House Agriculture & Consumer Affairs Committee, February 18, 2026

Transcript

178 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:14:14

   Good morning, everyone. Uh, welcome to day 20. Good morning. We're halfway there. And, uh, thank you everyone for being here early this morning, uh, to the Agriculture, uh, Committee and, and Cons- Consumer Affairs. To, uh, start us off, I'm gonna ask, uh, Representative Cameron to, uh, open us with a word of prayer. What number? 28.

2. 0:14:42

   Let's bow. Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us together today, and thank you for this day. And, and, uh, thank you for everyone to being here. Uh, Lord, give us the wisdom to make good decisions for the state of Georgia. Bless those who are speaking and the, and us who are hearing, and, uh, help us through this meeting and on through the day, uh, for our dinner tonight, uh, and give us good fellowship. In Jesus' name, amen.

3. 0:15:04

   Amen.

4. 0:15:08

   Uh, thank you. A couple of things in your, uh, folder. Um, uh, our, our dinner is tonight. Uh, those of you that can, uh, make it, uh, look forward to, uh, you being there, uh, tonight at Wisteria for our joint, uh, uh, ag and, um, Game, Fish and Parks dinner. So should be good. Also, uh, peanut dinner has been set March 2nd. You see that, take that with you.

5. 0:15:38

   Uh, and course, uh, peanut butter and jelly day the following day. But, uh, Georgia Peanut Commission, uh, gives us their annual report at this, uh, peanut dinner, so hope you can, uh, be at that. Um, another little bit of housekeeping. Um, HB 1195 will not be heard today. The author's still working, uh, on, uh, on that bill and asked to delay it, uh, for a week, um, so. Also, we had scheduled at one time SB 33, Senator Kilpatrick's bill on hemp.

6. 0:16:14

   That has also been moved back. Uh, still working on the details of that bill, so look for that next week. Uh, in anticipation of trying to get through some bills, um, I, uh, uh, formed a subcommittee. Uh, many of you are on that. They're gonna meet later today and look at some bills that, um, I th- I really thought we wouldn't have time to do, but, um, and, and, um... So today all we're gonna have is HB 947.

7. 0:16:47

   Um, but those of you on the subcommittee, uh, be meeting with, uh, Vice Chairman, um, Cox, uh, going through those, uh, bills, uh, today. So look at those close. So, um, Chairman Momtahan, HB 947, you've been working mighty hard. Lots of changes to this bill. So welcome back to committee, and I'd really like, uh, for you to take a little time here since we got plenty of time, uh, to go through this bill and, uh, kind of explain to our committee what's in this bill and what's not in this bill.

8. 0:17:26

   And, uh, uh, I'm sure they might have some questions. And, um, so thank you for all your work, uh, with many parties on this, uh, bill to try to, uh, perfect it. So I'll turn it over to you, and let's see what, uh... If you could, uh, let us know what, uh, LC number you're working off of.

9. 0:17:49

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, members of the committee, I have before you LC 46, 1440S. This should be the correct version here. Um, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, last week I came before the committee and gave y'all an in-depth analysis of what the language and the mechanics of this bill, and how, uh, this bill would operate and lie. And so we went through line by line and, and I think the opportunity there was for members to come to me, uh, and for stakeholders to also come to me and talk through the bill in issues that, uh, maybe these folks who are experts in SNAP, uh, how this could affect them, while keeping the policy goals of this bill true, and that is to make sure that we don't have, uh, impacts to the state's SNAP budget or the state budget due to our SNAP error rate.

10. 0:18:49

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna walk you through the changes of what's, what the difference is between this week, uh, and last week. And then if we want to go and delve back into the bill, we can, uh, and we'll have, uh, a, a, a full work through there if you'd like. On lines 33 through 53, we have implemented stronger fraud investigation authority for DHS. The bill now updates Georgia's fraud subpoena statute so that the inspector general leads SNAP-related subpoena requests.

11. 0:19:24

    Um, and this just strengthens their investigative authority and aligns enforcement with the state's Fraud Oversight Office. That is a change, uh, from last week's bill. Number two, it protects the state from lawsuits. The substitute clarifies that the bill does not create a private right of action against the state. This ensures that the laws set policy without exposing the state to new litigation risk. Number three, uh, on lines 70 through 95, the original version required immediate changes, and after talking with stakeholders, we put an off-ramp here.

12. 0:20:03

    So the substitute phases in major verification, so those verifications for folks who have net zero income or report zero income. Uh, those c- Multii or biannual checks or even more quarterly checks, uh, will not come into effect until, uh, January 1st, 2029. And so that gives the agency some time to start hiring, getting the staff that they need so that they can meet this mandate, uh, by 2029.

13. 0:20:36

    Now, that's something I heard from many members, I heard from, from stakeholders, and we wanna make sure we implemented that. Guys, the impetus of this bill is to make sure that we have a working SNAP program for families across the state. It's not to cut benefits. It's to make sure that more families have more nutritious food. And if we can make sure that our agency is operating at its peak efficiency, then we're gonna make sure that, that those families have the support and nutrition that they need.

14. 0:21:10

    Number four, it adds legislative oversight during that rollout. And so I think it's very important for members to know that while we are giving them this off-ramp, it also requires them to report back to us. I know that you weren't meeting your deadlines per the bill, but where are you at now? Have you made progress to make sure you're in compliance with House Bill 947? And I think that is a responsible compromise for this committee to make and for this general assembly to make as we move forward, uh, with DHS.

15. 0:21:46

    Thank you, sweetie.

16. 0:21:53

    Uh, number five, we've got, uh, this is gonna strengthen inter-agency data-sharing. This lines 156 through 168. This compels state agencies that they must cooperate with DHS when eligibility data is needed. This helps ensure that this verification system that we have in this bill actually works. That was some questions that I got from committee members here. Uh, they wanted to make sure that who's giving the data and how often.

17. 0:22:25

    This compels those state agencies. Something that I found out through this progr- through this process is that DHS is a super agency, meaning that they should readily available have these reports. Uh, and so we just further clarify that in this bill. And, and we're happy to support them 'cause this program has to work for Georgia families. It's so important. Number six, uh, to the gentleman from Gainesville, uh, this is the federal compliance with disaster SNAP.

18. 0:22:58

    I think you had a question, uh, about that. That's on lines 232 to 233. So this allows for, uh, no changes to disaster SNAP in the case of emergency. Uh, if, if there is a special funding for hot prepared foods or waivers otherwise, then those would be, uh, allowed under that, uh, under that disaster SNAP. You'll also see, and I'm wanna, I'm gonna flip you back a little bit, on 165 to 167, there was a question about good cause exemptions.

19. 0:23:32

    And so what does that mean? Under the one big beautiful bill, uh, there is a work requirement for SNAP benefits today. And so in that, the DHS can issue a waiver, and that waiver could be for somebody who's sick, who's in the hospital, who can't meet those, those work requirements. This gives that, on an individual basis, the ability for DHS to give a good cause waiver for those folks that are sick who need the help, and despite their illness, still need to provide nutrition for their family.

20. 0:24:04

    Those are the changes to the bill, Mr. Chairman, uh, and members. And I yield for questions. I know we've got a few people here who, uh, who are obviously DHS and other folks are here. Uh, so if you have questions, I'm sure they'd be happy to take those as well.

21. 0:24:20

    Um, I'll, um-

22. 0:24:22

    We've got a f- a few questions from the, um, committee right now, if you'll, um, be willing to ask, uh, answer those.

23. 0:24:29

    Absolutely.

24. 0:24:30

    And, uh, then we can move to a couple other, um, groups that have signed up to, uh, speak. I'll call them up, uh, as soon as the committee, and then, uh, we'll have to the committee to ask more questions later on as well. Um, um, Representative Lewis-Ward.

25. 0:24:48

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

26. 0:24:50

    Good morning.

27. 0:24:51

    In the case where, um, a family cannot, um, provide documentation that they are a citizen, and there's children in the household, and the benefits are not continued for that second month, how do the children get the, um, food that they need?

28. 0:25:10

    So under this bill, we only contemplate citizenship as, uh, applicable under federal law. So we don't set eligibility, uh, within the SNAP. We can change the verification, uh, you know, timeline, per se. We can, we can do that here in this bill, right? But we can't change the factors that makes a person eligible, right? We're, we're not, um... We can verify their eligibility, and that's what kinda adds to or, or creates an error rate. But we can't say, for example, we couldn't say, "If you're a non-citizen, you just can't," right?

29. 0:25:45

    Because some certain non-citizens under this federal program would be eligible. Now, those classifications are made by the federal government, not by us.

30. 0:25:54

    So the verification process does not include providing documentation that you're, um, an immigrant or not? What? Does not pr- does not require you to provide, um, documentation of your immigration status?

31. 0:26:09

    It may, uh, per, per federal law, right? So if those documents that are required by federal law for us to make sure that, then yes, they would be required.

32. 0:26:17

    Mm-hmm.

33. 0:26:18

    But that isn't something that- Georgia handles. Does that make sense? We, we collect those documents, but ultimately USDA and the federal government are the ones who run the program, and they set those eligibility requirements. Okay, so Georgia will have the recipients come in, do the verification, and those documents are sent to the federal government for... We process those- Right ... under federal guidelines, right? So my question is- Yeah ... once we don't have the documents, the family cannot submit the documents. They don't f- they can't find them, let's just say.

34. 0:26:50

    They can't find the documents. And so Georgia says, "Okay, you did not substantiate your eligibility. Your verification did not go through." How do the children continue to receive benefits? Yeah. The, the applicant needs to make timely application. A- a- and I think that's important, right? If they aren't... A- and I think what you're saying is, what is compelling a person to, you know, file application in a timely and responsible manner?

35. 0:27:21

    The fact that they need to feed their children. Um, if it were my children, I'd be filing the application if, if they had a lawful application. So if they're here and, uh, for whatever reason, I, I, I could... I'm trying to maybe contemplate the situation in which a lawful citizen who's duly entitled to these benefits would not file the information timely. Well, they just can't find the documents.

36. 0:27:51

    Okay. Um, would you- We're gonna move on to some other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Stinson. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I know it's in here, but I can't seem to find it at the moment, uh, the section, uh, on the, relating to the chip being on the EBT card. Yeah, sure. Because that was, all of this is very important to me, but that part was extremely important because I know that would kinda help eliminate some of the, um, um, fraud, you know, 'cause recipients getting to the grocery store and realizing that their benefits are no longer on their cards.

37. 0:28:28

    Yeah. So that, that chip would kinda help. That- Line 176. Okay. Well then, so great. That's what I wanted. Thank you, Chairman. So it's still there. All that is still good, right? Absolutely. So, so- Okay ... you know, fraud is a major portion of this bill. Uh-huh. And fraud isn't, um, always by the person who receives it. Sometimes we have- That's right ... bad actors. Um, you know, we have cases that are pending right now where people- Right ... are hacking the system- Right ... and taking people's benefits. And so- Yes ... anything that we can do to reduce that fraud- Mm-hmm ...

38. 0:28:58

    uh, and make sure that more families have more nutritious food- Right ... is, is very important. Yes. 'Cause I had several constituents reach out to me last year about it, so I'm glad that that part- Oh ... is in this bill. Thank you. Yes, very important. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to a few other, um, people that signed up to, um, to speak. Uh, does the department wanna have something to say, um, Regina? Y'all are not signed up, but, uh, I know you've been working, uh, with the author of this bill for the last few weeks.

39. 0:29:30

    And, uh- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, uh, we appreciate Representative Momtahan's, um, uh, engagement. I, you know, I didn't realize it was gonna be so many hours of my time when I walked in last week, between last week and this week, but I've enjoyed seeing him and spending some time with him. But we don't have any, uh, comment on the bill. We will, of course, implement what, um, what is the will of the general assembly and, um, administer this federal program despite the limitations that Commissioner Bros outlined last week.

40. 0:30:04

    So we appreciate his, uh, appreciate his willingness to work. Thank you, and I appreciate you and your department and, um, um, Director Bost, uh, all, uh, working with author, uh, for that. So, um, also, um, well, we'll move on. Couple more speakers. Um, uh, Angela Holland, would you like to, uh, from your, uh, group, uh, Convenience Store Association, um, comment, uh, on this bill?

41. 0:30:35

    Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Angela Holland, serve as the president of the Georgia Association Convenience Stores, and we very much appreciated working with, uh, Representative Momtahan on the changes and, um, making it so as to that, that it's gonna be easy for retailers to implement. And we've worked with a large coalition of folks, and appreciate all the, the time and the effort that's gone into it and the will of the committee. And I will answer any questions if you'd like. Has anybody got questions of, uh, uh, Angela?

42. 0:31:05

    Okay. Um, I s- The donuts are being delivered, just FYI. Okay. They can find you in there any room if they got some questions. Um, my friend Kathy Kazava, would you like to, uh, like a comment from your organization, uh, t- tell the group a little bit of what your thoughts are? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. My name is Kathy Kazava, and I'm the president of the Georgia Food Industry Association. And what Angela does for the convenience stores, I do for the supermarkets. So we say from Slurpee to superstore, we got you covered.

43. 0:31:37

    So my membership includes, um, the IGAs, the Piggly Wigglys, the Quality Foods, the Krogers, the Publixes, the Walmarts across the state. So right now we have 1.4 million Georgians, that's one in eight Georgians, that receive food stamps, um, SNAP benefits. And so it's very, very important for us because coming in the grocery store, that's where the major portion of your, of your SNAP dollars and your res- your constituents' SNAP dollars are spent. So we are very interested in working in anything we can, everything we can do to prevent fraud.

44. 0:32:08

    Um, it's horrible that some of our customers, your constituents, are having their benefits stolen. So we do everything we can, working closely with the department, to put in the right technology to ensure that we can, um, monitor and respectfully take those benefits and, um-

45. 0:32:28

    Take, take care of them. Take care of what, what needs to happen, and get your, your customers and, or your recipients the, the food that they need. So right now, I'm working with a lot of different states across the country and watching what they're doing. And in Alabama, I know they're going towards the EBT, going from the magstripe to the, um, chip technology. And Representative, as you so likely s- s- well said, um, that is something that needs to happen. So, um, we've been working with the department to talk to them about what, what our retailers, especially in the border states, are already doing.

46. 0:33:01

    And yes, we are having to upgrade our systems to take that chip and PIN technology. We absolutely feel it's very, very important to do so. So again, we are absolutely on board. I also wanna thank, um, Chairman Momtahan. He's been wonderful to work with. He has called me exhausting because I've been in his office, oh, I don't know, so ma- we've spent so many hours together on this bill. But I just want to thank him for all of his support in working with us. And again, if you ever have questions on the food industry, supermarket industry, um, you, you know where to find me.

47. 0:33:33

    And thank you so much.

48. 0:33:36

    Uh, thank you, Kathy.

49. 0:33:37

    Any questions for-

50. 0:33:37

    Thank you for your work on, on this. Uh, has anybody got a particular question for her? Uh, Representative Stinson.

51. 0:33:44

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathy, thank you. Um, is there anything that we need to be aware of that we can share with our constituents, uh, about if they go into a supermarket that may not have, uh, the appropriate technology to help prevent fraud? Is there something they need to be aware of that you can share with us?

52. 0:34:01

    Um, yes, ma'am. I think it's important to encourage the recipient, your con- your recipients to lock their cards. Right now, the department has invested in a technology so that the customers are able to lock their cards in between transactions. Unfortunately, it's just not happening very much, so that's why I'm a firm believer and we need to go to the chip and PIN, which will help a lot. But right now, they have, um, again, and we've put signs up and we've encouraged all of our retailers to share that information with the customers, but I think that's something, as legislators, that you could do, is to encourage those customers from the minute those cards, the, as minute they get their, their, their benefits downloaded, that they need to lock that card immediately.

53. 0:34:42

    Also, they can be looking for, um, and I, and I know with, I've got a report here that I'll share with the chairman and he can get to everybody, the, um, from the US D- D-, um, Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. This just came out in 2026, and it's talking about what's going on with everything from fraud to cloning to skimming to their investigations, what they found in the technology that they have, um, that they've encouraged everybody to go to. So I'll get you that report, but, but right now, I think it's just locking, and I'm sure the department can weigh in on if there's anything else.

54. 0:35:13

    But, but that at this point is, is locking. And we're trying to educate our retailers, as I know Angela is as well, on what, um, if somebody places a skimmer in their, um, on their register systems, how to, how to recognize that and react quickly.

55. 0:35:29

    Okay. Thank you.

56. 0:35:30

    Okay. Thank you.

57. 0:35:32

    Um, Representative Taylor, have you, have you got a question or wanna wait? Okay. All right. We got two more, uh, speakers- Uh, for the bill, uh, w- uh, signed up. Um, um, Ms. Finch-Ford, uh, in-

58. 0:35:48

    Floyd.

59. 0:35:48

    Yeah, there you are.

60. 0:35:49

    Finch Floyd.

61. 0:35:49

    Um-

62. 0:35:50

    Is it working?

63. 0:35:50

    ... tell the committee a little bit who you are, who you're with.

64. 0:35:53

    Sure.

65. 0:35:54

    Um-

66. 0:35:54

    Absolutely. Um, good morning. Uh, my name is Ife Finch Floyd. I am the Director of Economic Justice at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. Um, we are a nonpartisan policy research and advocacy organization, and SNAP is one of the programs, um, under my purview. Um, so thank you so much, uh, Chair and committee for allowing me to testify, um, for this bill. And I've spoke, uh, to Representative Momtahan a, a few times, and I know we have a little bit of a difference of opinion, um, but, uh, wanted to share some of my thoughts and thinking, um, around this legislation.

67. 0:36:29

    And also wanna say thank you to the department. I know you guys are working very hard to lower error rates, um, and began to implement those policies and those changes, uh, soon as the federal, uh, legislation came down. So I know you guys have a lot on your plate and really appreciate your work as well. Um, I do, uh, and I shared this with the bill sponsor, I do have some concerns. I'm not gonna go through all of them just for sake of time. Um, but I did wanna address just some issues. So, and I b- I hope I'm s- uh, referencing, um, the correct line items.

68. 0:37:05

    Uh, uh, so forgive me if I'm not, but hopefully I can, uh, just kind of using the terms, you'll know where I'm, uh, what I'm talking about. So I believe lines 57 through 69 would prohibit the state from taking the option of using broad-based categorical eligibility. So this allows states a- across the country, um, to broaden eligibility, um, in a couple of ways. First, to, uh, uh, increase the income eligibility standard, um, above 130% of the poverty line.

69. 0:37:37

    That's kind of the, where the, the s- uh, general, uh, federal standard is, um, and it allows states to do that. Georgia does not take that option. Um, however, it also allows states to eliminate what is called the asset test, and this measures assets and resources that a household may have. That includes a vehicle, that, it might include savings, or even a, you know, a small death benefit, for example. Uh, so Georgia avoids potential payment errors, um, by keeping the income limit at 130%, um, and reduces payment errors by eliminating the asset test.

70. 0:38:18

    So we do not have an asset test at the moment. Um, so reviewing all of a household's resources can be a tedious and time-consuming process it would reduce the state's timeliness, which is also a critical and essential measure that the state has been working really hard on, um, to improve upon, because that is also something that the federal government, um, reviews, um, and holds states accountable to achieving prompt, a standard of promptness, um, in distributing benefits.

71. 0:38:52

    Um, um, so requiring a review of resources also opens the possibility for more errors. So I know the bill sponsor is very concerned and wants this bill to drive, help the agency drive down error rates. Um, I think in particular, this provision could either increase error rates or create, uh, several challenges to the state, um, that's already doing a lot of work, um, in driving down their error rates.

72. 0:39:22

    Um, so under this bill, if a client or a caseworker makes a mistake on identifying or determining the value of resources, that would be an error. Right now, since there is no asset test, there are no errors in understanding, in, in, in, um, considering resources. It also means additional training for caseworkers, and, um, because they haven't had to, uh, consider resources for years, for a long time.

73. 0:39:56

    Um, so this would be a new process, and they would have to be trained, um, for that. Um, and because this would be a new process, they would naturally make mistakes. Anybody learning something new would naturally make mistakes. Um, clients as well. All of a sudden, "Oh, wait, you need to know how the value of my car. I did not know you needed to know that before. That's something new. I'm not sure how much it costs. We have to figure this out." All of this would be new for both parties involved, right? And because of that, there could be more mistakes and therefore errors in that process.

74. 0:40:28

    Um, I believe, and the state can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, um, that, um, if there were no asset tests, um, the, a household would have, uh, with an elderly or disabled member, uh, the asset limit would be around forty-fi- uh, forty-five hundred. Again, please, uh, DHS, please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, and then for any other household, that would be three thousand dollars. So we're not talking about people having a lot of assets here under if we were to remove the asset limit, right? It would just be very, very narrow.

75. 0:41:01

    Um, but if we think about a car, right? We know a car is really essential in Georgia. It's essential for people to get to work. There are work requirements. Um, the, uh, the state would already exclude about, uh, forty-six hundred for the value of a car, right? But anything, if a car is valued more than that, anything more than that, right? So a halfway decent car could easily be valued more than that, then the family has to choose between keeping their car or, or getting food, right? Like, and that, that's, that's just a really concrete example, I think, why, why, uh, we need to make sure that we are maintaining, um, the categorical eligibility and specifically allowing the state to continue to opt out of, uh, looking at the asset limit.

76. 0:41:49

    Okay. We're, we're only-

77. 0:41:50

    Yeah

78. 0:41:50

    ... kind of a time. You got another one or two-

79. 0:41:53

    Uh, th- one more comment-

80. 0:41:53

    Okay

81. 0:41:53

    ... uh, Chair, and then I'll be done. I, I know I wasn't gonna be able to get through everything. Um, I think this is just more of a, um, just kind of aligning, uh, the, the bill with, um, what it, um, in s- different sections. I believe kind of in the beginning it acknowledges that, um, we have to consider, uh, citizenship and immigration status. Um, but if you go down to line one ninety-four and one ninety-five, um, around verifi- uh, uh, verifying citizenship, uh, I just wanna be clear, and I, I believe, um, the bill sponsor said this already, certain non-citizens are, um, eligible.

82. 0:42:32

    Those include, uh, those who are lawful permanent residents, uh, after a five-year waiting period, and people who are granted Cuban or Haitian entrance, um, and some other, um, uh, individuals with different statuses. It's just a clarification that if we're going to be verifying citizenship, we should, that, we need to als- I would just add just, uh, identifying immigration status as well, 'cause it just seems to leave that off and implies that, uh, certain immigrants, uh, wouldn't be eligible. And I would note also, I don't think it's necessary that we have to verify citizenship at application and recertification 'cause citizenship doesn't really change.

83. 0:43:09

    Once you've established that, that's, uh, that's gonna be the same again. So we wanna, again, lower, um, reduce the bur- uh, reduce, uh, burden on our eligibility staff, and I will happy to take any questions.

84. 0:43:21

    Thank you. Um, do you want... Uh, Chairman Ha- uh, Hagan, do you have a, um, question?

85. 0:43:28

    Yes.

86. 0:43:28

    All right. I, I'm not sure if it's a question or a comment. Um, thank you for being here, and I, I think we all agree that we want to reduce these error rates. And, um, w- when you mention training and for, for assets, checking the assets, um, understandable that there's gonna be a learning curve there. Is that something that would go into effect immediately or in 2029? And maybe the author would, would know that.

87. 0:43:57

    Yeah. I'm happy to answer that. So under the one big beautiful bill, Mr. Chairman, committee members, primary vehicles that are needed to get to and from work are excluded from my asset test. So we're talking, when we say vehicles, we mean a third or fourth vehicle not used for the primary purpose of getting to work. So I think that's a very small test case. I understand, you know, maybe the, uh, the sentiment here, but that's more than primary vehicles needed to get to and from work

88. 0:44:32

    But that's up to the committee as well. Yeah. But, but was it, I think also her question was, is when would the, would this, this part of the bill be, uh, implemented? Yeah, the, uh... I'm sorry. So- The categorical eligibility. The categorical eligibility, the expedited, uh, the expedited time frames for reporting, uh, go into effect in 2029. The broad-based categorical, uh, exclusion, uh, which again, the, I think the primary sentiment here has to do with this vehicle test, uh, those primary vehicles are excluded.

89. 0:45:09

    So, um, but that would go into effect immediately. Yeah. January 1st, 2027. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Taylor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I'm, I'm that, um, the error rate as well. I heard you say, I'm not sure who, who needs to answer it, but the, the, um, we needed to reduce it by 6% under, get it under 6, 6% by 2027 fiscal year. And then we're looking at approximately being responsible for 500 million on the state level.

90. 0:45:42

    And so I don't h- see where there's a fiscal note in this bill to be able to provide the staffing for that. Can you elaborate on... And, and, and you just, and you also said that you, uh, did wanna change it to the 2027, 2029 date to allow for the training. So how is that, how are we gonna accomplish all that? We're already in a deficit. The EBTACS is already underwater. And I think that's my concern. I understand the, the w- w- want the goal. Absolutely. Thank you. But how do we reach the goal? Yeah. We are seeking an appropriation. Okay. Okay.

91. 0:46:13

    That's just not in the bill. Yeah. Okay. We have one other speaker, um, wants to speak to the, uh, bill, and then we'll, uh, uh, move back to the author. Um, so, uh, Cindy Battles. Is she here? Yes. Would you like to speak to the bill? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, bright and early. My name is Cindy Battles, and I am the director of policy and engagement with the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, and we're part of the No Empty Plates Coalition with FAA and GPPI and a number of organ- number of other organizations.

92. 0:46:47

    I apologize that I have not had a chance to speak with the sponsor. I just got the substitute last night. Um, my, my only concern with this, because I 100% get what we're doing, it's not my only concern, but the one that I wanna talk about today, is sort of the expanded requirements, um, for documentation for households. And one of the reasons that I wanna talk about that a little bit is, um, the sponsor mentioned that this is, like, a federal requirement, but this, the language goes beyond what the federal requirements are.

93. 0:47:19

    So the f- the federal government requires citizenship information for applicants and pe- and people who are going to benefit, but if you're looking at, like, a mixed household, I think the language means that in a mixed household, even if you're not going to, and even if you're not an applicant, or even if you're not gonna benefit from this, then, um, you also have to, to provide these documents. And that is going to impact people who are in a roommate situation or who are in one of these short-term housing situations where they're renting a room, and the other rooms are being rented by other people.

94. 0:47:55

    These folks are not gonna wanna provide docu- that kind of documentation. And as someone who, with children, um, were, was in one of those situations, should my children lose their, their benefits because someone else in the household will not or cannot provide the documentation that's being required? So I think that's kinda, I think that language just needs to be tightened up so that it's only the people who are going to benefit or only the applicants, um, who have to provide that kind of information.

95. 0:48:31

    Thank you. Um, we, um, don't see, uh, Representative Carter. You, you can hold it for author. Okay. Well, thank you very much for that. Thank you. Um, I'm, I'm gonna take it back, uh, to, uh, Chairman Momtahan. Have you got anything to wrap up before we, uh, uh, someone might make a motion here shortly, uh, about this bill? Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I never get in the way of a good motion. Uh, but, uh, happy to stand for any questions that the committee might have.

96. 0:49:01

    I, I think we have, we have talked this bill through line by line. We've, uh, worked with all stakeholders to try to implement some changes that would be agreeable while not leaving the core mission, and that is to get these error rates down. Error rates are gonna end up costing the state money. It's gonna impact the state budget, and it's gonna impact the nutrition that families in this state need. And it is vitally important that we put this bill forward so those families aren't impacted, and Georgians can get that help that they need.

97. 0:49:38

    Okay. Um, Representative Carter, do you have a question? Thank you, Chairman. I, I wanted to, um, further c- uh, elaborate on what Representative Taylor was actually asking. And so I believe in one of these, uh, committees, as it related to the timing of being in compliance, is there an opportunity for a waiver or to have that extended? So on the actual verification, uh, especially on the expedited services that you'll see, and let me go back to, uh...

98. 0:50:11

    Let me get my notes back up. Okay. Let me make sure we're clear. Uh, I'm, I'm referring to Georgia being in compliant with the federal government because, um, you were speaking about, um, you needing 500 million to 500 something. But there is a date that we have to be in compliance, Georgia. I'm saying if, if we... I thought I heard someone say this last week. I just wanted to clear it up, that if we don't anticipate being able to meet the current deadline date, is there an opportunity, maybe I should use the word extension versus waiver?

99. 0:50:45

    On that time.

100. 0:50:46

     No.

101. 0:50:46

     This is a hard set?

102. 0:50:48

     No. Yeah, there's no extension.

103. 0:50:49

     Okay. And then, um, last week or week before, there was some concern about technology upgrades that Georgia needed to invest in. Is... Will we be addressing, addressing that as we're talking about appropriation? Because again, I think most of us really wanna get to the compliance part of this. In order for that to happen, there's, there's an investment that Georgia needs to make. Are we doing, going to do everything that we need financially, technology-wise, staffing-wise, to be able to meet this deadline and this legislation that you're proposing?

104. 0:51:25

     Yeah. Thank you, Representative. I would say, uh, just to answer the bill, we had Commissioner Brose last week, and I don't wanna fo- I don't wanna speak for her. I know, uh, she's got some folks here. But understand that we are limited into the automations, not because we don't want to. I think DHS has been pushing them. In fact, they have sent off for two waivers for automations-

105. 0:51:49

     Okay

106. 0:51:49

     ... over the past couple years so that we could implement, uh, AI, so we could implement all sorts of different-

107. 0:51:55

     Mm

108. 0:51:55

     ... uh, computer applications into this process. That is just not, uh, applicable under the federal statute. I think we've run into that, uh, several times with, with several different, uh, committee members today.

109. 0:52:11

     We, in Georgia, cannot run afoul of those federal statutes or we risk, uh, the whole, the whole program, and I don't think that's anything anybody wants to, uh, play chicken with. We wanna make sure that we're, we're doing that. So what does that mean? W- what's the impact there? If we can't automate, we're gonna have to put people in positions to get this work done and make sure that they have the staffing that's necessary. And again, that's why we're seeking an appropriation.

110. 0:52:40

     Uh, Representative, um, Reese, have you got a question?

111. 0:52:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, a- and thank you, uh, Chairman Mon- Monahan for, uh, your patience with us as we have talked through this bill. I will say that this bill has truly, um, taken several turns, and I appreciate your effort of hearing everyone out to address all the concerns from people from all ends, um, as we expressed concerns about this bill. I know you and I had a very productive conversation, and I'm very appreciative of that. Just a couple things I think I need clarity on-

112. 0:53:15

     Yeah

113. 0:53:15

     ... and I'm pretty sure you can provide it. Line 92, uh, in the expedited services process, where it says, "Delay in necessary documentation for eligibility will result in no second month benefit." Uh, does this account for... Are you with me?

114. 0:53:32

     Let me see. And that was line 92, you said?

115. 0:53:35

     Yeah. Yeah.

116. 0:53:35

     Okay. Gotcha. Um-

117. 0:53:36

     Where a person's failed to provide necessary documentation-

118. 0:53:39

     That's right

119. 0:53:39

     ... will result in no second month benefit. Uh, uh, do we take care of administrative delay in this expedited process? Are we assured that administrative delay will not cause someone to lose their second month benefits, and that we're gonna keep them flowing as long as the administrative is, the administration is lacking in processing these documents?

120. 0:53:59

     That's right. So, um, as I understand it, they have a 95% rate of completing these under 30 days, these expedited requests.

121. 0:54:08

     Mm.

122. 0:54:08

     So we're, we're meeting that, that mark. Um-

123. 0:54:10

     So with the 5%, what do we do?

124. 0:54:12

     With the 5%, it's likely-

125. 0:54:14

     'Cause that's somebody's child who gotta eat

126. 0:54:16

     ... amen.

127. 0:54:16

     Right.

128. 0:54:17

     Um, it's likely due to the recipients not providing the necessary information. Um-

129. 0:54:22

     Nope, I'm strictly on the administrative side.

130. 0:54:24

     Yeah. I... W- we're not seeing that on the-

131. 0:54:26

     Okay

132. 0:54:26

     ... on the... We're just not seeing that on the expedited.

133. 0:54:29

     Okay.

134. 0:54:29

     Um, from the research that I've done and, and working with the department and working with stakeholders, we're not seeing that.

135. 0:54:35

     Okay.

136. 0:54:36

     Um, I know that that's something that over the last 10 years they've worked to improve, uh, and they've done a great job doing it.

137. 0:54:42

     Okay.

138. 0:54:42

     Uh, and so they, they, I think, to, uh, to your wisdom here today, have solved that early, and they worked on that to where they don't have those issues today. But, uh, but certainly we wanna make sure that the state's not holding it up. Uh, a sticking point is if... A hypothetical here, I think, to answer your question is if a, if a recipient doesn't turn in that verification, they get, they receive the expedited, they, they don't turn in the verification documents that are needed on the second month, that goes to the error rate.

139. 0:55:16

     And now those folks who aren't verifying the documentation that they need to to receive these benefits are gonna impact other families' ability to be in the program and the amount, uh, of, you know, benefits that the state receives, and that's just not okay. We, we gotta make sure that families are getting the nutrition they need, and that may require people to make sure their documents are being turned in.

140. 0:55:40

     And, and I get that part. I was, I was-

141. 0:55:41

     Yeah

142. 0:55:41

     ... thinking more administratively.

143. 0:55:42

     Okay.

144. 0:55:42

     So if we can just go to the... 'Cause that, just real quick.

145. 0:55:45

     Yes, sir.

146. 0:55:45

     Line 40, uh, where we talked about a alleged fraud.

147. 0:55:48

     Yeah.

148. 0:55:48

     Uh, I don't think... Real quick, Mr. Chairman, I didn't expect a response that long on that short answer.

149. 0:55:52

     Where, where, where

150. 0:55:54

     One sec. Is this quick?

151. 0:55:54

     Yes, sir. This, this-

152. 0:55:55

     Okay

153. 0:55:55

     ... is gonna be real, real quick. Two quick follow-up. The alleged fraud, do we have a streamlined case of, of how fraud is, uh, I guess notified or, or, or, or the way we look for it, and, and will that process be changed at all in this, under this bill?

154. 0:56:10

     So we have a Office of Inspector General. This is gonna allow them some broader subpoena powers and authority to look into cases of fraud. Um, I can't speak to the mechanics or operation-

155. 0:56:21

     Okay

156. 0:56:21

     ... that they have in DHS. I would allow you to ask that question to DHS and, and talk about the, the more granular, the granular-

157. 0:56:29

     Okay

158. 0:56:29

     ... side of, of what that looks like. Uh, maybe that's an offline conversation, but I know they have a process. They have an Office of Inspector General. Um-

159. 0:56:36

     In conclusion, you've taken a very deep look-

160. 0:56:39

     Yeah

161. 0:56:39

     ... at the... I mean, you have probably, you've probably seen more than any of us in the general assembly right now as far-

162. 0:56:44

     Yes

163. 0:56:44

     ... as this process is concerned. The commissioner last week was very clear about that 15.5% error rate and trying to get it down, and I, I thought I heard her say that she was kind of afraid that this here alone may not get us there. Now while this is a good step, what do you think we need to go next? 'Cause we need to get that error rate down. So if she's concluding that this is not gonna fully get us there, with what you've seen, where do we need to go? What do we need to do?

164. 0:57:12

     To be frank with you, Representative, we're out of time.

165. 0:57:16

     Mm.

166. 0:57:17

     Right now, we're out of time. We're out of time to pass this bill. Uh, we needed to pass this bill nine weeks ago. We're out of time. We need to pass this bill. We need to start implementing the changes. We need to make sure the DHS has the resources they need to start training folks, uh, to get this error rate down. We've done everything that I felt like was necessary to, to help get them there, but we need to pass the bill, and we need to make sure they have the resources they need, and we need to do it quickly.

167. 0:57:51

     Thank you.

168. 0:57:52

     Thank you.

169. 0:57:52

     And with that, um, Repres- uh, Chairman, uh, Jasperson. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to do pass for the committee substitute to House Bill 947. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor.

170. 0:58:06

     Second.

171. 0:58:07

     We have a second. Committee, um, any other discussion from any other members? Hearing none, all in favor of, uh, do pass LC46-1440S, signify, signify by saying aye.

172. 0:58:25

     Aye.

173. 0:58:26

     Opposed? Hearing none, um, motion passes, bill passes on to Rules.

174. 0:58:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

175. 0:58:33

     Thank you, uh, Chairman Momtahan.

176. 0:58:34

     Thank you.

177. 0:58:35

     Thank you, committee, uh, for your patience and support.

178. 0:59:00

     Yeah, my pleasure.