NCSL takes positions for nutrition title and against King amendment
August 15, 2013 | 10:23 PM
ATLANTA — The National Conference of State Legislatures today passed a policy resolution urging Congress to reauthorize federal nutrition programs, and has also issued a letter opposing the provision in the farm bill authored by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
At their annual legislative summit, the organization of state legislators passed a policy resolution urging Congress “to reauthorize the food and nutrition programs, which were left out of the House version of the farm bill,” the group said in a news release. In order for a policy directive or resolution to pass the bipartisan organization it must receive a three-fourths majority.
NCSL did not take a position on the proposal of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to make a $40 billion cut in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over 10 years because that proposal has not been formalized, an NCSL source said. But earlier, NCSL sent letters to congressional leaders favoring the Senate version of the nutrition title and opposing the cuts in the House version, which were half the cuts Cantor has proposed.
“States share your concern about the size of the federal deficit,” NCSL said in a letter on the House farm bill that was coming before the House Agriculture Committee.
“However, NCSL strongly opposes accomplishing this goal through the proposed disproportionate reductions in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” the letter said. “NCSL opposes these proposals that would impose costly administrative burdens and mandates on state governments and remove state flexibility that is critical to cost-effective administration of SNAP.”
“The FARRM Act proposes limiting categorical eligibility to only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other state general assistance cash recipients. This limitation in categorical eligibility would increase state administrative costs in SNAP and significantly curtail state flexibility,” the letter said.
“This proposal would require states to redetermine eligibility for SNAP. Since states split administrative costs of SNAP with the federal government, this would be a significant cost shift to states. States continue to face difficult fiscal situations and limiting state options only places an increased burden on state budgets.”
“Additionally, NCSL is opposed to the proposed elimination of the high performance state bonus program. The high performance state bonus program provides an incentive for states to administer SNAP in an efficient, accurate manner by competing against one another for a monetary bonus. The bonus has been successful in improving program performance, payment accuracy and services,” the letter said.
“Currently, the error rate in SNAP is at historic lows. The Senate has achieved the right balance in their legislation. NCSL opposed an amendment that proposed the same limits on categorical eligibility and this amendment was defeated in a bipartisan vote.”
NCSL has also sent a letter to congressional leaders saying that the group opposes the King provision that would stop states from passing laws and regulations forbidding the sale of agricultural products in other states on the grounds that the state objected to methods of production.
NCSL said the King provision “would preempt vital state agricultural policies designed to protect the safety and well being of our farmland, waterways, forests and most importantly, our constituents.”
“The Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of constitutional federalism and reserves broad powers to the states and to the people,” the letter said. “States have used this sovereignty to enact laws that protect their citizens from invasive pests and livestock diseases, maintain quality standards for all agricultural products and ensure food safety and unadulterated seed products. The King amendment not only violates the tenets of the Tenth Amendment, but would also have significant economic effects across the states.”
NCSL cited the following examples of rules that would be negatively affected by the provision King offered as an amendment in committee and that was in included in the bill that passed on the House floor:
“The King amendment would target these and other state laws that were approved by state legislatures for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of consumers and the viability of our precious farmland and forests,” NCSL said.
At their annual legislative summit, the organization of state legislators passed a policy resolution urging Congress “to reauthorize the food and nutrition programs, which were left out of the House version of the farm bill,” the group said in a news release. In order for a policy directive or resolution to pass the bipartisan organization it must receive a three-fourths majority.
NCSL did not take a position on the proposal of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to make a $40 billion cut in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over 10 years because that proposal has not been formalized, an NCSL source said. But earlier, NCSL sent letters to congressional leaders favoring the Senate version of the nutrition title and opposing the cuts in the House version, which were half the cuts Cantor has proposed.
“States share your concern about the size of the federal deficit,” NCSL said in a letter on the House farm bill that was coming before the House Agriculture Committee.
“However, NCSL strongly opposes accomplishing this goal through the proposed disproportionate reductions in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” the letter said. “NCSL opposes these proposals that would impose costly administrative burdens and mandates on state governments and remove state flexibility that is critical to cost-effective administration of SNAP.”
“The FARRM Act proposes limiting categorical eligibility to only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and other state general assistance cash recipients. This limitation in categorical eligibility would increase state administrative costs in SNAP and significantly curtail state flexibility,” the letter said.
“This proposal would require states to redetermine eligibility for SNAP. Since states split administrative costs of SNAP with the federal government, this would be a significant cost shift to states. States continue to face difficult fiscal situations and limiting state options only places an increased burden on state budgets.”
“Additionally, NCSL is opposed to the proposed elimination of the high performance state bonus program. The high performance state bonus program provides an incentive for states to administer SNAP in an efficient, accurate manner by competing against one another for a monetary bonus. The bonus has been successful in improving program performance, payment accuracy and services,” the letter said.
“Currently, the error rate in SNAP is at historic lows. The Senate has achieved the right balance in their legislation. NCSL opposed an amendment that proposed the same limits on categorical eligibility and this amendment was defeated in a bipartisan vote.”
NCSL has also sent a letter to congressional leaders saying that the group opposes the King provision that would stop states from passing laws and regulations forbidding the sale of agricultural products in other states on the grounds that the state objected to methods of production.
NCSL said the King provision “would preempt vital state agricultural policies designed to protect the safety and well being of our farmland, waterways, forests and most importantly, our constituents.”
“The Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of constitutional federalism and reserves broad powers to the states and to the people,” the letter said. “States have used this sovereignty to enact laws that protect their citizens from invasive pests and livestock diseases, maintain quality standards for all agricultural products and ensure food safety and unadulterated seed products. The King amendment not only violates the tenets of the Tenth Amendment, but would also have significant economic effects across the states.”
NCSL cited the following examples of rules that would be negatively affected by the provision King offered as an amendment in committee and that was in included in the bill that passed on the House floor:
- Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin place restrictions on firewood imported from
- other states in order to protect their forests from invasive pests
- Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Washington have enacted regulations requiring the labeling of farm-raised fish.
- Iowa requires the labeling of artificial sweeteners in products while New Hampshire has enacted certain specifications regarding the production of maple products.
“The King amendment would target these and other state laws that were approved by state legislatures for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of consumers and the viability of our precious farmland and forests,” NCSL said.
