Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008-- Veto Message from the President of the United States

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the President's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, otherwise known as the Farm Bill. I am pleased to say that, with this vote, we have finally put this legislation behind us.

While I regret the problems that occurred with the formal parchment and the missing Trade Title of the Farm Bill, the time between consideration of the first veto override vote and this one allowed many Members of Congress time to read the floor statements of many of our distinguished colleagues and understand better this large, complex and important piece of legislation. I am particularly grateful that the distinguished Members from California, Mr. Baca and Mr. Berman, clarified several particularly important provisions in the Nutrition Title of the bill. I would like to fully associate myself with their remarks. Following those Members' lead, I will not waste my colleagues' time by restating points they previously made on this legislation.

I want to emphasize, however, that if ever there was any doubt about Congress's continued support for the availability of judicial recourse for violations of food assistance statutes and regulations, this legislation makes that support unmistakably clear. The Food Stamp Act long has explicitly recognized the right of prospective applicants, actual applicants, and recipients to go to court to secure compliance with the statute and regulations. No court needs to guess about the view of Congress on this matter.

This new legislation reiterates that Congress will regulate how such litigation takes place. But there can be no question that litigation should, in fact, be permitted to occur if necessary. Such suits historically have not been required to pass any special hurdles of procedure or proof; all that matters is whether the statute, regulations, or state plan has been violated. If such a violation has occurred, the courts can pursue correction in the most efficacious manner, provided that we have limited the availability of retroactive benefits to one year before the problem was or should have been discovered. Rules developed under statutes where congressional intent is unclear have no place under food assistance legislation where we have left no room for doubt about our intentions.

As my colleagues from California made clear, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act properly rejects two recent cases where courts, no doubt with the best of intentions, strayed from this long-time principle in the Food Stamp Program. This legislation clarifies that states are accountable for the results they achieve, namely a well-run food assistance program, and may be held judicially accountable for that. I trust this will eliminate any doubts other courts might have this score.

As Members are aware, the Farm Bill conferees did not accept a House provision that would have shut down all efforts to expand private contractors' role in administering the Food Stamp Program. Serious concerns have been raised about initiatives in a couple of states. Part of the reasoning was that the statute already contains requirements that state civil servants make all decisions relating to a household's participation in the program. As of yet, the policies of those states have not been tested in court. Without in any way seeking to prejudge what the results of such litigation might be, a judicial ruling on how these practices measure up against existing law would be of great help to us in determining whether that law needs to be modified, whether in the manner the House suggested or otherwise. As I understand there is considerable dissatisfaction with these programs, and I hope that the steps we are taking to clarify households' right to challenge the administration of the program in court will allow those concerns to be raised and addressed without further delay.

Source