A Lesson in Humanity From Bob Dole

The former Republican leader worked with one of the Senate’s most liberal members on hunger issues.

Lasting legacy: Dole takes pride in his work on the ADA.
National Journal
Jerry Hagstrom
Add to Briefcase
Jerry Hagstrom
Dec. 15, 2013, 7:11 a.m.

Could former Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Bob Dole be a role mod­el in con­vin­cing a new gen­er­a­tion of con­ser­vat­ive House Re­pub­lic­ans to vote for a farm bill that cuts food stamps by only $8 bil­lion over 10 years?

On Wed­nes­day, ru­mors were fly­ing that the bill’s four lead ne­go­ti­at­ors — House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee Chair­man Frank Lu­cas, R-Okla., and rank­ing mem­ber Col­lin Peterson, D-Minn., and Sen­ate Ag­ri­cul­ture Chair­wo­man Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and rank­ing mem­ber Thad Co­chran, R-Miss. — had settled on cut­ting the $80 bil­lion-per-year pro­gram by less than $1 bil­lion per year rather than any­thing close to the $39 bil­lion over 10 years that House Re­pub­lic­ans voted for last sum­mer. At the same time, Dole was back on Cap­it­ol Hill to re­ceive an award from World Food Pro­gram USA for his role in al­le­vi­at­ing world hun­ger.

Lu­cas, Peterson, Stabenow, and Co­chran all say they ex­pect the con­fer­ence re­port to be brought up in both cham­bers in Janu­ary, though they have de­clined to dis­cuss any of their agree­ments. But on the side­lines of the Dole event in the Kennedy Caucus Room of the Rus­sell Sen­ate Of­fice Build­ing, Rep Jim McGov­ern, D-Mass., told Na­tion­al Journ­al last week that he ex­pects the cut to be $8 bil­lion. McGov­ern, one of the most vig­or­ous an­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates in Con­gress and a con­fer­ee on the bill, be­lieves there should be no cut be­cause food-stamp be­ne­fi­ciar­ies already ex­per­i­enced a cut on Nov. 1 when the boost from the Re­cov­ery Act ex­pired and the long-term un­em­ployed will see their be­ne­fits end on Dec. 28 since Con­gress failed to ex­tend them.

“It will be dif­fi­cult,” McGov­ern said, for mem­bers to go home for the hol­i­days and tell low-in­come or no-in­come people to ex­pect more bad news.

McGov­ern’s op­pos­i­tion to a farm bill that, as he puts it, in­creases hun­ger, raises the like­li­hood that he will vote against the bill and the ques­tion of how many Demo­crats might fol­low him. But the big­ger is­sue is how many of the House Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity will vote for a bill with only a small cut and few of the policy changes that they vig­or­ously ad­voc­ated.

Con­ser­vat­ives wanted to re­duce be­ne­fits and cut as many as 4 mil­lion people off food stamps by elim­in­at­ing the abil­ity of states to ad­just the fed­er­al defin­i­tion of poverty or to ease as­set tests and even al­low states to keep part of the money saved by kick­ing people off the pro­gram. None of those ideas would fly with the Sen­ate, and the con­fer­ence lead­ers ap­pear to have settled on a pro­gram that would in­crease to $20 per year the amount states have to provide people in heat­ing and en­ergy as­sist­ance for those pay­ments to trig­ger high­er food stamp be­ne­fit levels. Pro­grams to try to make sure the states help food-stamp be­ne­fi­ciar­ies find jobs and train­ing will prob­ably also be ad­ded.

Dur­ing the Dole ce­re­mony, Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, who presen­ted the award, and oth­ers made much of the part­ner­ship between the Kan­sas Re­pub­lic­an and the late Sen. George McGov­ern, D-S.D., in passing both do­mest­ic and in­ter­na­tion­al food-as­sist­ance pro­grams.

But Biden, who served in the Sen­ate with both men, noted that McGov­ern and Dole had provided in­di­vidu­al lead­er­ship on hun­ger is­sues be­fore there was a na­tion­al con­sensus on hun­ger but that it was easi­er for McGov­ern as a lib­er­al to deal with the is­sue than for Dole, a con­ser­vat­ive, to deal with his own party.

“Bob, you got the liv­ing hell kicked out of you,” Biden said.

The 90-year-old Dole, phys­ic­ally frail but speak­ing with a strong voice, said there seemed to be more bi­par­tis­an friend­li­ness in Con­gress when he was a mem­ber than there is today, but he also ac­know­ledged that McGov­ern had led him to un­der­stand the hun­ger is­sue.

“I was a skep­tic, but after be­ing with McGov­ern for about three days I un­der­stood we had a real prob­lem in Amer­ica,” Dole said, speak­ing of hear­ings he and McGov­ern had held. He ad­ded that after McGov­ern lost his 1972 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, the two of them had worked more on in­ter­na­tion­al hun­ger.

“I con­sidered my­self a tra­di­tion­al Amer­ic­an con­ser­vat­ive and he con­sidered him­self a lib­er­al, but we did not talk about polit­ics,” he said. Rather, they would dis­cuss girls in Africa not go­ing to school and boys go­ing to school but get­ting only one meal a day.

But Dole also re­called that he and McGov­ern “knew there were budget­ary lim­its” be­cause the people who testi­fy be­fore con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees al­ways want more than Con­gress can provide.

These days the im­pres­sion has been cre­ated that Demo­crats do not fa­vor any cuts, but in fact Stabenow and Lu­cas have fol­lowed the McGov­ern-Dole mod­el of re­cog­niz­ing “budget­ary lim­its.”

Rather than go­ing along with an­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates who wanted no cuts what­so­ever, Stabenow has said all year that lot­tery win­ners should not get be­ne­fits, that there should be stricter rules on col­lege stu­dents, and that the way the states have sent tiny amounts of money to people un­der the Low In­come Heat­ing and En­ergy As­sist­ance Pro­gram is a “loop­hole.” Peterson has re­peatedly cri­ti­cized the struc­ture of the food-stamps pro­gram, say­ing there should be a whole­sale re­write of the eli­gib­il­ity re­quire­ments to bring them up to date and then scale back the states’ abil­ity to ad­just them.

As the farm-bill vote ap­proaches, House mem­bers might keep both sides of Dole’s world view in mind as they con­sider how to vote on the le­gis­la­tion. Lu­cas, Peterson, Stabenow, and Co­chran do seem to be act­ing in the bi­par­tis­an spir­it of McGov­ern and Dole.

Con­trib­ut­ing Ed­it­or Jerry Hag­strom is the founder and ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of The Hag­strom Re­port, which may be found at www.Hag­strom­Re­port.com.

What We're Following See More »
Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
1 days ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
1 days ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
2 days ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
2 days ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
2 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.