[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7732-S7736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             The Farm Bill

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, no matter what calendar one goes by, we 
are nearing the end of this Congress. We have only a few short weeks to 
end the stalemate and pass a farm bill. For months, House leaders have 
blocked a vote on a bipartisan farm bill. We passed in this body, 
across the political spectrum--Republicans and Democrats alike--a bill 
that saved tens of billions of dollars. However, the Republican 
leadership in the House of Representatives will not allow it to come to 
a vote. Much is at stake--from rural communities to farmers who need 
the certainty that a farm bill extension would mean. I have said a lot 
of times on this floor that farming cannot be put on hold. We can't 
tell a farmer: Well, hold those crops for a couple of months while we 
wait to see what we are doing. Don't milk those cows for a few months 
until we figure out whether the Congress will get its act together on a 
farm bill. It doesn't work that way. Farmers already cope with 
innumerable variables in running their businesses. The last thing they 
need is for Congress to needlessly compound the uncertainty through 
weeks of delay and obstruction.
  The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill under the leadership of the 
chair of our committee, Senator Stabenow. We passed a bipartisan bill 
that renews the charter for basic agriculture, nutrition, and 
conservation programs, while saving taxpayers $23 billion. What I have 
been told privately is that if the House leaders would permit a vote, 
this bill would pass in the House. Just as Republicans and Democrats 
came together in this body, they would in the other body. Passing it 
would end this corrosive stalemate, while contributing billions of 
dollars to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, it appears the nutrition 
programs that help millions of our most vulnerable fellow Americans are 
the latest excuse for preventing a House vote to get the farm bill 
done. In this, the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth, some are 
saying they will hold this up because we have hungry people who need 
the support our nutrition programs provide.
  With so many Americans still struggling to put food on the table, it 
is not only regrettable, but more than that, it is inexcusable that 
some House Republicans have turned to slashing central nutrition help 
for struggling Americans as a means to prevent action on the farm bill. 
Ensuring that these programs can continue to serve Vermonters and all 
Americans, especially those in need, is a key part of enacting a strong 
farm bill for this economy. It is a reality recognized by the Senate-
passed farm bill. Unfortunately, consideration of the farm bill is not 
the first time this Congress has been forced to debate legislation that 
will greatly reduce the ability of the neediest among us to put food on 
the table for their families. Bills and amendments have been proposed 
that would cut tens of billions of dollars from the food stamp program, 
eliminating nutrition assistance for millions of Americans and denying 
hundreds of thousands of American children school meals. I am proud 
that time and again during this Congress the Senate has defeated such 
proposals. I will continue to help fight back against such attacks.
  The bipartisan Senate-passed farm bill makes an investment in 
American agriculture that benefits our producers, our dairy farmers, 
our rural communities, our Main Street businesses, our taxpayers, and 
our consumers. Now it is being held hostage by House Republicans who 
are demanding Draconian cuts in food assistance programs just as we are 
coming out of the worst recession in generations. They are preventing 
final action on a bill that touches every community and millions of our 
fellow citizens across the Nation. It is ironic that during this 
holiday season, opponents of nutrition programs that help the poor are 
insisting on making it drastically more difficult, or impossible, for 
these families and their children to simply eat.
  No Member of the Senate, no Member of the House of Representatives 
goes hungry except by choice. None of us do. We don't know what that is 
like. We don't go home and look at our children and say: We can't feed 
you tonight; hold on for another day. I know you are hungry. I know you 
are crying. I know you can't sleep. But we can't feed you today. None 
of us face that. But I can tell my colleagues that there are people in 
every single State we represent where that is their reality.
  Those advocating for these drastic cuts couldn't have chosen a worse 
time. As winter approaches, Vermonters and others across the country 
are going to find the demands for paying for heat, electricity, and 
food a large strain on their family's budget. All this is before we 
even take into account those areas where they are recovering from such 
terrible natural disasters and those communities who probably face 
disasters in the future. I know there are Vermonters, as there are so 
many other Americans, who struggle every day to make ends meet and are 
forced to make tough decisions about whether to pay for rent or heat or 
medications or food. We are talking about essentials.
  The Presiding Officer and I represent two of the most beautiful 
States in this country, but we also know that both our States can get 
very cold in the wintertime. When it is 5 and 10 below zero, heat is 
not a luxury and food shouldn't be a luxury. When it is 5 below zero, 
the choice should not be, can we heat or can we eat? This in America? 
That is wrong.

  While the economy continues to recover, and we hope it will, we still 
have many Americans who rely on basic assistance to get by each month. 
Thankfully, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has 
helped fill the gap. It offers the most comprehensive assistance 
available to the poorest Americans.
  No one can deny the effects of hunger on Americans, especially 
children. Children who live in food insecure homes are at a greater 
risk of developmental delays, poor academic performance, nutrient 
deficiencies, obesity, and depression. Yet participation in food 
assistance programs turns these statistics on their head. Federal 
nutrition programs have been shown to lessen the risk that a child will 
develop health problems, and they are associated with decreases in the 
incidence of child abuse. Children from families who receive SNAP have 
higher achievement in math and reading. They have improved behavior, 
social interactions, and diet quality than children who go without this 
nutrition help.
  It is unfortunate that during this fall's campaign, we saw candidates 
who were intent on spreading misconceptions about a program that lifts 
millions of Americans above the poverty line each year. The contention 
that SNAP beneficiaries are largely out-of-work Americans is far from 
accurate. Two-thirds of the beneficiaries are children, the disabled, 
or the elderly who cannot be expected to work. The remaining 
participants are subjected to rigorous work requirements in order to 
receive continuing benefits. And while SNAP offers crucial support to a 
family's grocery expenses, the benefits far from cover all of a 
family's food needs. With a benefit average of $1.25 per person, per 
meal, it is understandable that families typically fall short on 
benefits by the middle of the month.
  Vermont has done a remarkable job at urging Vermonters to register 
for our SNAP program. We call it 3Squares. But the unfortunate reality 
is that thousands of Vermonters continue to go without food they could 
receive. I hear from Vermont families who participate in 3Squares about 
the importance of Federal food assistance. Parents have told me they 
ignore their own hunger to ensure their kids are fed, but they don't 
know how they can cope if benefits are cut further. Kathy, a mother 
from Barre, VT, where my father was born, says her child has come to 
her crying, wondering whether they will have enough money for food. 
Others have noted that expenses for necessities, such as heating and 
rent, are fixed costs. When Three Squares benefits run out, skipping 
breakfast or lunch is the only way to scrape by.
  Unfortunately, both the Senate bill and the committee-passed farm 
bill in

[[Page S7736]]

the House include cuts to the nutrition assistance. Nonetheless, the 
Senate bill takes a more sensible approach. Of the $23 billion in 
deficit reduction included in our bill, $4.5 billion comes from 
nutrition programs, nearly four times less than the House Agriculture 
Committee bill. I do not support the cuts in the Senate bill, and I 
supported an amendment during the Floor debate to restore this funding 
to SNAP, so that families across the country would not lose an average 
of $90 per month in benefits. But the cuts in the Senate bill represent 
a concession from our Chair, and ultimately the Senate farm bill passed 
the Senate on a bipartisan vote, including mine, as it always has.
  This concession is not enough for many House Republicans. The $16 
billion reduction in nutrition programs they wish to see in a farm bill 
would devastate nutrition programs nationwide. Millions in every State 
in this country would be left without means to purchase food. These 
drastic reductions would result in the elimination of food assistance 
for an estimated 2 to 3 million people, and 280,000 children would lose 
eligibility for free school meals. This is shameful.
  The budget choices we make in Congress reflect who we are as 
Americans. The American people want budget decisions that are fair and 
sensible. Americans do not want their friends, neighbors, or family 
members struggling to feed themselves or their children. Proposed cuts 
to food assistance programs will mean more hungry families in America. 
I have spent nearly 38 years in the Senate fighting hunger and I will 
continue to oppose efforts in the farm bill to further roll back hunger 
assistance programs that help our neediest fellow Americans. In a 
nation that spends billions on wasted diet fads, I would like to see us 
spend some money to feed the hungry in the most powerful Nation on 
Earth.
  Madam President, I see my good friend from Oklahoma on the floor, and 
I know he wishes to speak on behalf of his nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me to say something about our 
vote that is coming up.
  Mr. Dowdell has been nominated to a vacancy on the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, which sits in my hometown 
of Tulsa. In fact, he is a neighbor of mine in Tulsa.
  After graduating from the University of Tulsa's College of Law, Mr. 
Dowdell began his legal career as a clerk to the chief judge of the 
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since 1983, Mr. Dowdell has accumulated 
extensive State and Federal litigation experience representing a 
variety of clients working at the same firm in Tulsa of which he is a 
partner.
  Mr. Dowdell is a native Tulsan and has been extensively involved in 
the community, in addition to being widely recognized for his work on 
behalf of his clients. I received a number of letters from members of 
the legal community throughout Tulsa highlighting Mr. Dowdell's work 
ethic, his character, and his abilities as an advocate for his clients.
  Mr. Dowdell already has experience as a mediator and arbitrator and 
has served as an adjunct settlement judge in the Northern District for 
the past 14 years, which is the district for which he is nominated. He 
and his wife of 24 years, Rochelle, like my wife and I, have four 
children, which I always remind people is just the right amount. If you 
are ever going to have 20 kids and grandkids, you have to start with 4, 
and he understands that.
  Although it often seems as if I am on the opposite side of many of 
this administration's judicial nominees, I can say with confidence that 
this is not the case with Mr. Dowdell. Mr. Dowdell has the requisite 
experience and judicial temperament to make a fine judge in the 
Northern District of Oklahoma.
  I am particularly impressed with Mr. Dowdell's commitment to ``render 
decisions fairly and impartially, applying the relevant law to the 
facts without bias or prejudgment,'' to interpret a statute or 
constitutional provision in a case of first impression by first 
considering ``the statutory text or provision in the context of its 
plain and ordinary meaning''--that says a lot--and to not consult 
foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Too often in this 
country we have judges applying their own meanings to the Constitution 
and to the laws passed by Congress or allowing their own biases to 
affect their decisions. I can state confidently to my colleagues that 
Judge Dowdell will not be this type of a judge.
  In his Questions for the Record to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
Mr. Dowdell has stated that he does not agree with the notion that the 
Constitution is a ``living'' document that constantly evolves as 
society interprets it. He further states that the ``Constitution 
changes only through the amendment process, as set forth in Article V 
of the Constitution.'' That is refreshing. ``A court's job is to 
interpret and apply the Constitution, not to add or amend the rights 
contained therein.'' That is a quote by him.
  Based on these statements, I can say that Mr. Dowdell's judicial 
philosophy is in keeping with the Framers and in lockstep with my own 
philosophy. My only wish is that we would get more of this type of 
judicial nominee from the administration.
  It is for these reasons that I support Mr. Dowdell's confirmation to 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and I 
hope my colleagues will do the same.
  This vote should be coming up in about 10 minutes. I do encourage a 
positive vote on Mr. Dowdell.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.