[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 24, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 110-125)

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 18, 2008

  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.

                          ____________________