Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first of all, the reason we are here today is to talk about cloture, whether we should have time to fully discuss and be able to make sure that this body knows the importance of what we want to do, and that is to protect the dairy farmers of the United States. We are not here to discuss the fine points of the issues which the Senator from Wisconsin has brought out, with which we sincerely most heartily disagree, but whether or not we ought to have the opportunity and whether it is important enough to this country and to the dairy farmers to have a full discussion by getting cloture. If we don't get cloture, then chaos will happen in many areas, in especially New England which has a compact which would go out of being and would require dramatic action in order to repair the damage that would be done. Dairy farmers around the country are watching the actions of the Senate this week with great anticipation and anxiety. They know that under the 1996 farm bill, Congress instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop much needed new pricing formulas for how milk is priced. Unfortunately, they also know that Secretary Glickman's resulting informal rulemaking process is developing 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 instead to secure its sound future. This chart says it all. This is the devastation that will come from the proposed order of the Secretary. What this shows is, with the new order 1-B, there is only one area of this country that will substantially benefit. Guess what area that is? Wisconsin and Minnesota. The rest, clearly delineated by the red, will lose money-- all of them. There is a little green in the tip of Florida, there is a little green on the coast of California, and there is a little green in a couple of States, but the rest all lose money. The question is whether 1-A, which was studied, should be replaced to make sure that does not occur. Mr. President, 1-A, which is supported by a letter to the Secretary by 61 Members of the Senate, will not create this devastation. In fact, it will provide an orderly system for farmers all over this country to make a decent income. Secretary Glickman's final pricing rules, scheduled to be implemented on October 1, will cost dairy farmers, not the Government, millions of dollars in lost income from their pockets. There are no Federal funds involved with this. That is something that may be confusing because in the past, the dairy program cost millions of dollars. It does not cost anyone anything now. This amendment will prevent the Secretary's rule from being implemented, thereby maintaining the current law for dairy pricing for another year. Do not be taken in by any of the misleading claims made by the opposition, including their references to the letter from USDA supposedly indicating the amendment does not accomplish its purpose. First of all, it can be easily modified in conference and, secondly, it does accomplish its purpose. This will allow a new rulemaking procedure for the Secretary to carry out the will of Congress for a new and improved pricing structure. It will also allow the Northeast Dairy Compact pilot project--remember, this is a pilot project which was put into law in 1996 to see if by States gathering together they can organize an order system which would protect them from high prices to the consumers and low prices to farmers because of the fact, when you get into milk situations, you can get devastation with a little bit of surplus. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is my 20th year dealing with dairy programs, and I understand the confusion that results in Members' minds who have not been in this body or had the exposure of sitting on the Agriculture Committee. Let me try to correct, as best I can, some of the statements that have been made. First of all, this amendment conforms with the dictates of rule XVI. We cleared that with the Parliamentarian. Also, the amendment is legally sound and the intent is clear. The letter from USDA was expected, as will be further lawsuits. What they state in the last part of the letter is: Rescinding the order presents novel questions which will require further analysis. Let me correct the situation about who makes the money in this country with respect to the dairy farmers. For each period of time the USDA reports what the mailbox price is to the dairy farmer. They go region by region. The charts that we have seen show that, for instance, New England, in 1998, received $14.89 per hundredweight, 10 cents below the national average. More importantly, the Midwestern farmer received $15.27 per hundredweight average, 28 cents above the national average. So who is making money right now? They are making money, not us. Incidentally, the American Farm Bureau supports the 1-A option, which is all this is about. This is a cloture vote. It is designed for us to have an opportunity to demonstrate the importance and the necessity to Vermont and New England and the whole country that we must change what now is in the offing. The dairy farmers, as this chart shows, will be devastated, as will be the rest of the country. The only exception is where? Minnesota and Wisconsin and surrounding areas. They are the ones that are going to make the money if we can't change this situation. Also, the compact has worked extremely well. California, for instance, is so big as a State they don't need a compact, but they are doing exactly what the six States in New England are doing. Theirs is working fine. And the New England compact is working fine. Incidentally, the opponents asked for a study. The study they wanted was from OMB, from whom they thought they would get a friendly study. They did a study of the compact. What did they find out? The compact worked fine. It worked well. It has helped save the farmers. The consumers had a 5-percent lower price than the rest of the country. Why? Because the States got together. They formed a compact. They take care of matters by having consumers on board and everybody sets the price. It is working beautifully. That is why almost half the States in the Nation decided to take a look and said, hey, this is a good idea. We ought to have compacts. We can protect our consumers. We can protect our farmers. Vermont has demonstrated to the country a way to help dairy farmers. We ought to have that opportunity. All we are talking about is a chance to do that, a chance to get everybody together for a lengthy, solid debate which is allowable when you get cloture. This issue is only cloture, so that we can discuss these things and remove all of the statements that have been made which are contrary to the facts. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time remains?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time remains on the opposition side?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think it is important to understand why we are here. First of all, this is a cloture vote. There are obvious disputes and they ought to be resolved. But complicated issues such as this can't be resolved in 40 minutes. We need to have a full debate on these issues. It is important to dairy farmers and all farmers. We must not end today by refusing to allow us to go forward, to take the Vermont/New England compact, a model that is being looked at by States all over the country because it works so well to protect its farmers and consumers. We should be able to debate that fully and not to run out of time by virtue of the rules. In addition to that, this chart shows it all. It shows who is going to win and lose.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I must state a deep disagreement with my friend from Idaho. We are not talking about any kind of limitations at all. The compact we have in Vermont allows anybody to be able to come and sell in our market. We are talking about the ability of States to do what California and Idaho already do because they are so large, and that is to have their own milk orders. All we want to do is be able to form together--and I point out that when the opposition asked OMB to make a determination as to whether or not our farmers were in any way, through this pact, violating anything, they came back and said it would even save money for some. Look at this chart. This is the end. This shows what happens. If you go with 1-B instead of 2-A, the whole country, including Idaho, loses money. Why my good friend wants to have his farmers lose money, I don't know.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I urge a vote for cloture so we can fully debate this. Cloture Motion

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues to support this important amendment. On April 27, I introduced S.J. Res. 22, along with 39 of my colleagues. Support for S.J. Res. 22, which reauthorizes the Northeast Dairy Compact and ratifies the creation of the Southern Dairy Compact, is impressive. As we know, Secretary Glickman's final pricing rule, which is scheduled to be implemented on October 1, 1999, will cost dairy farmers millions of dollars in lost income. In addition, successful pilot program of the Northeast Dairy Compact will expire on October 1, 1999, unless congressional action is taken. This amendment would: Extend the Northeast Dairy Compact until 2002 and ratify a Southern Dairy Compact as a pilot program until 2002; Mandate Option 1-A for the pricing formula for Class 1 milk; and Require the Secretary of Agriculture to use formal rule making to determine the pricing formula for Class III milk. This amendment must be addressed before the October 1, 1999, deadline. We have an opportunity to give the states the right to help protect their farmers with no cost to the federal government and correct the Secretary of Agriculture's flawed pricing rules. This amendment is about fairness to both farmers and consumers. It has the 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 this important amendment. However, I am aware that some of my colleagues oppose our efforts to bring fairness to our states and farmers. Also, 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 Morse, have funded several front groups to lobby against this amendment. I would like to set the record straight. It is crucial that Congress debate the issues presented on the merits, rather than based on misinformation. When properly armed with the facts, I believe you will conclude that the Northeast Dairy Compact was a successful experiment that works and that other states should be given the opportunity to prove whether a dairy compact would work for them. This amendment reauthorizes the very successful Northeast Dairy Compact pilot program and allows the Southern Dairy Compact to operate as a pilot program until 2002, when Congress would have an opportunity to revisit and carefully consider the Northeast and Southern Compacts in the 2002 farm bill. Currently the bill to reauthorize the Northeast and ratify the Southern compact has 40 cosponsors. Twenty-five states have passed dairy compacts and now even more than half the states in the county are interested in having the right to form dairy compacts. During the past year Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Georgia, Missouri and Kansas, 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 as well. New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York 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 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 Senate and by a vote of 106-1 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. A 1998 report by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requested by Members from the Upper Midwest, on the economic effects of the Dairy Compact illustrates the Compact's success. The OMB reported that during the first six months of the Compact, consumer prices for milk within the Compact region were five cents lower than retail store prices in the rest of the nation. OMB concluded that the Compact added no federal costs to nutrition programs during this time, and that the Compact did not adversely affect farmers outside the Compact region. This is an important fact to remember as some of my colleagues may debate that the Compact harms the farmers in the compact region. Congressional opponents of the Compact also requested an audit of the Dairy Compact Commission by the USDA's Office of Inspector General and federal auditors gave the Compact Commission a clean bill of health. The auditors stated unequivocally that the Commission has properly administered funds and provided $46 million to dairy farmers. The courts also 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. Recently seventeen 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.'' I would now like to address the actual and potential impact of dairy compacts on milk production and the cost to taxpayers. In short, dairy compacts have and should have little impact on production and operates without cost to taxpayers and the federal government, not one penny. Opposition claims to the contrary, even accounting for the admitted uncertainty of dairy economics, are overblown and distorted. First, these compacts contain specific provisions designed to ensure the prevention of surplus production attributable to operation of the compacts. The compacts are entirely self-funded, without any recourse to the federal (or state) treasury and preclude any cost to taxpayers. Additionally, the states have agreed to the condition of consent contained in S.J. Res. 22 which requires the compact commissions to reimburse USDA for any surplus purchases made, should the internal protection devices fail. While the latter provision does not directly prevent the potential adverse impact of surplus production on the national marketplace, it does act as a further restraint on the commission's function. It is only logical to see that the last thing the commissions would want is to end up as funding USDA purchases of surplus powdered milk production for the national milk market! With this analysis in mind, I would like to briefly respond to the claims about milk production and taxpayers costs made by opponents of dairy compact legislation. The International Dairy Foods Association, the trade organization for the processors' lobby which is leading the opposition to S.J. Res. 22, claims that the Northeast Compact has resulted in an estimated 60 percent increase in milk powder production while national powder production increased only by 2 percent, and that the USDA has expended $11 million in surplus production purchases attributable to the regional production increase. In various statements against dairy compacts, opponents have cited the percentage increase in milk powder production and purchase costs with approval. Anyone who has worked in the area of dairy pricing and statistics knows of the hazards of attempting to quantify analysis of this most complex sector of our economy. The above analysis proves the point. It is certainly true that milk powder production in the northeast increased during the first six months of operation of the Northeast Compact at a rate above the national average. Yet the reasons are not as simple--only because of operation of the Northeast Compact--as opponents of dairy compacts would have us believe. First, one of the largest cheese processing plants in the region shut down during this time, and the raw milk supply had to be converted from cheese to powder production. On the other side of the equation, national production during this period was quite depressed, despite the apparent two percent increase, because of a dramatic downturn in California and southwest production. Hence the otherwise seeming disparities in rates of production. Furthermore, the claim that USDA spend $11 million in surplus purchases attributable to the Northeast Compact's operation is blatantly misleading. In fact, $1.7 million in such reimbursement was provided--nowhere near the $11 million amount claimed by the opposition. In addition, whether the $1.7 million represents purchases which more reflect the increase in powder production attributable to the shut down of the cheese plant, and other factors, remains an open question of economic analysis, despite the reimbursement provided also by the Compact Commission. Opponents further cite with approval the claim of IDFA that operation of the Northeast Compact will cost taxpayers an estimated $400 million annually. This claim is made without basis or analysis and must not be relied upon at all. Simply put, CBO gave the Northeast Compact a zero source, which is a long, long, way from $400 million. I feel I should take some time to explain just how the Compact operates. The Northeast Dairy Compact Commission has the authority to regulate Class 1 (or fluid) milk prices. The commission, which consists of consumer, processor and farmer representatives appointed by each state's governor, determines both the price necessary to yield a reasonable return to producers and distributors as well as the purchasing power of the public through a formal rule making procedure. Any regulation is subject to a two-thirds vote by a state delegation as well as a producer referendum. All milk consumed in compact-affected areas is uniformly regulated. This provision ensures an equal benefit to New York or California farmers who supply milk to the compact states. The Compact Commission's price regulation works in conjunction with the federal government's pricing program, which establishes minimum prices paid by processors and received by dairy farmers for raw milk produced on farms. The Compact regulation raises these minimum prices as they relate to the market for fluid, or bottled milk. Part of the difference between the Compact's minimum price and the federal minimum price is set aside to compensate any cost that may be associated to the WIC programs and school lunch programs. Processors purchasing milk to produce other dairy products such as cheese or ice cream are not subject to the Compact's pricing regulations, although all farmers producing milk in the region, for any purpose, share equally in the regulation's benefits. Here is how it works. The Commission established $16.94 per hundredweight as the Compact over-order price for Class 1 milk. All milk processors having sales of fluid milk in New England are required to pay a monthly over-order obligation. This obligation is the difference between $16.94 and the price established monthly by federal regulation for the same milk. For instance, if the federal price for Class 1 milk was $13.94 for a particular month, the processors' over-order obligation for that month would be $16.94 minus $13.94--or $3.00. Processors multiply their total fluid milk sales by this amount and that is what they pay into the Compact Commission. Three percent of the pooled price regulation proceeds are then set aside to hold harmless the impact on New England WIC programs. At least 4 cents but no more than 5 cents is deducted from the pooled proceeds each month and placed in a reserve fund established in the event of late payments by handlers. Approximately half of the unobligated balance of this fund is added back into the pool for redistribution in the following month in order to prevent the reserve fund from growing too large. Farmers receive the balance of the proceeds in accordance with the Class 1 utilization rate--the percentage of milk produced that actually goes towards drinking milk, not cheese or other manufactured products. Therefore, the producer price is derived by dividing the balance of the pool proceeds by the total number of pounds of all producer milk in the region. The Compact Commission makes disbursements to farmer cooperatives and milk handlers, who then make the individual payments to farmers based on their production. When the Compact regulation first took effect in July of 1997, the Compact over-order obligation was $3.00. During that month, 245,001,960 pounds of milk, or 46.14% of the total milk in the region was sold as Class 1 milk. This resulted in a pool paid into the Commission of $7,350,058.80. After the WIC and reserve fund adjustments were made, the balance of the pool proceeds was $6,903,009.44. When this number was divided by the total number of pounds of all producer milk, in this case 531,000,726 pounds, the resulting producer price was $1.30. For many farmers in Vermont and New England, the Compact payments have meant the difference between keeping the farm and calling the auctioneer. 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. Of all the programs and efforts by the federal government to help our nation's dairy farmers, the most effective and promising solution have seen thus far is the creation and operation of the Northeast Dairy Compact. I would like to address the actual and potential impact of dairy compacts on consumer prices. In short, opposition claims about the actual and possible impact of dairy compacts on consumers, including low income consumers, are unfounded and grossly distorted. While farm milk prices have fluctuated wildly, remaining constant overall during the last ten years, consumers prices have risen sharply. The explanation for this is apparently that variations in store prices do not mirror the wild fluctuations in farm prices. In other words, when farm prices go up, the store prices go up, but when the farm prices recede, the store prices do not come back down as quickly or at the same rate. Hence, and quite logically, if you take away the fluctuations in farm prices, you take away the catalyst for unwarranted increases in store prices. Let's take a look at what the retail price has done in the Compact region compared to other areas that do not have Compacts in place. This demonstrates several extremely important points that dispute the claims that the compact hits consumers with higher retail prices compared to other regions. The average price per gallon of milk in Boston remained steady at $2.89 for February, March and April of 1999 in the Compact areas. Meanwhile retail prices across the country widely fluctuated and were most often higher than in the Compact area of New England. Again, I would like to make it very clear that the Compact only regulates fluid milk used for drinking, called Class I milk. Although not shown on this chart, milk prices in suburban areas of New England can often be found for $2.00 or less per gallon. Generally, the shelf price of milk has increased proportionally to increases in producer prices, yet, has not decreased at the same rate when farm prices have dropped. The result has been an upward price ratcheting in the retail milk price--a rise of about 30 percent between 1985 and 1993 while the farm price actually fell. Even with the Northeast Dairy Compact, New England retail milk prices are among the lowest in the country! Contrary to the claims of the opposition, regional compact regulation remain open to the interstate commerce of all producer milk and processor milk products, from whatever source. Compacts establish neither ``cartels'', ``tariffs'' nor ``barriers to trade'' and are not economic ``protectionism.'' According to the opponents characterizations, dairy compacts somehow establish a ``wall'' around the regions subject to compact regulation, and thereby prohibit competition from milk produced and processed from outside the regions. These are entirely misleading characterizations. It is really quite simple and straightforward: All fluid, or beverage milk sold in a compact region is subject to uniform regulation, regardless of its source within or outside the compact region. This means that all farmers, including farmers from the Upper Midwest, providing milk for beverage sale in the region, receive the same pay prices without discrimination. 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 from the Upper Midwest to respect the states' interest and initiative to help protect their farmers and encourage that region of the country to explore the possibility of forming your own interstate dairy compact. When the June 1999 Compact payments were paid, the Compact will have returned an average of 51 cents per hundredweight of milk to farmers over the past two years of operation. The average Vermont family farm realized an additional $13,000 net income during the life of the Compact. For seven of those months no payments were made because market prices were above the Compact floor. In April of this year, farmers felt the effect of a record $6.00 per hundredweight drop in the Basic Formula Price. In New England, blend prices dropped an unprecedented $3.93 per hundredweight from the previous month, but the Compact payment of $1.43 made up nearly half of the loss for Northeast farmers. We would like every region of the country to have the same opportunity to provide stability for their farmers and consumers that the Northeast Dairy Compact provides for our region. Earlier today, when we were debating the cloture vote on the dairy amendment, I responded to my colleague from Minnesota statement that the dairy compact somehow lowered his farmer's price of milk. I would again, refer to the USDA mailbox price. The mailbox price is the net price that dairy farmers receive for the milk that is marketed under the Federal milk marketing program. The average prices shows on this chart include all payments received for milk sold and deducts all costs associated with marketing milk. As you can see, in 1998 New England received $14.89 per hundredweight, ten cents below the national average. Most importantly, despite claims that the Northeast Dairy Compact means smaller checks for Midwest farmers, they received $15.27 per hundredweight, twenty-eight cents above the national average, and thirty-eight more cents per hundredweight than New England producers. The amendment also mandates that the Secretary use Option 1-A as the pricing formula for fluid milk. As I discussed earlier today, the Secretary's rule, known as 1B, is sue to be implemented on October 1, unless congressional action is taken. Sixty-one Senators and more than 240 House members signed letters to Secretary Glickman last year supporting the pricing option known as Option A-1, for the pricing of fluid milk. The majority of the country and dairy industry support Option 1-A. Most all areas of the country are better off under Option 1-A, including the Upper Midwest. 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; costs of producing and marketing milk; and the need to attract milk to regions that occasionally face production deficits. Finally, the amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture to hold formal hearings to determine how the Class II, and Class IV price will be calculated. There is concern that the Secretary's final rule will drop the price paid for cheese by as much as $.40 per hundredweight. The amendment would give both producers and processors the opportunity to have input on the formula through the formal rule making process. This amendment is 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 cheapest and safest food supply. I listened with great interest to the sugar debate earlier today. I support this Federal no-cost that provides stability to farmers and consumers in sugar growing states. I don't have sugar growers in Vermont. I have dairy farmers. But that does not mean I should not support a commodity program that helps protect farmers in other states with no cost to the federal government. I noticed that during the debate several of my colleagues that argued so pationately about protecting the sugar program, did not support my efforts to protect the dairy program. Agriculture, nationwide needs our collective help. Let's not divide agriculture, but join together to protect our nation's most important resources. I am certain that my colleagues will agree with me that dairy farmers deserve a fair price for their products. What does it say about our values when some of the hardest working people, our farmers, are underpaid and unappreciated? In the last couple of days we have debated providing billions of dollars in assistance to farmers who face the current disasters. This amendment would help prevent a disaster for America's dairy farmers by giving the states and the dairy farmers the tools to face the challenges of improving and stabilizing farm prices. In Vermont, dairy farmers help define the character of the state. I am proud to work to protect them and to protect the traditions and special qualities of the state. I realize that this amendment is not in order at this time, however, I urge my colleagues to give great consideration to the importance of this amendment and the need to address these important issues as soon as possible. Supporting this amendment respect the interstate cooperation among states, protects the interests of consumers, and supports America's dairy farmers. I ask unanimous consent that two ``Dear Colleague'' letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am honored to congratulate the Vermont Housing Finance Agency on its 25th Anniversary of providing Vermonters with access to safe, decent and affordable housing. In 1974, the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, VHFA, was established to ensure that Vermonters of a variety of different backgrounds have access to affordable housing. Over many years of finding innovative ways to finance and stimulate the preservation and development of affordable housing, VHFA has multiplied the number of home ownership opportunities in Vermont many times over. This dedication to aggressively and compassionately provide affordable housing opportunities ensures that today's neediest Vermont families need not go without shelter. As a Senator one of my highest priorities is to help secure for Vermont's low and moderate income families a home they can afford. We all know that having a home is a critical foundation to achieving success. Every year VHFA helps Vermonters build this foundation by making financing possible for thousands of Vermonters to purchase hundreds of dwellings. Over the years, VHFA has worked with private lenders, real estate professionals, builders, developers and nonprofit organizations throughout the state to get the job done. This dynamic approach to home financing has brought about dozens of healthy and safe Vermont communities where residents thrive and communities grow. The professionalism, reliability, and accomplishments of the staff at VHFA are unsurpassed. I commend the Vermont Housing Finance Agency for its outstanding contribution and dedication to improving the quality of life for so many Vermonters. VHFA has my sincerest thanks and unending respect for its 25 years of commitment to Vermont and her people. I am both proud and honored to represent such an accomplished group of individuals in Washington as they are a national model for how to provide affordable, quality housing opportunities for those in need. As they celebrate their 25th anniversary at the end of this month in Vermont, the VHFA staff, past and present, should be proud that their leadership and continued perseverance will help ensure that every Vermonter has a place to call home.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Vermonter, Patricia Thomas, formerly the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) of Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties. Pat's commitment to improving the health status of Vermonters serves as a model to us all. She is, and will remain, a stunning example of how one person can positively affect so many. Pat has served Vermont in a variety of capacities. As a teacher and college administrator, as a government official and director of Vermont's largest United Way, and on various boards and commissions, Pat always strived to improve the quality of life here in Vermont. Most recently, she served the people of Vermont at the helm of our State's largest VNA. It is this role that I wish to elaborate upon today before the U.S. Senate. Throughout Pat's 7-year tenure at the VNA, her leadership was instrumental in sustaining Vermont's unique, nonprofit home health care system, while maintaining its high-quality, cost-effective service. Ironically, when this nationally renowned system was severely challenged by an unintended consequence of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pat's advocacy easily convinced me and other lawmakers that corrective action was essential. With such an impressive track record and with so many Vermonters relying on her agency's care, it was an easy argument to both make and adopt. Certainly, being a key member of my Health Care Advisory Board, there have been numerous occasions when I have relied on Pat's wise counsel, but none was more critical than during the last year's debate. Vermonters were fortunate to have such an advocate and leader in Pat Thomas. In addition to being an effective advocate on the Federal level, Pat led her VNA through a dynamic and critical time in its history. During Pat's tenure, her agency more than doubled in size, successfully completed a massive capital campaign, purchased and renovated its current headquarters, and significantly diversified its services. Vermont Respite House, home psychiatric care, specialized home therapies, home infusion, palliative care and wellness programs were all added to the plethora of VNA services on Pat's watch. Other major services include their Adult Day and Hospice Programs and Maternal Child Health Services. Pat knew that these changes were necessary if her agency was to adequately reflect and meet the evolving needs of Vermonters. Her vision and leadership helped her agency do exactly that, with resounding success. Vermont has much to be grateful for when it comes to Pat's steadfast commitment to improving the quality of life in our small state. Although her tenure at the VNA has ended, we will forever remain the beneficiaries of her expertise, vision and leadership on those issues she has been so ably, and passionately committed to. In her own words, ``our house is in order and the agency is incredibly sound, despite an ever changing and challenging health care environment''. Vermont has Pat Thomas to thank for this. We wish her well.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. As a cosponsor of this legislation, let me first thank Senator Collins for her hard work in crafting this legislation, and for the informative and insightful oversight hearings she has held on the sweepstakes industry this year. Those hearings have exposed some troubling practices, and clearly demonstrate the need for this important legislation. Earlier this year a constituent of mine from Huntington, Vermont, e- mailed my office and relayed his own personal story as an example of the need for this legislation. He had been asked by his mother to help review her mail as she was certain she had won something from a variety of sweepstakes mailings. He was shocked to learn in reviewing the material that while technically correct the material she was sent was very misleading. Any information that would lead the person to believe they had won was highlighted or in bold print, while the statements containing words like ``if you have the winning number'' are subdued, and in small print. The intent of these mailings was clearly to create a false sense of ``winning'' in the recipient. As his e-mail further points out, it used to be only the big names which sent out these sweepstakes mailings, but it ow seems to be every fund-raising group, catalog, or magazine has some version of these sweepstakes mailings. However, even if you are just receiving material from one company if can be an overwhelming amount of sweepstakes mailings. For example, another constituent of mine from Barre, Vermont, brought into my office over fifteen pounds of sweepstakes mailings from one company that related to only one contest. You heard me right, fifteen pounds of material for only one contest from one company. Multiply that by the number of contests and companies people receive mailings from and you are looking at an overwhelming amount of mail. One of the most outrageous practices in these mailings is the request for a donation or a purchase of a product without making it clear that the donation or purchase has no effect on your chances of winning any of the prizes. This has caused some people to expend their precious resources thinking they are giving themselves a better chance at winning the grand prize, when in reality it has done nothing to change the odds. Senator Collin's legislation, S. 335, will go a long way to solve the problems of these deceptive sweepstakes mailings. It requires a clear disclosure of the game's rules and an indication that the odds of winning are not improved by purchasing any products that are being advertised. It also will restrict the mailing from depicting an individual as a winner unless that person actually has won a prize. In addition, the bill will implement stricter penalties for sending mail that does not comply with the federal standards. Every day people are being inundated with these mailings and many of them promote a belief that you have already won, or that a donation or purchase will increase your chances of winning. For many, especially for the most vulnerable in our society, it has been very difficult to separate the truth from the fantasy in these mailings, and as past history has shown sweepstakes mailings are a particular problem for the elderly in our society. Mr. President, we have a chance to protect all Americans, particularly the elderly, and I urge all my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the child development block grant has helped thousands of families keep jobs by helping offset the enormous costs of child care, which enable them to go to work. In most cases, subsidies are so low that families are forced to use the cheapest and, in many cases, the poorest quality child care. There are 66 Senators who voted for the money in the budget for this purpose. The kids at the Burlington YMCA are right: We must act now for quality child care.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding the 5 minutes. We have worked closely together on this bill. I am here to recommend passage of it. First of all, I commend my chairman, Senator Roth. I support many of the provisions in his bill. Many of the provisions in his bill are in this bill. I express my sincere hopes that the bill's good provisions will stand. I agree with much of what Senator Specter said about some of the ramifications if we continue on our present course. This is basically ``Roth lite'' as far as the bill goes. It is very much modeled after it. It just cuts it back somewhat so we can get sort of in the middle. This $500 billion centrist alternative represents an attempt by some of us to find a middle ground. The Senate finance Committee has approved tax cuts of roughly $800 billion. The President has said he will veto a bill of that size. The Senate Democrats have proposed tax cuts of $300 billion, and the President has signaled his willingness to sign a bill with that level of tax cuts. The bad news in all this is that the parties are at an impasse. One side is dug in at $800 billion; the other will not budge from $300 billion. The good news is that both sides agree that we can afford and achieve some level of tax cut. I certainly do. And since both sides agree that a tax cut is appropriate, sooner or later we will have one. What those of us sponsoring his centrist amendment are saying is: ``Let's compromise. Let us take a step toward the middle. Let us settle on a figure we can agree on. And let us get this tax cut done--sooner, rather than later. If neither side can give ground, if we lock ourselves into hard and fast positions, this whole process will come grinding to a halt. How the process will ultimately play out is anybody's guess. It could mean we have another government shut-down. Or it could mean we end up with an omnibus bill like we had last year. It does not have to be that way. This should not turn into a game of ``chicken'' between political parties. But both sides will have to give a little. In the end, I think we will ultimately end up with a tax bill that is somewhere between $300 billion and $800 billion--in other words, around $500 billion. I do not see why we can not settle on an acceptable mid- point now. You can get a lot of tax relief with $500 billion. The centrist package will provide for broad-based tax relief for most taxpayers. Taxpayers who do not itemize deductions will see a big increase in the standard deduction. This increase is not just tax relief. It is also tax simplification. With a larger standard deduction millions of taxpayers will no longer have to itemize their deductions. Taxpayers who itemize will also get a break, as the 15-percent bracket will be expanded. Up to $5,000 that was formerly taxed at 28 percent will now be taxed at 15 percent. This 13 percent reduction in tax will mean savings up to $650 for married couples. Our centrist package also addresses the marriage penalty. It eliminates the marriage penalty in the standard deduction, and eliminates part of the marriage penalty in the earned income credit. Our Tax Code should not punish marriage--especially among the working poor. Right now two low-income people who marry often find themselves with a smaller earned income credit than they would have had as single taxpayers. That shouldn't be. This alternative also encourages savings and investment. The first $1,500 of capital gains would be tax tree. Again, this is not just tax savings; it's also tax simplification. During the tax filing season, the complex schedule D was one of the things Vermont taxpayers complained about most often. Under our proposal, millions of people with capital gains from mutual funds could avoid filing out schedule D. Our alternative includes targeted provisions that serve important national interests like retirement savings, education, and protection of the environment. When people move between jobs it will be easier for them to take their pension benefits with them. More people will be able to claim the deduction for student loan interest. Long-term care insurance would be deductible. The research and experimentation credit would be permanent and the low-income housing tax credit would be extended. These are but a few of many tax issues addressed in our alternative package. In the Finance Committee, I voted to move the bill out of committee and keep the process going. I applaud Chairman Roth for the reasoned approach he has taken in this bill. With a projected surplus approaching a trillion dollars, I think we can afford some tax relief. I must confess, however, I'm a little uneasy with the level of tax cuts in the Finance Committee bill. An $800 billion tax cut leaves little margin for error if the surplus projections are not correct. An if these projections understate the surplus, we can always come back and enact further tax cuts. I'm also concerned that an $800 billion tax cut doesn't leave us a cushion sufficient to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit, to pay down our national debt or to address other areas of concern, like education. I think we should go slower, be a little more cautious. Some would call this the conservative approach. Still, I want tax cuts. Our $500 billion alternative allows for meaningful tax relief, while also leaving a significant chunk of the surplus intact for other national priorities. Mr. President, the American people are tired of gridlock. They're frustrated that compromise is becoming a lost art. We don't need to wait for a veto before getting down to serious negotiations. We can get this bill done today.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that takes another positive step toward the goal of providing access to affordable prescription drugs for patients in my state of Vermont, and many other patients across the United States. The high cost of prescription drugs is an issue that faces many Americans every single day, as they try to decide how to make ends meet, and whether they can afford to fill the prescription given to them by their doctor. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear of patients who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make prescriptions last longer. This is a serious health problem, and I am committed to legislative solutions that we can enact that provides immediate assistance to those who need it. I will soon introduce legislation that will provide prescription drug insurance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. And today I am introducing legislation that will allow Americans of all ages who do not have sufficient coverage for prescription drugs, to purchase the medicines they need at prices they can afford. Mr. President, it is well documented that the average price of prescription medicines is much lower in Canada than in the United States, with the price of some drugs in Vermont being twice that of the same drug available only a few miles away in a Canadian pharmacy. This is true even though many of the drugs sold in Canada are actually manufactured, packed, and distributed by American companies that sell the same products in both markets, but at drastically different prices. That is why many residents of my home state travel the short distance across the border into Canada to buy their prescription medicines at the lower price. Unfortunately, in most cases this is a violation of Federal law. This does not seem fair to many Vermonters, and it does not seem fair to me. The legislation I am introducing today will change that, so that Americans who want to buy prescription medicines in Canada can legally do so. This legislation will require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to promulgate new regulations permitting patients to import prescription medications purchased in Canada. Currently, it is illegal for Americans to go to Canada and purchase drugs to be brought back to the United States. But FDA and U.S. Customs employ a ``discretionary enforcement policy'', allowing some Americans to enter the U.S. with drugs that they bought in Canada. My legislation does a number of things. First, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations that will allow individuals to import prescription FDA-approved medicines from Canada in personal baggage, so long as the appropriate use is identified and the product does not represent a significant health risk. Under this bill, patients could also be asked to identify the licensed U.S. health professional responsible for treatment, and to affirm that the product is for personal use, and provide other necessary information so that the FDA can continue to ensure the safety of the U.S. drug supply. All information collected under this provision will be subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. Under this proposal, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will also be required to promulgate regulations regarding importation of prescription drugs from Canada by mail order. The Secretary will establish criteria which will ensure the safety of patients in the United States that wish to purchase drugs by mail order from Canada. Finally, this legislation will require the Secretary of HHS to study the safety and purity of the prescription drug products that are imported under this Act. Mr. President, it has often been said that we have the international gold standard when it comes to drug safety. Well, we have the platinum standard when it comes to prices. I want to emphasize, again, my commitment to helping Vermonters and all Americans have access to the prescription drugs that they need at prices that they can afford. As Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the safety of American patients is always one of my top priorities, and I am committed to achieving the goal of affordable prescription drugs without putting patients' lives at risk. This is a responsible proposal to help Vermonters and all Americans with the high prices of drugs, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that takes another positive step toward the goal of providing access to affordable prescription drugs for patients in my state of Vermont, and many other patients across the United States. The high cost of prescription drugs is an issue that faces many Americans every single day, as they try to decide how to make ends meet, and whether they can afford to fill the prescription given to them by their doctor. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear of patients who cut pills in half, or skip dosages in order to make prescriptions last longer. This is a serious health problem, and I am committed to legislative solutions that we can enact that provides immediate assistance to those who need it. I will soon introduce legislation that will provide prescription drug insurance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. And today I am introducing legislation that will allow Americans of all ages who do not have sufficient coverage for prescription drugs, to purchase the medicines they need at prices they can afford. Mr. President, it is well documented that the average price of prescription medicines is much lower in Canada than in the United States, with the price of some drugs in Vermont being twice that of the same drug available only a few miles away in a Canadian pharmacy. This is true even though many of the drugs sold in Canada are actually manufactured, packed, and distributed by American companies that sell the same products in both markets, but at drastically different prices. That is why many residents of my home state travel the short distance across the border into Canada to buy their prescription medicines at the lower price. Unfortunately, in most cases this is a violation of Federal law. This does not seem fair to many Vermonters, and it does not seem fair to me. The legislation I am introducing today will change that, so that Americans who want to buy prescription medicines in Canada can legally do so. This legislation will require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to promulgate new regulations permitting patients to import prescription medications purchased in Canada. Currently, it is illegal for Americans to go to Canada and purchase drugs to be brought back to the United States. But FDA and U.S. Customs employ a ``discretionary enforcement policy'', allowing some Americans to enter the U.S. with drugs that they bought in Canada. My legislation does a number of things. First, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations that will allow individuals to import prescription FDA-approved medicines from Canada in personal baggage, so long as the appropriate use is identified and the product does not represent a significant health risk. Under this bill, patients could also be asked to identify the licensed U.S. health professional responsible for treatment, and to affirm that the product is for personal use, and provide other necessary information so that the FDA can continue to ensure the safety of the U.S. drug supply. All information collected under this provision will be subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. Under this proposal, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will also be required to promulgate regulations regarding importation of prescription drugs from Canada by mail order. The Secretary will establish criteria which will ensure the safety of patients in the United States that wish to purchase drugs by mail order from Canada. Finally, this legislation will require the Secretary of HHS to study the safety and purity of the prescription drug products that are imported under this Act. Mr. President, it has often been said that we have the international gold standard when it comes to drug safety. Well, we have the platinum standard when it comes to prices. I want to emphasize, again, my commitment to helping Vermonters and all Americans have access to the prescription drugs that they need at prices that they can afford. As Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the safety of American patients is always one of my top priorities, and I am committed to achieving the goal of affordable prescription drugs without putting patients' lives at risk. This is a responsible proposal to help Vermonters and all Americans with the high prices of drugs, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Fiscal Year 2000 bill. This legislation will provide the Federal Government a needed tool to combat the destructive impact of hate crimes on our society. The amendment also recognizes that hate crimes are not just limited to crimes committed because of race, color, religion, or national origin, but are also directed at individuals because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability. Mr. President, any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by hate are especially harmful. This amendment would take two important steps to strengthen existing Federal hate crimes law. First, the amendment would expand the situations when the Department of Justice can prosecute defendants for violent crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin. Second, the amendment would authorize the Department of Justice to prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes against others because of a victim's disability, gender, or sexual orientation provided there is a sufficient connection with interstate commerce. Many states, including my state of Vermont, have already passed strong hate crimes laws, and I applaud them in this endeavor. An important principle of this amendment is that it allows for Federal prosecution of hate crimes without impeding the rights of states to prosecute these crimes. Federal prosecutions under this amendment would still be subject to the current provision of law that requires the Attorney General or another senior official of the Justice Department to certify that a federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice. Mr. President, such a requirement under current law has ensured that states are the primary adjudicators of the perpetrators of hate crimes, not the Federal government. This has meant that in recent years the existing Federal hate crimes law has been used only in carefully selected cases. For example, there have been an average of only 5.2 prosecutions per year under current law from Fiscal Year 1990 through Fiscal Year 1996. Additionally, Federal authorities will consult with State and Local law enforcement officials before initiating an investigation or prosecution. Both of these are important provisions to ensure that we are not infringing on the rights of States to prosecute crimes. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity today to take a strong stand against hate crimes, and I urge them to do so by supporting this important legislation.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would first like to thank Senator Gregg for all his work on crafting the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bill. In this time of tight budgetary caps, and with the many requests by members, Senator Gregg has worked hard to get the bill through the Appropriations Committee and to the floor of the Senate. I would especially like to thank Senator Gregg for recognizing the need of three Vermont towns to upgrade, modernize and acquire technology for their police departments. 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 $1.5 million should be divided on the following basis: one-half ($750,000) to the Burlington Police Department, one-third ($500,000) to the Rutland Police Department, and one-sixth ($250,000) to the St. Johnsbury Police Department. Again, I appreciate Senator Gregg's help to address the technology problems these town's police departments are facing, and I look forward to working with him to get this important appropriations bill signed into law.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Gregg and his staff for working with me to provide funding for two important initiatives in my home State of Vermont. It is my understanding that within funds provided to Department of Justice of Juvenile Justice Programs, the FY 2000 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill provides $100,000 for the establishment of a teen center in Colchester, Vermont and $100,000 to Prevent Child Abuse-VT to evaluate the SAFE-T program, a comprehensive child abuse prevention program for middle school communities. There is a great need for a community center with a focus on youth in the Town of Colchester. Currently after school gathering places for Colchester youth are limited to local restaurants and supermarkets. This project has strong local support. Last October, a group of local citizens formed a non-profit organization called the ``Colchester Community Youth Project'' and purchased an available property in the town for use as a teen center. The Town of Colchester hopes to buy the building from the non-profit, and then plans to renovate the 4,500 square foot main building to house a youth center/multi use space, offices, and a branch of the local public library. For over four years, Prevent Child Abuse-VT has funded, developed and piloted SAFE-T, a comprehensive health education and abuse prevention program for middle school communities. Students learn victim an victimizer prevention, build healthy relationship skills and experience personal and social change. Parents, guardians, school staff and service providers participate in training, dialog assignments, classroom presentations and school community change projects. SAFE-T research-based and classroom tested with over 500 students. More work, however, needs to be done to evaluate the success of the SAFE-T program. Dr. David Finkelhor, Co-Director of the Family Violence Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, plans to embark shortly on a three-year scientific evaluation of the SAFE-T program. I am very pleased that this appropriation will enable this evaluation to move forward. The sexual abuse of and by children is now at epidemic proportions in America. The SAFE-T Program is an excellent resource in helping early adolescents develop the skills they need to grow safe, free of abuse. This program offers great promise as a national model for comprehensive abuse prevention programs. A thorough scientific evaluation will ensure that this research-based initiative can be proven effective and disseminated properly.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of international exchange programs. Americans benefit from an opportunity to work and study abroad. Foreigners benefit from time in the United States both in their professional development and by exposure to the American system and values. Exchanges are a proven way to disperse American principals of freedom and democracy around the world. Therefore, I am disappointed that the committee report recommends reducing funding for several exchange programs, including the funding for students, scholars and teachers portion of the Fulbright Program. The Fulbright Program has served America and Americans very well for many years. It is not in our best interest to reduce funding for it at this time. I would hope that all of the programs on the committees reprioritization list will be carefully evaluated before any decision is made to reduce or eliminate them. The Tibetan Fulbright Program touches Vermonters very close to home. Ngawang Choephel, a Tibetan exile living in India, was the recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship and studied ethnomusicology at Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont. He was unjustly arrested by the Chinese in 1995 in his native Tibet when he returned to document traditional Tibetan music. Although this young man's time in Vermont was brief, the passion he threw into his work to preserve endangered Tibetan culture gained him a large following in my state. His case is of the highest priority for me and the other members of Vermont's congressional delegation. Senator Leahy has joined me in offering an amendment to this legislation to ensure that the Tibetan Exchange Program continues in fiscal year 2000. I hope that in conference the necessary changes will be made to ensure adequate funding for our most important exchange programs.