[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.