>> [GAVEL] >>
CHAIR DEAN: WE WILL BRING THE COMMITTEE BACK TO ORDER AND WE HAVE HOUSE FILE 3612
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON. REPRESENTATIVE FENTON I WILL MOVE HOUSE FILE 3612
BE RECOMMENDED TO BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS
AND MEANS. REPRESENTATIVE FENTON
MY TO YOUR BILL >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS CAN HOUSE FILE 3612 IS
BASICALLY REQUIRES THE
COMMISSIONER OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE COMMISSIONER OF DEED TO REVIE
W THE UNEMPLOYMENT DATA FOR ALL THE REGIONS IN OUR STATE
AND MAKE A REPORT FOR THE SNAP
WAIVER. BECAUSE IF THERE ARE
NOT ENOUGH IF THE UNEMPLOYMENT
IS HIGH THERE NOT ENOUGH JOBS.
THEREFORE; THOSE
RECEIVING SNAP WILL
BE AT EXEMPT FROM THE WORK REQUIREMENT FOR IT.
GOOD COMMON SENSE TO HAVE BOTH
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEED AND HUMAN
SERVICES TALKING ABOUT THE
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. THIS IS
ALSO COMPLIANT WITH THE
FEDERAL LEVEL. >> CHAIR DEAN:
NO AMENDMENTS TO YOUR BILL.
ANY TESTIFIERS? >>
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: NOT TODAY;
THANK YOU. >> CHAIR DEAN: ALL RIGHT. IS
THERE ANYONE IN
THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON
THE BILL WAS SIGNED UP? OKAY.
I HAVE DEXTER WEBSTER WELCOME TO
THE COMMITTEE. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY.
>> TESTIFIER: MY NAME IS
JESSICA WEBSTER DEAF ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL
AID. UNFAMILIAR WITH BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
ALSO SERVE AS THE COCHAIR OF
THE SNAP TAX FORCE THE SNAP
ABLE-BODIED ADULT WITHOUT DEPENDENTS TASK FORCE
THAT TASK FORCE ALSO WAS
COUNTY PROVIDERS AND SOME
OTHER ADVOCATES THAT ARE BEEN LOOKING AT
THE WORK REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE ADULTS
ACCESSING STEP. MEMBERS; I
HAVE SOME
AND I BOTH SOME TECHNICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS WITH
THIS LEGISLATION. MY
TECHNICAL CONCERN ABOUT THIS BILL
ARE THAT THE BILLS GOES BEYOND JUST
FEDERAL COMPLIANCE
SECTION 1A DOES APPEAR TO MIRROR
FEDERAL COMPLIANCE AND FEDERAL LAW.
SECTION 1B SEEMS TO INTRODUCE
A NEW CONCEPT IN A NEW LAYER
OF COMPLEXITY FOR ABLE-BODIED
WAIVERS AND 1.18 AND
ITS CONCEPT OF WHETHER OR NOT
WORK REQUIREMENT
IS UNTENABLE.. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I FIND IN
FEDERAL LAW. SO IT GIVES ME PAUSE AND HAVE CONCERNS THAT
THIS LAW OR
THIS PROPOSAL MIGHT BE SEEKING TO EXPAND
WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE ADULTS
AND SNAP THE REASON THAT GIVES
ME PAUSE AND GIVES ME
SOME HEARTACHE IS THAT I
HAVE SIMILARITY WITH WHAT
HAS HAPPENED SINGLE ADULTS
ACCESSING SNAP THE PHONE UNDER THE WO
RK REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE OF YOU
DON'T KNOW; WE DO HAVE A WORK REQUIREMENT FOR
SINGLE ADULTS ACCESSING SNAP. IT
WAS RESTORED IN 2013 AND IT'S A
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
TO AN 80 HOUR MONTH REQUIREMENT FOR
SINGLE ADULTS. WHAT IS HAPPENED
IN MINNESOTA IS REALLY A
TRAGEDY. SINCE BETWEEN
2013-IT WAS IMPLEMENT IN NOVEMBER 2013 IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE YEAR
FOLLOWING THAT IMPLEMENT AND
WORK REQUIREMENT;
47;000 ADULTS LOST ACCESS TO FOOD. THE COUNT
SINCE 2013 IS
67;000 MINNESOTANS LOST FOOD.
THE REASON THIS IS SO TROUBLING AND
SO SAD IS THAT THIS
WORK REQUIREMENT HAS SO MANY
COMPASSIONATE EXEMPTIONS IN IT.
SO THE WORK REQUIREMENT
IN SNAP AS EXEMPTIONS FOR DISABILITY
AND ILLNESS AND IT HAS A
NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT TO A VULNERABLE
SINGLE ADULT POPULATION A LOT OF THE SINGLE ADULTS WERE POOR AND IN THE POPULATION SUFFER FROM DISABILITY
INJURY ILLNESS LITERACY CHALLENGES;
DICTION; HOMELESSNESS; PTSD FOR
MILITARY SERVICE AND A LACK OF
RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION.
COUNTIES WERE NEVER EQUIPPED AND NEVER FUNDED
TO ENSURE THAT THESE EXEMPTIONS
WERE APPLIED AND THE WORK REQUIREMENT ONLY APPLIED TO
ABLE-BODIED ADULTS. SO TODAY
THERE ARE ONLY 6000
MINNESOTANS REMAINING
THAT ARE ATTACHED TO SNAP UNDER THE
WORK REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S AFTER A
67;000 MINNESOTANS HAVE LOST ACCESS TO FOOD. I WILL JUST
LEAVE IT
-I'M HAPPY TO BE A RESOURCE ON SNAP
GOING FORWARD AND ON THE
WORK REQUIREMENT BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK YOUR COUNTIES ABOUT WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN WITH THE
ABLE BODY WORK REQUIREMENT AND I THINK THEY WOULD DESCRIBE THAT IT HAS TRULY BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE AND THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST TO TRY
TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING THAT IS VERY VERY CHALLENGING.
THANK YOU. >> CHAIR DEAN: THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY
MS. WEBSTER. WELCOME TO
THE COMMITTEE. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY. >> TESTIFIER: MY NAME IS
COLLEEN MORIARTY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF
[INAUDIBLE] MINNESOTA. I'M HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE
CHARITY SYSTEM AND ITS RESPONSE TO PEOPLE LOSE THEIR ACCESS TO FOOD.
I; TOO; SERVED ON THE ABLE-BODIED
COMMITTEE FROM
TWO YEARS. AND LOOKED AT THE PRACTICAL WAY
IN WHICH THE SYSTEM COUL
D BE IMPLEMENT IT IN THE STATE. WE WERE DEALING WITH COUNTY WORKERS WOULD NEVER HEARD OF AN
ABLE-BODIED EXEMPTION WHO
NEEDED TRAINING; WHO NEEDED TO KNOW HOW IT WAS
WE WERE GONNA SERVE THESE PEOPLE.
ONCE PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR ACCESS
TO FOOD THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON EMERGENCY
FOOD SYSTEM. ALL
OF YOU HAVE FOOD SHELVES IN YOUR
LOCAL COMMUNITIES. FOR
EVERY MEAL BETTER SERVED BY A FOOD
SHELF SNAP SERVES 12 MEALS IN
OUR STATE. WE HAVE OVER
600;000 PEOPLE WERE CURRENTLY USING
SNAP PROGRAM IN TIMES
OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND IN TIMES OF SERIOUS
ECONOMIC CHALLENGE WERE IN TIMES WITH OUR ECONOMY
HAS RECOVERED UNEVENLY IN OUR STATE
THOSE PEOPLE TURN TO THE EMERGENCY
FOOD SYSTEM THE RESOURCES ARE JUST NOT THERE TO
SERVE THEM.
PEOPLE IN FOOD SHELVES ARE WORKING AS HARD AS
THEY CAN TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE
NEED FOR
EMERGENCY FOOD WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THE DOOR TO OFFER THEM THE MOST NUTRITIOUS FOOD THEY CAN.
I BELIEVE THAT THE 6000 PEOPLE
WHO CURRENTLY ARE SLATED TO LOSE THEIR ACCESS
TO FOOD WILL ALSO TURN A
ND IF THEY ARE IN YOUR COUNTY YOU WILL HEAR FROM YOUR
FOOD SHELVES AND THE PEOPLE WHO
NEED ASSISTANCE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND IT.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS LEGISLATION
HAS THE POTENTIAL
TO EXPAND THE HARSH CONSEQUENCES OF
AN ALREADY
POORLY DESIGNED POLICY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. >> CHAIR DEAN: THANK YOU
MS. MORIARTY. ALL RIGHT.
REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING >>
REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR. IS THIS THE TIME YOU WANT TO
TAKE QUESTIONS OF
THESE WITNESSES >>
CHAIR DEAN: THERE'S ONE MORE THAT SIGNED UP. MR.
NATE KRUGER.
>> REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING: I
CAN WAIT. >> CHAIR
DEAN: OKAY. I DON'T SEE MR. KRUGER
HERE SO I THINK NOW WOULD BE A GREAT TIME.
REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING >> REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING: THANK YOU TO
THE TESTIFIER FOR COMING IN THIS EVENING TO TALK
LIKE THIS REALLY
IMPORTANT TOPIC.
I'VE BEEN DOING SOME QUICK CALCULATIONS HERE AN
D I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU
; WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WORKING
AND THEN INSTEAD
OF GETTING SNAP INSTEAD OF GETTING FOOD ASSISTANCE I THINK WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
WHAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO EARN
RIGHT NOW AND HOW FAR IT GOES.
SO I WAS DOING SOME QUICK CALCULATIONS. I THINK THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE RIGHT NOW
IS 7.50 AN HOUR IF YOU WORK FOR A SMALL COMPANY;
9.65 IF YOU WORK FOR A
LARGER COMPANY. SO EVEN IF WE TAKE THAT
LARGER NUMBER AND YOU CALCULATE IT OUT
; I AM GETTING BETTER PERSON WORKED 40 HOURS A WEEK AT THAT LEVEL WOULD EARN
JUST OVER $20;000 A YEAR.
I KNOW THAT THE MINNESOTA
DEED DO SOME CALCULATIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED TO EARN
IN ORDER TO HAVE A LIVING WAGE JUST A BASIC
NEEDS BUDGET. I
RECALL THAT IN THE
METRO AREA AT LEAST FOR A FAMILY TO DO
A CALCULATION FOR A TYPICAL FAMILY AND TWO PARENTS
AND CHILDCARE IN ALL THESE
DIFFERENT EXPENSES THEY
CALCULATE OUT THAT YOU NEE
D ABOUT IF I'M REMEMBERING
RIGHT; OVER $19 AN HOUR TO
HAVE A BASIC NEEDS BUDGET IN THE
METRO AREA. YET; OUR MINIMUM WAGE
IS 9.65 IF YOU'RE WORKING FOR A
LARGE COMPANY. WE KNOW THAT MANY PEOPLE TO EARN MORE
THAN THAT THAT IS OUR
MINIMUM WAGE. SO I GUESS MY
QUESTION IS;--MAYBE I'M LOOKING MORE FOR
A COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE PERSON;; EVERY
SINGLE PERSON
WAS WORKING 40 HOURS A WEEK IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT BECAUSE THE COST OF LIVING
HAS SO OUTPACED WAGES THAT THERE ARE STILL A
LOT OF-THERE WERE STILL
BE HUNGER IS THAT
YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
>> TESTIFIER: THAT ABSOLUTELY
IS TRUE. WHAT WE
HAVE FOUND WELL IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS
A PERSON'S ACCESS TO FOOD.
THEIR ABILITY
TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES ON A LOW WAGE JOB IS A
DEFINITE CHALLENGE. BECAUSE OF THAT
CHALLENGE PEOPLE MOVE ON
AND OFF THE SNAP ROLLS AT TIMES. I
THINK THAT GIVEN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN SOME OF
THESE COUNTIES FOR INSTANCE IN
AIKEN MINNESOTA; WITH
IMMEDIATELY QUALIFIED TO BE AN EXEMPT COUNTY BECAUSE OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT; EVEN WITH THE
BE
ST RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
AND DEED
THERE STILL ON FOR JOBS THERE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE.
THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT THE JOBS THEY CAN SUPPORT
THEMSELVES WITH. SO; I BELIEVE
THAT THAT ACCESS TO FOOD
IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT TO
THE SUCCESS WHETHER LOOKING FOR EMPLOYMENT OR MAINTAINING
THEIR EMPLOYMENT; IT IS IMPORTANT THAT A PERSON IS GRANTED ENOUGH NUTRITION TO
KEEP THEM HEALTHY AND TO
KEEP THEM ABLE TO LOOK
FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY
AND EMPLOYMENT. >> CHAIR DEAN:
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY >> REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. MAYBE TO
MS. WEBSTER WERE TO
THE TESTIFIER WERE TO
WHO OFFER THE BILL I'M JUST LOOKING AT THEM
; THE LINES THAT MS. WEBSTER
CALLED OUT AND IN PARTICULAR
LINE 1.18 AND WHAT THIS
CONDITION IS
SETTING APPEAR. WITH THE STANDARD IS
. THAT WE WOULD BE ASKING
THAT AFFIRMATIVE EMPLOYMENT AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO
[INAUDIBLE
]. I'M WONDERING IF MS. WEBSTER; BECAUSE YOU MENTION IN YOUR TESTIMONY IF YOU COULD EXPOUND A LITTLE BIT
ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
THAT MEANS.. I'M NOT
[INAUDIBLE] AND THE FEDERAL CODE AND WITH THE IMPLICATIONS THAT WE COULD BE?
>> TESTIFIER: I ACTUALLY ABOUT A HANDOUT SHOULD I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT
HANDING OUT BUT I DID BRING THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS TITLE VII WHICH
IS REFERENCED HERE IF I COULD PASS
THAT OUT.
>> CHAIR DEAN: WHERE THE PAGES WILL COME BY AND GRAB THAT.
>> TESTIFIER:
THE WAIVER THE FEDERAL WAIVER LAW IS
RATHER SIMPLE. THEY LOOK AT
AREAS WITH 10% OR
HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT OR PLACES THAT
DON'T HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF JOBS TO
PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT. NOW WHEN I
LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL SECTION A
CLOSELY MIRRORS AND
ACTUALLY SITES CFR TITLE 7 TO 73 POINT
PARAGRAPH F WHICH IS WHAT THE FEDERAL LAW IS. THE NEW
INTRODUCTION HERE IS IN B
WHAT THIS TELLS ME IS THAT
THE COMMISSIONER;
BEFORE APPLYING FOR A WAIVER;
IF YOU'RE IN A COUNTY FOR INSTANCE WITH 20%
WERE 15% UNEMPLOYMENT;
BEFORE HHS DHS CAN APPLY FOR
A WAIVER THEY WOULD GO
TO DEED AND SAY THEY WANTED TO APPLY FOR
A WAIVER AND THEN
IT DEED WOULD HAVE THIS ADDED LAYER
OF APPROVAL OF WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS A COUNTY WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE A WORK
REQUIREMENT. THAT REALLY GOES BEYOND WHAT
THE FEDERAL LAW HAS SET UP YOUR
THE FEDERAL LAW HAS SET UP
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COUNTIES ARE NOT COUNTIES WHERE WE SHOULD
BE REQUIRING VULNERABLE
SINGLE ADULTS TO HAVE A MANDATORY
80 HOUR MONTH WORK REQUIREMENT
RIGHT NOW. ONCE EMPLOYMENT FALLS IN THE COUNTY AND
ECONOMY RECOVERS THERE'S MORE JOBS AVAILABLE THAT MIGHT BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO HAVE A WORK REQUIREMENT IN THE COUNTY
BUT WE SHOULD HAVE HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE COUNTIES WITH THIS
WORK REQUIREMENT. DOES THAT
MAKE SENSE? >> REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY:
MS. WEBSTER; THAT IS HELPFUL TO ME.
THANK YOU FOR THE HANDOUT AND
OF COURSE I'M NOT BEEN ABLE TO
READ THE NOT CLEAR ABOUT IF
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICE HAS TO GO TO THE DEED
IF DHS HAS TO GO TO DEED ASK FOR THIS;
IS THERE A STANDARD
BY WHICH DEED IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE
A DETERMINATION?
>> TESTIFIER: THE FEDERAL LAW DOES SET OUT A
NUMBER OF STANDARDS AND A NUMBER OF
STATISTICS YOU C
AN USE NUMBER OF DATA SOURCES THAT CAN BE USED
WITH THIS PROPOSAL DOES 1.18
IS IT CRAPS AN ENTIRELY
NEW STANDARD THAT'S
UNTENABLE STANDARD
;; THAT NONE OF US REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS
I HAVE NOT GOT CLARITY FROM DHS ON WHAT THAT MEANS
I DON'T KNOW THAT DEED KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS AND IT'S UNDEFINED HERE SO;
TO ME
IT COMPLICATES THINGS AND IT ADDS A NEW LAYER OF DISCRETION ON WHETHER OR NOT
THE COUNTY MIGHT HAVE A
WORK REQUIREMENT. >> REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY:
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON; I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ORIGINATION OF THIS
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME AT LEAST
IN THE THINKING
ABOUT IT I DON'T KNOW WE WANT TO GIVE A
STATE AGENCY SUCH WIDE DISCRETION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WITHOUT
CRITERIA. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN EXPAND ON THAT FOR ME A LITTLE BIT? >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON:
THE GOAL HERE IS REALLY TO
COMPLY AND HAVE A FULL
UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE IF UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS
VERY HIGH MANY OF THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO APPLY BY THE WORK
REQUIREMENT AND THAT'S REALLY
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT
IS COMPLIANCE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED
OF US. THAT'S MY GOAL WITH THIS
AS A WHOLE. IT IS GOING ON TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE. SO I AM
OPEN TO WORKING
WITH PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT BUT BUT
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW; BECAUSE UNEMPLOYMENT IS HIGH AND
THERE ARE A LACK OF JOBS IN THE AREA
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
THERE'S 29 COUNTIES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM
SNAP WAIVERS BUT THERE'S 12 INDIAN RESERVATIONS THAT
ARE EXEMPT
FROM HAVING THE WORK REQUIREMENT I SHOULD SAY.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS. IT'S ABOUT
COMPLIANCE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO OPEN THE
STATE UP TO HAVING A LOT MORE
PEOPLE LOSE THEIR
SNAP BENEFITS BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT COMPLYING WITH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT'S MY
OVERALL GOAL. >> REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY:
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON; I SHARE YOUR GOAL AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO
RECONCILE THAT WITH MS. WEBSTER'S
TESTIMONY BECAUSE I CANNOT IN THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION B IS
UNCLEAR AND COULD SERVE
TO CREATE SOME SORT OF LAYER
OF BUREAUCRACY
AND DISCRETION ON THE PART OF AN AGENCY THAT IS
MAYBE NOT YOUR INTENTION
AND CERTAINLY UNCLEAR AT THIS
POINT UNTIL I WOULD SUGGEST YOU
CONSIDER BABY STRIKING
AT SECTION OF
THE PROPOSAL IF IT'S
NOT ADDING TO THE COMPLIANCE THAT YOU ARE
TRYING TO DEFINE IN THE LEGISLATION.
>> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON:
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I'M HAPPY
TO WORK WITH
THE CONCERNS AT THIS MOVES ON TO THE
NEXT COMMITTEE. >> CHAIR DEAN:
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN >> REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE TESTIFIERS AND THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FENTON FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FOR.
YOU ANSWERED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS
ABOUT COMPLIANCE SO YOU'VE KIND OF ADDRESS THAT. WE'VE GOT
29 COUNTIES LIKE YOU MENTIONED THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE
MY COUNTIES THAT I REPRESENT ARE NOT IN THEIR SO
I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS
IF WE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE
YOU REFERENCE THE IDEA THAT IF WE WOULD LOSE SNAP BENEFITS
. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE? >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON:
MY CONCERN IS ABSOLUTEL
Y THAT. WE COULD LOSE THE PROGRAM ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THE STATE IS NOT COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL LAW. >> REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN:
THAT HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE TESTIFIERS; MS. WEBSTER
PROBABLY COULD RESPOND. I THINK YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAID THAT
WHAT
WELL FIRST OFF WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO THAT
IF WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WE MIGHT LOSE
SNAP PROGRAM OR SUBSTANTIAL PART
OF IT ALTOGETHER?
>> TESTIFIER: WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY FOLLOWING
FEDERAL LAW AND WE ARE FOLLOWING FEDERAL LAW SO TIGHTLY THAT WE
HAVE KICKED 67 THE MINNESOTANS OFF THE PROGRAM
BY FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW.
SO THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WE ARE NOT
IN COMPLIANCE. MINNESOTA IS ONE OF THE FIRST STATES TO
COME BACK INTO WORK REQUIREMENT
AFFECT AFTER THE RECESSION
AND SO I THINK
EVERYONE IS LOOKING AT MINNESOTA AND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE AND WE ARE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A QUESTION THERE WERE NOT
IN
COMPLIANCE REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN; THE QUESTION IS
NOT WHETHER-WITH THIS LANGUA
GE DOES IT COULD INTRODUCE A
WORK REQUIREMENT TO MORE COUNTIES AT A LOWER STANDARD
SO WHERE IS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
WORK REQUIREMENT IN COUNTIES THAT OF LOWER THAN
10% UNEMPLOYMENT
THIS LANGUAGE COULD POSSIBLY OPEN UP A COUNTY
THAT HAS MORE THAN
30% UNEMPLOYMENT TO A
WORK REQUIREMENTS.
SO IT DOES PROVIDE
SOME DISCRETION THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW
AND PROVIDES THIS NEW KIND
OF COMPLEXITY
AND REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN I DO HAVE THE LIST
OF COUNTIES
>> SARGENT-AT-ARMS: ARCHIVIST OF THE PAIGE EITHER TO
THE MINNESOTANS WITH LOST FOOD
BY COUNTY JUST THAT FIRST YEAR FOLLOWING THE WORK REQUIREMENT WHETHER THIS ISN'T JUST AN URBAN SUBURBAN ISSUE. THIS IS TOUCH EVERY PART OF THE STATE AND HAS TOUCHED MOST COUNTIES
AND SO
MOST OF YOU TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST ACCESS
TO STOP UNDER THIS
WORK REQUIREMENT. >>
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN:. SO
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON SHE SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT
YOU ARE GOING TO EVEN LOWER THE
STANDARD LOWER THE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT. IS THAT YOUR INTENT WITH THIS BILL?
>> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THAT IS NOT MY INTENT AND I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH
AS THIS MOVES ON TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE. >> REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN: ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> CHAIR DEAN: OKAY COULD
WRAP UP MR.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN >> REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN: ONE MORE QUESTION FOR THE
MS. WEBSTER. I THINK YOU INDICATED
67;000 YOU DECIDED AGAIN. WELL
I'M SURE SOME OF
THOSE PEOPLE ARE IN MY COUNTY OF THE
67;000 AND PROBABLY A COUPLE THOUSAND. I DON'T KNOW BUT IN THE ALMOST
50 COUNTIES THAT ARE UNDER THE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT I JUST DON'T SEE PEOPLE STARVING
TO DEATH THEY ARE GETTING FOOD.
I MEAN; ANYWHERE I'VE GONE IN
THE STATE
WHETHER METRO OR RURAL AND I DO TRAVEL AROUND A LOT;
67;000
ARE NOT LAYING OUT IN THE STREET STARVING TO DEATH.
WE HAVE A
VERY PRIVATE FOOD SHELF. I DONATE 28
AND I THINK THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE
CHARITABLE SECTOR ARE STEPPING UP WHERE NEEDED TO FILL
THAT NEED.
>
> TESTIFIER: THERE ARE 3 MILLION VISITS TO FOOD SHELVES IN THE STATE GET ONE AND EVERY EIGHT MINUTES.
THERE'S ENORMOUS NEED IN THE STATE AND
HUNGER BECAUSE MINNESOTA
IS A PRIDEFUL PLACE AND PRIDEFUL POPULATION PEOPLE ARE NOT STARVING ON
THE STREETS BUT THAT IS NOT AN INDICATION OF WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'RE SKIPPING MEA
LS SO THEIR CHILDREN CAN EAT WITH HER KNOW WHERE THE NEXT MEAL IS COMING FROM
I'M SURE THAT IT'S NOT YOUR INTENTION TO EVER WISH THAT UPON ANYONE
IN YOUR COMMUNITY OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
SIMPLY SAID; THE
PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE
CHARITABLE SECTOR CANNOT PROVIDE THE KIND
OF ASSISTANCE THAT
SETS THESE LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE BECAUSE
FOOD ASSISTANCE REGARDLESS OF THE
GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION THOSE AARE ONLY 5% OF WHAT
FEEDS THE THREE MULLEN PEOPLE VISIT
FOOD SHELVES MOST
OF THOSE MOST OF THE FUNDING FOR THAT
COMES FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. >>
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENHAGEN: ONE BRIEF RESPONSE. NO QUESTION.
>> CHAIR DEAN: THEN WE HAVE
LOEFFLER;
SCHULTZ ETC. >> REPRESENTATIVE
GRUENHAGEN: YOU MADE MY POINT OF HAVING SERVED ON THE SCHOOL BOARD AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES WE
HAVE GREAT BUSINESSES;
GREAT INDIVIDUALS. THEY WILL STOP I'VE SEEN HIM STEP UP TO MEET
THAT NEED. WE HAVE A
GENEROUS STATE IN MINNESOTA AND I THINK
THEIR MONEY INTO IT MORE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY
THAN WHAT A GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM DOES.
>> TESTIFIER: I DISAGREE.
>> CHAIR DEAN: MS. MORIARTY WE'RE GONNA GO TO REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER >> REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER:
I ALWAYS BELIEVE WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT WE ARE PASSING A WHO'S REALLY AFFECTED AND WHAT THE MEASURES ARE IN THE CODE OF
REGULATIONS AND
THANK YOU MS. WEBSTER FOR HANDING THAT OUT
-REFERS TO AREA. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT COUNTIES.
THE BILL BEFORE US REFERS
TO REGIONS AND DEED TENDS TO REACT
TO REGIONS IN WHICH THEY METRO IS ONE
BIG BLOCK IT OVER HALF THE
STATES POPULATION IS IN ONE REGION.
IF THAT'S TRUE THAT WE ARE GOING TO
DEED REGIONS I SUSPECT NO ONE IN THE METRO AREA WOULD EVER
MAKE AN EXCEPTION EVEN THOUGH
WE HAVE AREAS OF REALLY
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
IT'S DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH
AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREAS LIKE
NORTH MINNEAPOLIS IN INNER-CITY
SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS THERE'S A
MAJOR DISINVESTMENT BY EMPLOYERS AND PEOPLE
ARE TRANSIT DEPENDENT AND THEIR ABILITY TO GET TO EMPLOYMENT OUT IN THE SUBURBS IT
IS LIMITED AND YET EVEN IF
YOU HAVE AVERAGES ACROSS
HENNEPIN COUNTY 23% OF THE STATE
POPULATION LIVES IN HENNEPIN TO THOSE AREAS OF HIGH CONCENTRATED
UNEMPLOYMENT NEVER SHOW
UP EVEN IF WE USE A
COUNTY MEASURE. WHAT I
REALLY LIKEREPRESENTATIVE FENTON TO CLARIFIED IS IT YOUR INTENT TO GO WITH THE DEED
REGIONS? IS IT YOUR INTENT TO GO
WITH COUNTIES? COULD WE GO WITH
ZIP CODES? WHAT IS THE
FEDERAL EXPECTATION IN DEFINING AN
AREA? BECAUSE THHE
FEDS REGULATION IS AREA SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD
SOME DISCRETION. >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THE FIELD DEALS WITH THE
REGIONS AND MANY OF THE COUNTIES THAT ARE LISTED ACTUALLY ARE IN
CERTAIN REGIONS. BEING IN
ROLE MINNESOTA. IT'S FEDERAL LAW
STATES DEALS WITH THE REGIONS.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR. I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL ON THAT BASIS BECAUSE THERE'S NO RECENT YOU
SHOULD PUT HALF THE STATES POPULATION IN ONE REGION AND EXPECT THEM TO
-THEY WOULD NEVER MAKE THE THRESHOLD I SUSPECT
THAT WHERE WE
HAVE COUNTIES NO OFFENSE TO SMALL COUNTIES BUT WE HAVE COUNTIES WITH LESS THAN
10;000 PEOPLE AND WE HAVE REGIONS PROBABLY THAT LESS
THAN 30;000. THAT'S FINE BUT IT
DOESN'T GIVE
EQUAL ACCESS TO THE SAME KIND OF CONSIDERATION
IF YOU'RE IN HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT ZONE IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA. IF THIS GOES BEYOND THE
FEDERAL EXPECTATION I THINK WE NEED TO
REALLY
RETHINK THIS BECAUSE IT'S REALLY UNFAIR TO PEOPLE
IN THE
HALF OF THE STATE I LIVE IN THE
METRO AREA THAT THEY ARE PUT INTO ONE REGION THAT
TAKES IN ALL SEVEN COUNTIES IF NOT
THE STATISTICAL METRO AREA AND I DON'T WORK IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUT I'M NOT SURE BUT
I'M SURE IT'S ONLY
SEVEN COUNTIES. >>
CHAIR DEAN: REPRESENTATIVE FENTON >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THE FEDERAL LAW DOES ALLOW FOR COUNTY OR REGIONS SO WE DO
ALLOW SOME
FLEXIBILITY THERE. >>
CHAIR DEAN: REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER >>
REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER: I DO NOT SEE THAT IN A COURT OF REGULATIONS BUT I THINK YOUR BILL COULD BE CHANGED TO
TARGET IT
TO A REASONABLE SIZE POPULATION BECAUSE IT SHOULD
NOT BE UNEQUAL ACCESS
UNEQUAL TREATMENT
DEPENDING UPON WHAT PARTICULAR PART
OF THE STATE YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE IN.
WHETHER YOU ARE IN A POPULATION
SPARSE AREA OR REALLY DENSE
METROPOLITAN AREA. WE SHOULD
BE TREATING
ALL RECIPIENTS THE SITE AND WE SHOULD USE A
SIMILAR STANDARD
ON UNEMPLOYMENT AND YOUR BILL
RIGHT NOW IS
[INAUDIBLE] SO I'M AFRAID
IT WILL TAKE THE SEVEN COUNTY METRO AREA AND
REALLY UNFAIRLY
PUNISH PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT
ZONES OF METROPOLITAN AREAS.
>> CHAIR
DEAN: REPRESENTATIVE SCHULTZ >> REPRESENTATIVE SCHULTZ: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR TO BE READY
LOEFFLER'S POINT; IS A LEWIS
COUNTY
2400 INDIVIDUALS WERE KICKED OFF AT THEIR
STOP BENEFITS GET IN HENNEPIN COUNTY
OVER 16;000 IN RAMSEY
COUNTY OVER 8600. SO THIS IS-I'M
REALLY SHOCKED THAT
67;000 INDIVIDUALS LOST THEIR
STOP BENEFITS AND I
DON'T REMEMBER SEEING A BIG STORY AND
2014-2015 COULD
SO I'M GLAD YOU'RE BRINGING THIS TO
US TONIGHT TH
AT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS BUT THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM IN THIS WAY WE HAVE SO MUCH FOOD
INSECURITY TODAY. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THESE BENEFITS.
MY CONCERN WITH THE BILL IS THAT
FEDERAL LAW TAKES PRECEDENCE
OVER STATE
STATUTE AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THIS
BECOMES LAW ARE WE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO VERY EXPENSIVE LITIGATION?
HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THAT EXPENSE? >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THE
STOP BENEFITS ARE
COMPLETELY-IT'S 100%
FEDERAL FUNDING
>> REPRESENTATIVE SCHULTZ:
I GUESS THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS THAT
IF DEED MAKES A DECISION
THAT VIOLATES
FEDERAL LAW MAYBE ONE OF THE TESTIFIERS CAN
ANSWER THIS ARE WE GOING TO BE SUBJECT
TO LITIGATION? >> CHAIR DEAN: I CAN
ANSWER THAT FROM OUR
PRESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE SCHULTZ BUT WE COULD BE SUED
FOR ANY REASON FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS IF
THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL JOB TO REPRESENT THE STATE
WITH LITIGATION AS A
RESULT OF ANY LAWS THAT WE DO PASS AS
A LEGISLATURE AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CARRY ON OUR
FISCAL NOTES WITHIN
OUR JURISDICTIONS BUT IT
IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A COST BUT THE STATE DOES
-MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
TO DO WITH ANY LEGISLATION THAT
WE PASTORED >> REPRESENTATIVE SCHULTZ: A THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
I'M JUST WORRIED THIS WILL MAKE IT MORE
LIKELY COULD >> CHAIR DEAN:
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO >>
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR JUST TO THE POINT
SO WE CAN BE SUED ANYTIME AS A MUSTARD WE BETTER FOUNDED
THAN OTHERS. JUST CRAZY MS. WEBSTER
CAN COMMENT ON THE STRENGTH OF
A LAWSUIT WITH
A STATE IS ATTEMPTING
TO PREEMPT FEDERAL LAW REGARDING THIS?
>> TESTIFIER:
WE HAVE SOME LEGAL AID ATTORNEYS
IN OUR OFFICE WHO ARE
VERY CONCERNED BUT THIS LANGUAGE AND
HAVE SAID THAT'S APSLEY CHALLENGE IT WILL.
I CAN TALK
ABOUT WHETHER THE MAYORS
OF THOSE MERITS OF THOSE CASES WOULD BE IN THE
EXPENSES BUT WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS
IS TAKING
STATE LAW FAR AFIELD FOR MORE FEDERAL LAW IS.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT
COMPLIANCE AND THE LIKELIHOOD
OF THE STATE TOWN OUT
OF COMMANDS WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM
DHS HERE MAY BE MS.
SUMMERFIELD PERHAPS COULD COMMENT THAT WOULD BE OKAY ON THE BILL?
KIND OF
THAT PROCESS? >> CHAIR DEAN: WELCOME TO
THE COMMITTEE. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PROCEED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY. >> TESTIFIER:
JENNIFER SOMMERFELD LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES. YES; THE STATE IS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH FEDERAL LAW. WE FILE WAIVER APPLICATIONS
EVERY YEAR.. I THINK OUR NEXT APPLICATION PERIOD IS
SEPTEMBER 30. WE OPERATE UNDER ONE OF
THE THREE
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS SO WE LOOK AT
DESIGNATION OF AREAS THAT ARE
-LET ME HAVE TO DIG IT OUT HERE-THEY ARE 20%
ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR
24 MONTH PERIOD SO THERE'S
DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT STATES
CAN USE FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS AND THAT'S THE ONE WE USE. >> REPRESENTATIVE PINTO:
IS I'M LOOKING AT THE BILL
AND TAKE ME A LITTLE WHILE TO
SORT MY WAY THROUGH THIS BUT AS I
UNDERSTAND FROM REPRESENTATIVE FENTON THE GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WHO IS ELIGIBLE
TO RECEIVE STOP BENEFITS IS
ABLE TO
WE CAN CONTINUE DOING IT I SEE
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON NODDING HER HEAD TO
AS I READ THE BILL I'D LIKE TO GET MS.
SUMMERFIELD'S COMMENT ON THIS AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FENTON'S PARAGRAPH A TALKS ABOUT THE
FEDERAL STANDARD AND MAKING SURE MEETING THE
FEDERAL STANDARD
FAIR ENOUGH. THE PROGRAM
PARAGRAPH B LOOK LIKE IT CREATES A NEW STATE STANDARD
THAT
WOULD REQUIRE ON TOP OF THE
FEDERAL STANDARD THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE DEED COMMISSIONER VERIFIES
THE LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS MAKE THE
WORK REQUIREMENT UNTENABLE REGARDLESS OF WHAT
FEDERAL LAW HAS TO SAY
ABOUT THAT. SO WE HAVE TO
ANYBODY RIGHT NOW IS ONE OF THOSE COUNTIES THAT CURRENTLY RECEIVING A WAIVER THERE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO
TEST BY FEDERAL LAW THAT IT DOES NOW PLUS HAVE TO SATISFY THIS NEW PROVISIO
N BEING ADDED BY REPRESENTATIVE FENTON THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO MY READING
THAT CORRECTLY? THE BOSS MS.
SUMMERFIELD FIRST.
>> TESTIFIER: I THINK
THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE TERM
UNTENABLE MEANS. SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON TO UNDERSTAND I THINK WE HAVE TAKEN THIS TO ME THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE WOULD BE VERIFYING THAT OUR APPLICATION FOLLOW
FEDERAL LAW WITHIN THE COUNTIES AND THE TRIBES AS WE DO
THEM NOW. IF THIS BILL IS INTENDED
TO CHANGE THE ECONOMIC
REGIONS WE LOOK AT FROM COUNTIES
AND TRIBES
TO BROADER REGIONS THAT WE STILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE FENTON TO
FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT REGION MEANS.
SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE CAN WORK ON WITH REPRESENTATIVE
FENTON OVERTIME TO CLARIFY IN
THE BILL.
>> REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: I
SHOULD LET
REPRESENTATIVE FENTON RRESPOND TO THAT
CONCERN THAT IT CREATES ON TOP OF THE FEDERAL WOMAN IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT I SEE
IS AN ADDITIONAL SAVER COMMENT ON TOP OF
THAT. REPRESENTATIVE FENTON IN MY READING I CORRECTLY AS FAR AS THIS
? >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: IT
IS A STOP TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSIONER OF DEED IS WORKING
WITH THE HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE PINTO: I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT IS
NOT CURRENTLY-DOES NOT CURRENTLY
A FORMAL REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE NOT ONLY WORKING TOGETHER
I'M PRESUMING THEY HAVE TO COLLABORATE TO FIGURE OUT THE EMPLOYMENT DATA BUT ACTUALLY BE THIS FORMAL VERIFICATION
WHETHER THE WORK REQU
IREMENT UNTENABLE WHAT THAT MEANS AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
IS NO WAY THAT COULD CAUSE MORE PEOPLE TO BE GETTING BENEFITS FOR FOOD
AND SNAP.
IF ANYTHING; IT WOULD STAY THE SAME OR CAUSE FEW
ER PEOPLE TO RECEIVE THOSE BENEFITS AND MORE THE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO BE
SUPPORTED BYTHE FOOD SHELVES WHICH WE'VE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM PEOPLE DOING IT
THAT ARE
ALREADY STRETCHED. SO I POSE THE BILL AS
CONSTRUCTED AND IT SEEMS TO ME WE ARE FULLY
IN COMPLIANCE
FROM EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID AND I'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING TO
THE CONTRARY. THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR >> CHAIR DEAN: THANK YOU
REPRESENTATIVE
PINTO. REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE >> REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE:
THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR.
MS. WEBSTER; SO
THIS IS THE AREA THAT YOU
DEAL WITH. YOU ARE SOMEWHAT OF AN EXPERT IN
THIS AREA?
>> TESTIFIER: YES. I'M A NERD IN THIS AREA.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: SO WHEN YOU ARE TELLING US YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BILL
AND THAT YOU HAVE
CONCERNS WITH IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T
UNDERSTAND IT WE CAN PRETTY MUCH ASSUME THAT
OTHER PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE
AND DHS WOULD ALSO TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING IT? WITHOUT BE A
REASONABLE ASSUMPTION?
>> TESTIFIER:
THAT'S REASONABLE. IT'S NOT BECAUSE I
HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO UNDERSTAND I TALKED WITH T ADJUSTMENT ALSO ASKED
IF ANYTHING
ELSE NATIONALLY IS THERE A PLACE THIS IS
SHOWN UP AND THE OTHER NATIONAL EXPERTS ON SNAP HAVE NOT SEEN
THE STANDARD OR THE PHRASING
FOR SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING ANY OF US
REALLY KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE FENTON THAT'S KIND OF SCARY.
IF SOMEONE IS AN EXPERT AND DEALS WITH IT ALL THE TIME IS TELLING US SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT AND THAT
IT'S
CONFUSING THEN-THEN WE LOST
60;000 PEOPLE ALREADY OFF THE FOOD PROGRAM; THAT GIVES ME
GREAT PAUSE. I SEE FROM STUFF THAT SHE'S
HANDED OUT THAT BLUE EARTH COUNTY WHERE I AM FROM
HAS LOST 321 PEOPLE AND
MY WIFE SITS ON THE BOARD OF THE
ECHO FOOD SHELF IN MANKATO
AND I'M PROUD
TO SAY WHICH MY FATHER STARTED 30 YEARS AGO
AND I GET TO GO TO THEIR EVENTS EVERY
SO OFTEN AND EACH YEAR I HEAR THAT
THEY ARE SERVING MORE AND
MORE PEOPLE
AND THAT IT IS GETTING TOUGHER AND TOUGHER FOR
THEM TO MEET THE DEMAND. THAT ALSO
SCARES ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE
THEY'RE WORKING AS HARD AS
THEY CAN TO TRY TO MEET THE DEMAND
AND
EACH YEAR THE NUMBER GOES UP AND I THINK LAST YEAR THEY WERE DOING ABOUT 75 FAMILIES A
DAY AND THIS YEAR WAS UP
TO ABOUT 100 FAMILIES A
DAY AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM.
IF WE ARE NOW GOING INTO
UNCHARTED TERRITORY WHERE AN
EXPERT CANNOT DECIPHER THE
BILL THEN I'M AFRAID I CANNOT
SUPPORT THAT UNLESS WE CAN MAKE SOME
SORT OF ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO IT
GOING FORWARD.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THE BILL LAID OVER FOR OR TABLED UNTIL
WE CAN HAVE SOME
ASSURANCES THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE.
THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR >> CHAIR DEAN: THANK
YOU. REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY >>
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE TESTIMONY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES IN A
REMINDS ME ONCE A BILL BECOMES A LAW THAT WE CAN GO BACK TO THE AUTHOR
FOR INTERPRETATION.
IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS NOW AND THIS WOULD BE COMING OUT RIGHT NOW WE WOULD BE CREATING
WHAT FEELS TO BE LIKE AN UNDEFINED LEVEL
OF BUREAUCRACY THAT COULD REALLY GET IN THE WAY OF SERVING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HUNGRY. I'M SURE THAT'S NOT
YOUR INTENTION BE REP
HE FENTON. IF I WERE IN YOUR SHOES I WOULD
BE DELETING PARAGRAPH B ALTOGETHER BECAUSE
IT'S CONFUSING AND
I CAN'T HEAR FROM EITHER THE TESTIFIERS OR
FROM YOU WHY IT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN HERE AND I
THINK REPRESENTATIVE
CONSIDINE OFFERS YOU A NICE PATHWAY IN
ELGIN PATHWAY TO LAY ON THE TABLE SO YOU CAN CONSIDER WHAT
THAT MEANS; BUT IF THE BILL ACTUALLY MOVES TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE I HOPE
THAT BEFORE WE SEE THIS AGAIN ON THE FLOOR
THAT THIS SECTION IS DELETED OR CLEANED UP SO IT'S INTENTION IS
CLEAR BECAUSE
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HECKUVA DEBATE
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE IF IT LOOKS
LIKE THIS IS I
DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS AND NOBODY
CAN CLARIFY FOR US WITH THIS MEANS
I THINK IT PUT
PEOPLES IN HARM'S WAY AND AGAIN BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT BUT IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE HEADED THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
HOUSE THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
DAY DEBATE OVER ONE SIMPLE PARAGRAPH THAT NEEDS TO GET CLEANED UP.
>> CHAIR DEAN: ALL RIGHT;
T
HANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY AND WITH THAT; WE ARE AT THE END OF THE QUESTIONS
FOR MEMBERS. IS THERE ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE
TO TESTIFY ON HOUSE ON HOUSE
FILE 3612? SEEIN
G NONE; REPRESENTATIVE FENTON FINAL WORD >> REPRESENTATIVE FENTON: THANK YOU. MY INTENT IS NOT TO
BE RIGHT
OR VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO ENFORCE
IT AND AS THIS BILL MOVES ON
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK
WITH EVERYBODY TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE'S A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING AND CHANGE THINGS IF WE HAVE TO BUT I DO
BELIEVE THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMISSIONER OF DEED AND
DHS TO WORK TOGETHER ON
THIS ISSUE SO THAT WE
CAN PRESERVE THIS PROGRAM FOR THOSE WHO REALLY NEED IT. SO THAT IS MY
ONLY INTENT.
THANK YOU. >> CHAIR DEAN:
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY. >>
REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: THANK YOU;
MR. CHAIR. I REQUEST A ROLL CALL >> CHAIR DEAN:
ROLLCALL HAVING BEEN REQUESTED THERE WILL BE
A ROLLCALL.
THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL.
>> STAFF: DEAN AYE ALL
RIGHT--MURPHY NAY URDAHL
AND NAY BACKER AYE CONSIDINE
NAY FISCHER--FRANSON AYE
GRUENHAGEN AYE HALEY AYE
HALVERSON NAY HAMILTON AYE
HEINTZEMAN AYE JOHNSON AYE
LIEBLING NAY LOEFFLER NAY
LOHMER AYE LOONAN AYE
PEARSON CONNECTED PINTO NAY
SCHOMACKER AYE SCHULTZ NAY
ZERWAS AYE >> CHAIR DEAN: THERE BEEN
13 AYES AND EIGHT NAYS THE
MOTION PREVAILS AND HOUSE FILE 3612
For more infomation >> Entrevista con los bailarines de Dancing with the Stars | Un Nuevo Día | Telemundo - Duration: 7:28. 
For more infomation >> State police investigating body found off I-95 in Canton - Duration: 0:56. 
For more infomation >> Driver dead after crashing into toll booth - Duration: 1:03. 
For more infomation >> LẦN ĐẦU DÙNG THỬ TÍNH NĂNG Animoji TRÊN iPhone X ft. Song Thư, Haketu (Chuối Thí Nghiệm) - Duration: 5:58. 
For more infomation >> Do not cheat anyone else - Vijay vacates Neelankarai house | kalakkal cinema | Thalapathy | Vijay62 - Duration: 4:14. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét