NCSL endorses Senate SNAP provision, opposes King amendment
November 13, 2013 | 06:23 PM
In a letter sent to farm bill conferees Tuesday, the National Conference of State Legislatures endorsed the Senate provision of the farm bill that would allow Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits only if states send them a payment of $10 or more, but oppose the elimination of categorical eligibility for SNAP beneficiaries on the grounds that it will increase state administrative costs and program complexity.
NCSL also opposes the House proposal to eliminate the high-performance state bonus program.
The letter also opposes the provision offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and passed in the House that would prohibit a state from banning a food product due to objections over how that product was raised or produced in another state. The amendment was introduced in reaction to a California law that would prohibit the sale of eggs produced under conditions different from those now required in California.
“The sponsors of Section 11312 [the King amendment] argue that out-of-state producers of agricultural products are unfairly burdened by having to comply with the laws of other states; however, this is not case,” the state legislators wrote.
“In the example that the amendment sponsors use to justify Section 11312, the state law applies equally and fairly to both home state and out of state producers,” the letter says. “This is not a commerce clause issue but clearly an effort by some in Congress to weaken the sovereignty of states to protect the health and general welfare of its citizens. NCSL urges conferees to uphold the 10th Amendment by not including Section 11312 in the 2013 farm bill conference agreement.”
NCSL also opposes the House proposal to eliminate the high-performance state bonus program.
The letter also opposes the provision offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and passed in the House that would prohibit a state from banning a food product due to objections over how that product was raised or produced in another state. The amendment was introduced in reaction to a California law that would prohibit the sale of eggs produced under conditions different from those now required in California.
“The sponsors of Section 11312 [the King amendment] argue that out-of-state producers of agricultural products are unfairly burdened by having to comply with the laws of other states; however, this is not case,” the state legislators wrote.
“In the example that the amendment sponsors use to justify Section 11312, the state law applies equally and fairly to both home state and out of state producers,” the letter says. “This is not a commerce clause issue but clearly an effort by some in Congress to weaken the sovereignty of states to protect the health and general welfare of its citizens. NCSL urges conferees to uphold the 10th Amendment by not including Section 11312 in the 2013 farm bill conference agreement.”
