need. In Vermont, in times of need, a neighbor does not have to ask another for help. Vermonters are willing to help, whether it is plowing out a neighbors snow covered driveway or delivering hay to Midwestern States during one of their worst droughts, which we did some years ago to save Wisconsin and Minnesota from terrible problems. This summer weather conditions in the Northeastern and mid-Atlantic put a tremendous strain on the region's agricultural sector. Crops throughout the region were damaged or destroyed. Many farmers will not have enough feed to make it through this winter. Water for livestock and dairy operations dried up, decreasing production and health of the cows. The Northeastern and mid-Atlantic States were not asking for much. Just enough assistance to help cope with the unpredictable Mother Nature. America's dairy farmers need relief of a different kind. There is no need for the expenditure of Federal funds. Commodity farmers are asking the 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. That is all we are asking. 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, but not because of Mother Nature or poor market conditions, but because of the Clinton administration and a few here in Congress have prevented this Nation's dairy farmers from receiving a fair deal. Unfortunately, Secretary Glickman's pricing formulas 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 its sound future. Secretary Glickman's final pricing rule, known as Option 1-B, was scheduled to be implemented on October 1 of this year. However, the U.S. District Court in Vermont has prevented the flawed pricing rule from being implemented by issuing a 30 day temporary restraining order on Secretary Glickman's final rule. The court finds that 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 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 farmer 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. The Agriculture appropriations bill which includes billions of dollars in disaster aid seemed like the logical place to include provisions that would help one of this country's most important agricultural resources 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 to maintain a fresh supply of local milk is a noble idea, and it is a basic law of this Nation. It is an idea that Congress should be working towards. Instead, a few Members in both the House and Senate continue to block the progress and interest of both consumers and dairy farmers. 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 to 140. Both the House and Senate have given a majority vote on this issue. Thus, I felt very hopeful that its inclusion would have been secured in the Agriculture appropriations bill or some other place. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Cochran, the Senate stood firm on these important dairy provisions in conference. For days he worked hard to hold the line to include these. His farmers should be very appreciative of his efforts to bring about another compact of a demonstration program for the Southeast. The Southeast is another special area of the country that needs help just to organize their pricing system better to help farmers survive. Although the House would not allow the provisions to move forward, both Chairman Cochran and Senator Specter led the fight for the dairy provisions. Farmers from Mississippi and Pennsylvania should be proud of the work and commitment of their Senators. In fact, dairy farmers throughout the country should be thankful for the tremendous support their livelihoods have received from Chairman Cochran, Senator Specter, Senator Bond, and others on the Agriculture appropriations conference. Since then, there have been opportunities supported by the Senate to extend the compact and both times it failed because of lack of support in the other body. With the Senate's leadership, the dairy provisions had a fighting chance in the conference committee. Unfortunately, time and time again House Members rebutted our efforts to include Option 1-A and include our dairy compacts in this bill. If not for the actions of the House conferees dairy farmers could embrace this bill. The October 1, 1999, deadline for implementation of the Secretary's rule has come and gone, but with the help of the 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 cost to the Federal Government, through compacts. I understand the significance of the disaster aid in this bill and do not want to prevent the farmers and ranchers throughout the country from receiving this aid. However, in order to protect dairy farmers in my State, as well as farmers throughout the country, I most oppose this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, right now, my home state of Vermont is celebrating Disability Employment Awareness Month. For that reason, I am delighted to speak about the ``Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999,'' legislation that I developed with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Roth and Moynihan. This Act, also known as the Work Incentives Improvement Act (WIIA), is the most important piece of legislation for individuals with disabilities since the Americans with Disabilities Act. This legislation is bipartisan. This legislation was brought to the floor of the United States Senate with 80 cosponsors. And, most importantly, this legislation passed through the Senate on June 15th with a unanimous vote of 99-0. The ``Work Incentives Improvement Act'' addresses a fundamental flaw in current law. Today, individuals with disabilities are forced to make a choice, an absurd choice. They must choose between working and receiving health care. Under current law, if people with disabilities work and earn over $500 per month, they will lose their cash payments and health care coverage under Medicaid or Medicare. This is health care coverage that they need. This is health care coverage that they can not get in the private sector. This is not right. Individuals with disabilities want to work. They have told me this. In fact, national surveys over the past 10 years have consistently confirmed that people with disabilities want to be part of the American workforce. But only one-third of them do work. With the enactment of WIIA, these individuals would not need to worry about losing their health care if they choose to work a forty-hour week, to put in overtime, or to pursue a career advancement. Individuals with disabilities are sitting at home right now, waiting for this legislation to become law. Having a job would provide them with a sense of self-worth. Having a job would allow them to contribute to our economy. Having a job would provide them with a living wage, which is not what one has through Social Security. Currently, there are 7.5 million individuals with disabilities across the nation who receive health care coverage and cash payments from the federal government. 24,000 of these people live in Vermont. Only, one- half of one percent of the 7.5 million work to their full potential, because, when they earn over $500 per month, they lose their access to health care coverage. The first part of my legislation tackles this problem. In states that elect to take up this option, WIIA provides continuing access to health care for Social Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiaries who work and exceed the income threshold. Recognizing that some SSI and SSDI recipients will need job training and job placement assistance, the second part of my bill provides these incentives. People with disabilities would have more choices in where to obtain vocational rehabilitation and employment services. In addition, we would increase the incentives to public and participating private providers serving these individuals. This legislation makes sense. When I came to Congress in 1975, one of my legislative priorities was to provide individuals with disabilities access to the American dream. Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Assistive Technology Act, we have consistently improved the lives of people with disabilities. Unfortunately, one major flaw remains, providing health care to individuals who want to work. The enactment of the Work Incentives Improvement Act would diminish this flaw in federal policy. The Work Incentives Improvement Act reflects what individuals with disabilities say they need. Over 100 national organizations have given us their input and endorsed our bill. The President has made it clear that he would like to sign this legislation into law by the end of the current year. The Incentives Improvement Act provides the opportunity to bring responsible change to federal policy and to eliminate a misguided result of the current system--if you don't work, you get health care; if you do work, you don't get health care. The Work Incentives Improvement Act makes living the American dream a reality for millions of individuals with disabilities, who will no longer be forced to choose between the health care coverage they so strongly need and the economic independence they so dearly desire. I am looking forward to having my colleagues in the House of Representatives finish their work on the Work Incentives Improvement Act. Let's send this bill to President Clinton by the end of this session of the 106th Congress.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senators Specter and Harkin for including in the manager's package an amendment cosponsored by my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, myself and others increasing funding for the LEAP program. LEAP is an extraordinarily program that provides grant aid to needy undergraduate and graduate students. This federal program can be credited in large part with encouraging States to create, maintain and grow their own need-based financial aid programs. It is a program that relies on a partnership for its strength by matching the federal investment in grant aid with State dollars. The end result is a good one: increasing the pool of funds available to assist low income students who are struggling to pay for college. As part of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments, we made significant changes to the LEAP program with the goal of making additional grant aid and a greater array of services available to post-secondary students. We challenged States to increase the match that they contribute by offering $2 for every one federal dollar that we make available for this program. With the additional funds, States will have greater flexibility to provide more services to meet the diverse needs of low income students who are working to make the dream of a higher education degree a reality. I am proud to stand with the National Association of State Student Grant Aid, NASSGAP; the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, NAICU, the American Council on Education, ACE, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, AASCU; the United States Public Interest Research Group, USPIRG; and the United States Student Association, USSA in support of this amendment that I believe will provide significant assistance to the students of this nation. amendment no. 1882 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding comprehensive education reform) At the appropriate place, insert:

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. I object.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe I can't make that agreement at this time.

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 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 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. 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.

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.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know my good friend from Maine is desirous to speak, and I certainly appreciate that.

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 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.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Moynihan, Leahy, Robb, Kerrey, Rockefeller and Grams of Minnesota in the introduction of the Pension Reduction Disclosure Act. This bill greatly expands current law and will provide improved disclosure of the impact of the conversion of a traditional defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance or other hybrid pension plan. We believe that current law protections are insufficient to protect the interests of plan participants. The Pension Reduction Disclosure Act is an important first step in improving worker pension protections. I am also pleased that the President supports this bill. Appropriate disclosure for cash balance pension plans is a serious public policy issue affecting the retirement benefits of millions of Americans. At a minimum, employees should have meaningful notice when their employer plans to reduce pension benefits in the switch from a traditional to a cash balance plan. This bill does that. First, employers have not always been candid with employees about what the changes in pension plans will mean for the employee's retirement. Our bill will require that they spell it out in black and white, and do so in language that anyone who is not an actuary or tax attorney can understand. Second, plan sponsors will have to provide this information in a timely manner, so that employees can engage their employer and seek changes if they choose to do so. As we have seen at IBM and elsewhere, companies can misjudge the impact of these changes on their workforce. Third, plan sponsors will be required to provide their employees with specifics about the effect that the change will have on their retirement benefits so that individuals can understand the financial impact that the conversion will have on their pension. Once we pass this bill, my guess is that employers will think long and hard about what changes they want to make to their pension plans. Long-serving, loyal employees should not wake up to find their pension benefits slashed without even the chance to confront their employer. We can't expect people to save for retirement if the sand is forever shifting under their feet. This bill addresses but one part of the conversion issue. But I think it deserves widespread bipartisan support. I believe that there are more issues at stake for workers, such as my own concerns regarding the pension benefit ``wear away''. However, the Pension Reduction Disclosure Act is a good first step we ought to take to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised about these plans. We don't have a lot of time, but I hope we can send this bill to the President for his signature before we adjourn this fall.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Moynihan, Leahy, Robb, Kerrey, Rockefeller and Grams of Minnesota in the introduction of the Pension Reduction Disclosure Act. This bill greatly expands current law and will provide improved disclosure of the impact of the conversion of a traditional defined benefit pension plan to a cash balance or other hybrid pension plan. We believe that current law protections are insufficient to protect the interests of plan participants. The Pension Reduction Disclosure Act is an important first step in improving worker pension protections. I am also pleased that the President supports this bill. Appropriate disclosure for cash balance pension plans is a serious public policy issue affecting the retirement benefits of millions of Americans. At a minimum, employees should have meaningful notice when their employer plans to reduce pension benefits in the switch from a traditional to a cash balance plan. This bill does that. First, employers have not always been candid with employees about what the changes in pension plans will mean for the employee's retirement. Our bill will require that they spell it out in black and white, and do so in language that anyone who is not an actuary or tax attorney can understand. Second, plan sponsors will have to provide this information in a timely manner, so that employees can engage their employer and seek changes if they choose to do so. As we have seen at IBM and elsewhere, companies can misjudge the impact of these changes on their workforce. Third, plan sponsors will be required to provide their employees with specifics about the effect that the change will have on their retirement benefits so that individuals can understand the financial impact that the conversion will have on their pension. Once we pass this bill, my guess is that employers will think long and hard about what changes they want to make to their pension plans. Long-serving, loyal employees should not wake up to find their pension benefits slashed without even the chance to confront their employer. We can't expect people to save for retirement if the sand is forever shifting under their feet. This bill addresses but one part of the conversion issue. But I think it deserves widespread bipartisan support. I believe that there are more issues at stake for workers, such as my own concerns regarding the pension benefit ``wear away''. However, the Pension Reduction Disclosure Act is a good first step we ought to take to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised about these plans. We don't have a lot of time, but I hope we can send this bill to the President for his signature before we adjourn this fall.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to stand before my esteemed colleagues and speak of my good friend, Cornelius Hogan, who is retiring as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Human Services. His work in leading state government to improve the well-being of Vermonters stands as a example for us all. The Vermont Agency of Human Services includes the departments of Social Welfare, Corrections, Social and Rehabilitation Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Aging and Disabilities. Secretary Hogan has not only administered these vital services through extraordinary changes, but has provided outstanding leadership, recognized throughout the Nation. This agency, with the State's largest budget, must have a human face in its efforts to improve the lives of Vermonters. Con Hogan is that face. Secretary Hogan has served as Vermont's Secretary of Human Services since 1991 when then-Governor Richard Snelling enticed him back into public service from his successes in the private sector. Previously, Hogan served as Commissioner of Corrections. Throughout his eight year tenure, Con has been remarkably effective and always gracious in his approach to each challenge. When Vermonters in need have a problem, Con has been the person that folks turned to when all else had failed. As Chris Graff, a Vermont journalist, noted: Hogan is a legend. And for the past eight years, when people knew that Con Hogan was coming, they had hope. And confidence. Confidence that whatever the trouble, whatever the problem, whatever the need, someone who cared deeply would do what ever it took to help. As a result of Con's work, Vermont families and communities have improved educational opportunities, a better health care system, increased employment for the disabled and an expanded network of family support services. By demanding that government define, seek, and evaluate its efforts, Con has set a new example for public service in Vermont and the country. More Vermont children have health care coverage, and have had it for longer, than almost any state in the country. The state is offering more home and community based care options for the elderly and disabled. Disabled Vermonters are working and, thereby, supporting themselves and their families. Con Hogan's ultimate legacy will be the thousands of lives that have been directly touched by the work of the Agency of Humans Services under his stewardship. He, of course, will describe his work as collaborative and the consequence of others' good will and efforts. He is right, as he has led efforts to open government to the ideas, hopes, and information from citizens, industry and business. He has fostered a real public debate about the well-being of Vermonters and the responsibilities of government and its citizens to participate, evaluate, and dream for better things. Secretary Hogan's vision is alive and full of vibrant change. Con has changed our ways of thinking. He is the mastermind of dozens of partnerships in which human services providers now collaborate with others in state and local governments, and communities to deliver locally-based services. Con recognizes and encourages citizen participation as essential to this process. He has convinced service providers that they should listen to real people - that the child, the elder or the youth needs to be the center of their concerns. Over the last several weeks, many Vermonters have written to their local papers, touting Con Hogan's work as Secretary. Con has significantly changed thousands of Vermonters lives, both through policy and through his own untiring advocacy. The results have impressed his colleagues and friends alike. I was moved when I read a commentary in the Burlington Free Press by my good friend, David S. Wolk, Superintendent of Schools in Rutland City. David pointed out that it was Con Hogan's success in the private and public sectors, as well as his impeccable reputation as both a manager and a leader, that led then-Governor Snelling to appoint him as the state's premier advocate for Vermonters in need. David aptly notes that Con's relentless advocacy has been coupled with his unique capacity to reach out to the wider community. His strong and effective leadership has presented important dualities: Con Hogan could have remained in the private sector to seek his fortune and fame. Instead, he offered a selfless contribution to public service, an emphasis on accountability with measurable outcomes and an impressive brand of leadership, combining pressure and support, characterized by candor and courage. . .. If the ultimate goal of the consummate public citizen is to improve our collective lot, and to enjoy the privilege of making one's personal mark on Vermont's well-being, then no other public citizen called to service in our wonderful state has achieved that pinnacle more than Cornelius D. Hogan of Plainfield. On a personal note, I have enjoyed witnessing Con's talents, not only in public service but on the stage, as an accomplished bluegrass musician. Con's passion and zeal for life is evident in all that he does. Mr. President, I'm sure I could stand here all day, and regale my colleagues with stories and tributes to this remarkable man and still, Con's contribution would not be described adequately. For us to thoroughly understand the impacts of his sage and exemplary leadership, the outcomes of Con Hogan's service to Vermonters will need to be measured far into the new millennium. I join my fellow Vermonters in offering my most heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Con Hogan for his years of public service, and I wish him all the best in his new endeavors.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join my good friend from Connecticut. We have been working for years to draw the attention of the public to the essential need that we pay more attention and provide help in the child care area. Each year we get the support of our Members. Each year we have successfully gotten agreements for billions of dollars of the budget, but the time is now to do something real. That is why we are here, to make sure we make a commitment, not only make a commitment but provide the funds to enable our society to be able to take advantage of all that can be done to make sure our children have an opportunity to participate in the best possible way in our society. This amendment will almost double the funds that provide low-income working families with the help they need. The amendment increases funding for the child care and development block grant from about $1.83 billion to $2 billion. This block grant has always been forward funded so no offset will be required. States are struggling to meet the escalating child care needs of low-income families, and they are transitioning off of welfare. States have already transferred $1.2 billion in TANF funds into the child development block grant; other States use TANF dollars directly to pay for child care costs; while still others have spent all of their TANF funds and have nothing left to transfer. Still this is not enough. States have waiting lists for child care subsidies provided under the CCDBG. In addition, many States provide subsidies so low-income families are forced into the cheapest and in many cases the poorest quality child care. There are more than 12 million children under the age of 5, including half of all infants under 1 year of age, who spend at least part of the day being cared for by someone other than their parents. There are millions more school-age children under the age of 12 who are in some form of child care at the beginning or end of the school day as well as during school holidays and vacation. More 6-to-12-year-olds who are latchkey kids return home from school to no supervision because parents are working and there are few, if any, alternatives. While the supply of child care has increased over the past 10 years, there are still significant shortages for parents in rural areas with school-age children or infants and for lower income families. The cost of child care for lower middle-income families can rival the cost of housing and the cost of food. The most critical growth spurt is between birth and 10 years of age, precisely the time when nonparental child care is most frequently utilized. A Time magazine special report on ``How a Child Brain Develops'' from February 3, 1997, said it best: Good, affordable day care is not a luxury or a fringe benefit for welfare mothers and working parents but essential brain food for the next generation. The Senate has voted on and passed similar amendments three times this year. There were two votes on the budget resolution, and a modified version of the amendments was included in the conference report. Again, in July, Senator Dodd and I introduced a similar amendment through the tax bill which was subsequently dropped in conference. Hopefully, this fourth time will be the charm and the Senate will pass this amendment and retain it in conference. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment which is so critical for low-income working families and their children. I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?