Senator James M. Jeffords, I-VT, turned the Washington, DC, establishment upside down when he left the Republican Party on May 24, 2001. Republicans had enjoyed control of the White House after the inauguration of President George W Bush in January; they had a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives; and, by virtue of the tie-breaking vote held by Vice President Richard Cheney, they controlled a Senate composed of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. By becoming an Independent sitting with the Democratic Caucus for organizational purposes, Jeffords gave control of the Senate to the Democrats. As just about every sentient being in Vermont knows, Jeffords’ switch catapulted him from a virtual unknown on the national scene to the top news item for weeks. Liberals hailed him, while Vermont Republicans, smarting at the loss of their biggest and most dependable vote getter, reviled him as a “Benedict Arnold.” Jeffords himself never expected to be anything but a Republican, and until recently he was comfortable in the moderate wing of the Republican Party. He began his political career when Democrats were insignificant in Vermont and Progressives hadn’t even been thought of. Anyone who actually wanted to hold office then almost had to be a Republican, and the spectrum of political philosophies held by Vermont Republicans was much wider than it is now. Jeffords was a Vermont state senator from Rutland County from 1967 to 1968, and served as Vermont’s attorney general from 1969 to 1973. He was elected as Vermont’s representative to the US House of Representatives in 1975, and stayed in the House until 1988, when he won one of Vermont’s two seats in the US Senate. He has been chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and co-chairman of the Northeast-Midwest Senate Coalition. Now in his third term, Jeffords is chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and a member of the Finance Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. Richard Andrews and Timothy McQuiston, editor of Vermont Business Magazine, interviewed Jeffords for 40 minutes in his Burlington office on January 9, exploring the impact of Jeffords’ party switch on Vermont’s businesses and people, his philosophy, and his plans for the future. Also in the room were Diane Derby, Jeffords’ press secretary; Bill Kurtz, his state director; and Jan Marinelli, community and economic development coordinator; and photographer Rick Levinson. ANDREWS: We’re interested in what you can do as a US senator to help the local Vermont business person. JEFFORDS: Well, first of all, I’ve had a change of position. I’m now chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has vast jurisdiction, including power plants, highways and water systems. So I can help communities in a number of areas, which helps business. I will have billions of dollars to disburse for highways, most of it according to formula, but also to help Vermont improve its highways. And obviously business benefits from better access. ANDREWS: Will that help your home town, Rutland, which is always complaining about lack of highway access? JEFFORDS: Rutland will be one of my top concerns, because I love the city. It needs help. I know that. I have been working over the years, and still am, on an east-west package. ANDREWS: Is there any prospect of connecting Rutland to the Interstate system through the state of New York, as opposed to east over the Green Mountains? JEFFORDS: Yes. Both ways. I also have jurisdiction over New York, which puts me in a position to be – persuasive, shall we say. ANDREWS: Good. What do you think made it impossible to renew the Northeast Dairy Compact? JEFFORDS: The problem is basically the North-South fight we’ve had over the years. Some states really need federal assistance to keep their farmers in business, because they sell to the low-margin markets for cheese and butter. But we have found that where markets for fluid milk are sufficient to sustain farmers, you don’t need subsidies. The compact, which showed that dairy farmers can live without federal help, was a threat to areas whose farmers can’t survive without subsidies. So they hope to stop the compacts, so they can then wheel – or move – their milk down from the North to South. It’s a very difficult situation. On the face of it, it’s amazing that the Wall Street Journal doesn’t like the compact. Why not? From a conservative perspective, you would think, gee, it’s a business which no longer has any federal help; those are the kind of things we want in good old America. But the reason is, the compact would increase prices to their advertisers! The processors would have to pay more for milk, because it wouldn’t be subsidized by the federal government. It’s a curious thing. McQUISTON: Can you give Vermont farmers any encouragement that some form of the compact will come back? JEFFORDS: Ah, well, I’m working on that now. I am writing a book, which will point out that the number-one priority in dairy policy always has been to make sure that every region in this country has a supply of fresh milk at a reasonable price. And that’s exactly what the compact did. I will try to raise awareness of this, and to make people understand why the compact is important. Why should we orient federal milk policy contrary to long standing basic policy? ANDREWS: What do you think of the idea that Bernie Sanders pushed, of having similar compacts in other regions of the country? JEFFORDS: Well, we all worked together on that, though he was the first to grab hold of it in the House. It’s basically a high-subsidy plan, but it subsidizes everybody equally, so Vermont farmers would get substantial federal funds. Unfortunately, you would lose the principle of the compact. Vermont farmers were very secure with the compact, because they were accomplishing the goal – providing a supply of fresh milk in our area at a reasonable price, with no subsidy. ANDREWS: A recent report indicated that not only is Vermont the most rural of all 50 states, but that agriculture is a larger percentage of our gross state product than anywhere else. Do you feel that Vermont farmers are getting their share of federal subsidies, and if not, is there anything that can be done about that? JEFFORDS: Well, first of all, there is a presumption that you need federal subsidies. And I don’t think that is necessarily the way to look at it. If you ask, are they being treated fairly relative to other parts of the country, then I would say no – they should be entitled to more federal help to be on a par with places like the Upper Midwest. The farm plan we are working on would provide substantial additional federal funds for Vermont farmers, and bring them milk prices at least as high as the compact did. Philosophically, it’s unfortunate to go that way, but to protect Vermont farmers, it may be necessary. But we haven’t been able to get enough votes to break the filibuster. ANDREWS: You have talked a lot about child care and early childhood education. In an ideal world, what would government do for young children? JEFFORDS: Every industrialized nation in the world, except for the United States, carefully examined and acted on studies in the last 20 years that indicated that the years three and four are critical for a child’s brain to develop the best capacity for later education. That pretty much says it all. One way or another, we have to act on that knowledge. Right now, just about half of our three- and four-year-olds are getting proper education, and that is costing our young working people about $6,000 a year for every child. Every other industrial country in this world is paying for this education in its public school system. Our way is inefficient, ineffective and totally unfair. I introduced, with hardly any support, a bill which would have funded early childhood education two ways. One was increasing the refundable tax credits for young people who are paying the $6,000. The other was increasing tax breaks for businesses that provide child care, because I think that is the better solution. Everywhere else in the world, businessmen who provide child care get government help. Then working parents can be on site. That’s a win-win situation. ANDREWS: Why did you oppose the most recent federal education bill? JEFFORDS: Well, I wrote most of it, with the president. But we had a hard time agreeing on how it was going to get paid for. We finally got them to at least pay for the tests. And that was a hard struggle. In the first version of the president’s bill, every school in the United States would have flunked badly. Well, that’s just fine. You tell everybody, “Hey, you’re bad. Compared to China and the other industrialized nations, you’re doing a terrible job. So do something about it.” We responded, “Well, at least you could fund what you are supposed to. The disability community has a Constitutional right to an appropriate education, and you won’t even fund that. And now you’re going to tell everyone they’re flunking.” But they have a point. I went to China, because I wanted to know why they do so well. Have you seen the TIMSS exams on math and science? (TIMSS is an acronym that stands for Third International Mathematics and Science Study. It ranks countries, so there is no Vermont standing in it.) ANDREWS: No. JEFFORDS: Well, you ought to see the chart. China’s up here (he lifts his left hand high); we’re down here (he holds his right hand low); and all the other industrialized nations are someplace in between. You have to ask, why? I went to China, and I said, “Tell me about your school system.” How many days a year do you think they go to school? ANDREWS: Probably – 240? JEFFORDS: Two hundred fifty-five. How many do we go? ANDREWS: One hundred eighty, maybe. JEFFORDS: You’re right on. ANDREWS: I was on a school board. JEFFORDS: Oh, yes. (He and his staff laugh.) And the Europeans are 220. And connected with that is, what is the longest vacation they take? ANDREWS: Two weeks? JEFFORDS: Well, in China it’s two weeks, and in Europe it’s a month. With us, it’s three months. So what happens in those three months? Everything goes, sheww! (The hissing sound of a fast falling object.) Like this. (He swings his hand downward.) And you have to start over again every time. It’s no wonder only 20 to 30 percent of our high school graduates are qualified in math, and only about 40 percent can read up to par. That’s horrendous. How can we compete with that handicap? And how do you change it? Well. If we’re going to change the number of school days, it’s going to cost a lot of money. Much more than local governments would get from the incremental special ed money I got passed, many years ago. In 1983, (President) Ronald Reagan’s secretary of education was Terry Bell, one of the most far-sighted ones we’ve had. I became friends with him. He issued a report that said, “If a foreign nation were to impose on us this educational system that we have, we would consider it an act of war.” After that, I got a 100-percent Senate vote that we should take 1 percent of the federal budget each year, and set it aside for education. And we should do that for five years. With 5 percent of the federal budget devoted to education, we would have enough money to fund what needed to be done. Well, it passed 100 to zero in the Senate. But that’s the last we ever heard of it. To pass a wish statement doesn’t get you anywhere. Still, I’m going to be re-emphasizing the need to do that. Federal money. We have to help. And it shouldn’t be with strings attached. It should be there to fill in where states can’t do it. ANDREWS: Your commitment to substantial additional federal funding for education appears to run counter to the philosophy of the Republican Party. JEFFORDS: Yes. That’s one of the reasons for my switch. I realized it’s hopeless to get them away from that. I think it’s a fear they have, really, that somehow the federal government’s going to get ahold of the minds of our little kids, and they’re going to be forever strangled by the federal government – or something. I don’t know. ANDREWS: When candidate George Bush was running, he talked a different environmental game than President George Bush has played. Did that influence your decision to leave the Republican Party? JEFFORDS: Yes, it did. There were a number of issues along those lines. The environment was one. Another was a woman’s choice; on that I strongly disagree philosophically. I think that’s an individual person’s choice, and the government shouldn’t influence it. McQUISTON: Obviously, the stands George Bush has taken on issues like a woman’s choice, tax cutting and so forth have been consistent before and after the election. But he made a switch on the environment. Did that surprise you? JEFFORDS: Oh, I wasn’t surprised. I know these individuals and who they work with, what their philosophies are. When we get into environmental issues now – the three-pollutant versus the four-pollutant bill – those were anticipated. ANDREWS: One federal environmental issue rising in Vermont now is the question of wilderness on the Green Mountain National Forest. JEFFORDS: Yes. Right. ANDREWS: At a couple of forums on wilderness in Middlebury and Rutland there was very, very strong support for more wilderness. Do you plan to introduce a bill designating any more wilderness? JEFFORDS: I’m working with Senator Leahy, since it’s his jurisdiction, and I don’t like to infringe upon it. To be candid, and I think the wilderness people know this, I am not against a well-managed forest resource. In fact, I’ve got many acres of forest of my own, and I manage it. I do recognize that we should have balance, and there is room for wilderness in the state. But well-managed forest is a business very important to Vermont. McQUISTON: I’m curious. Are you a hunter? JEFFORDS: I used to. But I like to watch ’em run around, so we take care of the deer on our land. McQUISTON: Wilderness protection has been very contentious in Vermont in the last several years – with the Champion land, and even before that. It brings out passions in people locally. JEFFORDS: Oh, yes. I worry. I know. ANDREWS: In My Declaration of Independence, you wrote that the economic boom of the ‘90s was really more related to action by entrepreneurs than to any government policies. Isn’t that exactly what President Bush has said to justify his tax cut proposals? JEFFORDS: I don’t know. I hadn’t thought about that. But I do think we just had good businesses, and they were able to take advantage of our system, and also to benefit society. But where I disagree with him is on his conclusions about education. I don’t know how we did so well with the constraints on the education of our young people. We had to bring in 100,000 young people from Europe and Asia to fill the jobs. To me, that was a real downer, to think we could not provide the workers. And most of the math those workers needed was high school math! In China and Europe, they have it. And we just don’t match it. ANDREWS: What do you think should be done about the reappearance of federal deficits after the tax cuts and September 11? Do you think the Democrats are correct when they say the tax cuts disproportionately benefit the rich? JEFFORDS: No question in my mind. I agree with them on that. McQUISTON: What is the threat in deficits now? We’ve had them in the past. JEFFORDS: I’m not somebody who says the holy grail is no deficits. I can’t talk out of both sides of my mouth. We’re going to need deficits to improve education. I can’t say we’ve got to get the federal government more invested in education, and then say we can’t do it unless we’ve got the money, and we have to raise taxes. Unless we correct our educational system, we’re not going to have the productivity we need without bringing in people from other countries to handle the jobs that our school system doesn’t prepare our kids for. ANDREWS: Your position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was (Vermont) Senator Robert Stafford’s before you. JEFFORDS: Right. ANDREWS: What does the committee do, and what do you hope it will produce under your leadership? JEFFORDS: Well, I’ll tell you what it does, and what Bob Stafford did. Does 9/11 ring a bell? Well, it rang my bell, let me tell you. I found out I was in charge of FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), and just about everybody else involved with the destruction on September 11. The security of drinking water systems and nuclear plants are also under my jurisdiction. We have to find ways to ensure security for railway tunnels, subway tunnels, things like that. So I’m very much aware of the need for better security, as well as making sure that we don’t get so security conscious that we can’t be efficient. It’s a big task. And the first thing I learned after 9/11 was that the way to handle 9/11 was the Stafford Act. It was interesting to recognize that my predecessor had made those plans. ANDREWS: Will security issues take a large chunk of the committee’s time? JEFFORDS: Yes, but not too much. It’s mostly a matter of creating the appropriate safeguards. It’s not necessarily a money problem, although it could be very expensive to try to make sure every reservoir is free from any possible terrorist activity. ANDREWS: Will the attention paid to security issues detract from anything important for Vermont? JEFFORDS: No, I don’t think so. Some things may be postponed, but those are not about Vermont. ANDREWS: How do you feel, now that you’ve had a little more time, about your departure from the Republican Party? JEFFORDS: I feel more sure every day that my decision was a good one, and in terms of my concerns, I feel secure that what I did was best for the country. ANDREWS: How do you answer people who say that you misrepresented yourself in the election? JEFFORDS: Well, I say I’m a Vermonter. Look at Republican history in Vermont. I was on the liberal side of the Republicans – the George Aiken-Ernest Gibson side. There were conservatives on the other side. We only had one party. That’s why we had the primaries right next to the general election, because all the political decisions in Vermont were made in September. You just had to go through the formalities of the general election. ANDREWS: How many campaign contributions did you refund? JEFFORDS: Ahh... several. ANDREWS: That’s all? JEFFORDS: Just about the same amount of money, if not a little bit more, came in from the opposite direction. More people came in and said, “We hear you’re giving some contributions back, so we’d like to replace them.” ANDREWS: Is your wife more comfortable with your decision than she was before? JEFFORDS: Oh, very much so. Yeah. She never wanted to go to Washington. Then she came down, and made friends, of course, with the wives of Republicans. And all of a sudden I walk across the line, and she thought all her friends would be gone. But she’s found out people get over those things if they’re all somewhere in the right direction. McQUISTON: Lots of people have switched parties before, and the Republicans paid no attention or even approved. Senator Shelby, Senator Campbell became Republicans, and even Bob Smith (New Hampshire) became an Independent – that went almost unnoticed. Why did the Republicans make such a fuss this time? JEFFORDS: Well, the only reason I made the switch was to make a difference. A juxtaposition of two things which had never occurred before made it possible. First, the Republican Party was back to where it was in the ‘50s in the Eisenhower days: They had control of both houses of Congress and the White House. That only occurs once in a while. Second, the Senate had an even balance for the first time since the 1880s, when I think it was 37-37. So the movement of one individual could change the power, and take one of those houses out of the party’s control. What led me to believe it was necessary is that I am one of the moderates. We were quite forceful. We got some significant changes in the tax bill, and we were able to get a commitment on the budget for $450 billion to improve education. Well, when the budget came back from the budget committee, that $450 billion had been struck out. I said, “How in the world could that happen?” So I asked my staff, “Give me a list of the members of that conference committee.” Usually a conference committee has 20 or 30 members. They sit down, they deal back and forth, and they come up with something. There were six members on that budget committee! Four Republicans. Who were the four? Trent Lott, the speaker, and the two chairmen of the budget committees. They met, threw everything out in about 15 minutes, and that was the budget. So I got to thinking. I had an opportunity to think about what could happen – areas of women’s choice, the Supreme Court – all these things. It’s not often you have the chance to exercise that kind of power, and you should be careful how you use it. If I did not take this opportunity to do what I had the power to do, then I would be responsible for everything that happened after that. And to my mind those things would be very destructive to the United States or its people. That’s when I said, “I’ve got to do it. There is no question in my mind.” And all emotionalism connected with it was gone, because, realistically, I had an opportunity, and if I didn’t take advantage of it, then I’d be to blame for everything that happened afterward. ANDREWS: Of all the people in Vermont, your decision probably had the most impact on Senator Leahy, who is now nationally prominent from time to time as a result. Has he given you any indication of his feelings? JEFFORDS: “Right on, Jim!” (General laughter in the room.) Yeah, I think he was the happiest guy in the Congress when I switched. ANDREWS: He told you that directly? JEFFORDS: Yes, though not quite in those words. ANDREWS: What do you think it will do to the Republican Party in Vermont? JEFFORDS: Ahh, it’s the same Republican Party. It won’t make a difference. They have moderates, they have conservatives, and they will do about the same as they have. Obviously, when you consider (Anthony) Pollina and the Progressives, Vermont has changed. It’s much more liberal than before. McQUISTON: I think it’s fair to say, though, that by far you were their biggest asset in what is becoming kind of a struggling party in Vermont. If you ask, “What is the future of the Republican Party?” this will have to push them more to the right. That’s where they’re going to find their base, if the moderates are leaving them, and their biggest star has left. JEFFORDS: Yes. I understand that. McQUISTON: Do you regret that? Obviously, that was your party of choice. JEFFORDS: No, I don’t. I have some wonderful friends, Republican moderates who feel hurt by what I did, and of course a lot of conservatives who feel more than hurt. But I had to think about the national interest, primarily in education. Those other things were very much secondary. ANDREWS: Do you think you’ll run for re-election? JEFFORDS: My present inclination is to be ready to run again for another time. ANDREWS: In your book, you used the term “plate tectonics” to describe how the center of gravity of the Republican Party has shifted to the South and the West, leaving Vermont behind. Will that trend continue? JEFFORDS: Well, I see no trend in the other direction. I love Vermont. I think it’s a good, independent-minded state, and I don’t think party (affiliation) is as important in Vermont as in most places. People generally are pretty solid individuals dedicated to one thing, and that’s the state of Vermont. ANDREWS: You also wrote that you hoped your decision would help “move the two parties to the center, where the American people are.” Is that still a reasonable hope? JEFFORDS: Yes. That’s one of the reasons I changed. The moderates were really flailing after what happened to that budget. They had nowhere to go. We had had some success in the tax bill, billions of dollars in changes, actually. But when the leadership realized they had the power on the conference committee to just squash everybody, the moderates were emasculated. And I brought them back into power, where they are now a force to deal with. ANDREWS: You also wrote, and I’m quoting, “It seems to me that a healthy skepticism of government ought to be leavened with an appreciation for what it can do, and for what people cannot do for themselves.” How do you determine what people cannot do for themselves, and can you give us examples? JEFFORDS: Yes. Education. You can’t educate yourself. And if you don’t have a good educational system available, you’re being shortchanged. That serious problem is at the heart of our other problems in the country right now. I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that every kid in this country has an opportunity for a good education. Right now, we are a miserable failure. ANDREWS: Do you have other examples of things that people can’t do for themselves, where the government might be able to help? JEFFORDS: Well, health care. How to have an equitable and affordable health care system is of great concern to me. ANDREWS: Just as no other industrialized country leaves parents to shift for themselves when their children are below school age, no other industrialized country lacks a national health care system. Do you favor a national health care system? JEFFORDS: Not right now, but I had an alternative to the Clinton proposal that businesses liked. I’m participating in how to change our health care system. McQUISTON: My youngest son has Down’s Syndrome, so special education is very close to me. You drew a line in the sand on special education funding, but it still hasn’t come to fruition. What are the prospects for fully funding special education? It was such a major reason for your decision to leave the Republican Party. JEFFORDS: It’ll happen. The Republicans plan to do it so George Bush will get re-elected. So my guess is they probably will fund it three years from now. McQUISTON: In a year from now you might lose your chairmanship. JEFFORDS: It’s quite possible. Things are quite fluid out there as to who’s going to control Congress. McQUISTON: Would that make everything you did pointless? JEFFORDS: No. Because I’m a moderate, and the moderates control. We’re the balance of power. McQUISTON: Energy is a big burden for Vermont businesses. We don’t have too much generation, and Vermont Yankee is scheduled to go off line not too far down the road. What can you do improve local energy costs and availability? JEFFORDS: We have to be actively making sure that we’re independent of the domination of the oil supplies by the Middle East, and we have to encourage the utilization of renewable energy sources like wind. I just came back from a wind energy demonstration. In 1975 – the Watergate year – I was among 172 new members of Congress. I was one of 17 Republicans. We organized outside of the committee structure, forging agreement among us as individuals, and basically established an alternative energy policy that resulted in a wind energy bill I wrote with John Blanchard of Michigan and Norm Manetta of California. I also was the sponsor of the photovoltaic bill, and that was a fun time. I’ll tell you a funny story on that one. The old-time chairmen just didn’t know what was going on, I guess. They were too used to running everything. I introduced a little $80 million amendment, which was a lot of money back in those days, to create the photovoltaics solar program. The chairman came out, put his arm around me, and said, “Son, you don’t offer amendments until you’ve talked to me, and we work a little something out. So why don’t you come in, and I’ll see if I can fix you up for a few million dollars.” I said, “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.” He said, “Why not?” I said, “I have 80 co-sponsors.” He said, “Eighty co-sponsors?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Well, I guess you can’t.” So we took a vote, and sure enough, I won by about a two-to-one margin. And that’s how the photovoltaics industry got started. It was one of my great accomplishments. And then I also worked with (President Jimmy) Carter on 10-percent replacement fuels for gasoline to reduce dependence on oil. That was a wonderful time. There were a lot of spirited guys. We formed groups outside of the committee structure to push bills. ANDREWS: I know we’re out of time, but is there anything we should have asked, and didn’t? JEFFORDS: Yes. ANDREWS: What? JEFFORDS: I’m not telling. (General laughter in the room.) ANDREWS: Thank you.