[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 145 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12399-S12400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DODD. Mr President, yesterday I voted against the Agriculture 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 and I did so with some 
reservation. At the outset, I want to commend the managers of the bill, 
Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl, for trying hard to keep the bill as 
close to the Senate bill as they could, but the House hijacked the bill 
on several important points.
  I am grateful that the conference report included funding for Tufts 
University, working with local Connecticut farmers to develop more 
effective agricultural operational and marketing practices. Even though 
the physical university is in Boston, Tufts is using the funding 
exclusively in Connecticut so that our farmers can diversify their 
crops and market them more aggressively in local markets. Additionally, 
the University of Connecticut, in conjunction with the University of 
Illinois, received funding to continue a research program on 
therapeutic cloning

[[Page S12400]]

in cattle. Finally, language was included to again urge the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to indemnify a Connecticut 
poultry producer who undertook a successful emergency vaccination 
protocol 2 years ago.
  So while I am pleased that there are a few items specifically for my 
constituents, I remain deeply troubled by the path this Congress is 
taking as it tries to cut spending for programs that benefit our most 
vulnerable populations while at the same time planning for tax cuts for 
the most wealthy, who neither need nor, on the whole, seek the 
extravagance that the majority insists on heaping upon them.
  The Senate conferees are to be commended for pushing hard for 
increases in food and nutrition programs, including the McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education Program, but at the same time, House conferees 
insisted on the option of privatization of the food stamp process. That 
is often code word for closing down local centers and relying more and 
more on remote call centers and the Internet. This puts a 
disproportionate burden on those people who need the services most. I 
know that in my State of Connecticut, this action could adversely 
impact 109,250 households and that number is likely to grow. 
Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled Congress often sees 
privatization as the panacea for saving money. Instead, studies often 
find that contracting out these services often costs more money. But 
the problem doesn't stop there. As Congress moves forward with the 
budget reconciliation process, we will have to come to terms with the 
fact that the House has insisted on draconian cuts of nearly a billion 
dollars in the food stamp program. If this number were to stand, nearly 
300,000 low-income individuals could be denied benefits. The majority 
in Congress refuses to increase the minimum wage. It refuses to 
increase low-income heating assistance, despite dire predictions of 
record heating costs this winter. Now Congress is on the verge of 
cutting off 300,000 people from food assistance. Such a move is 
irresponsible, and it is unconscionable.
  Finally, the House conferees insisted on denying American consumers 
with simple information about the meat they eat. As our colleagues 
know, mandatory meat labeling was included in the 2002 farm bill, which 
I supported. The labeling of seafood already started but meat labeling, 
at the behest of a few powerful lobbyists and a few Members of 
Congress, continues to be delayed. Hundreds of organizations around the 
country, including farmers, producers, consumer groups, and individuals 
overwhelmingly support country-of-origin labeling, COOL. The fiscal 
year 2006 House appropriations bill effectively delayed meat labeling 
by refusing to allow any funds to be used to implement COOL, while the 
Senate bill did not change the requirement. During conference on this 
bill, the House, with no consultation with the Senate and with no vote, 
unilaterally extended the COOL delay until 2008, beyond what even the 
House language did. Labeling would increase consumer confidence and 
assist agricultural producers.
  So, while there are many laudable provisions in the agricultural 
appropriations bill, several provisions caused me to cast a vote 
against this bill.

                          ____________________