Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is Congressman John Mannion, who represents New York's 22nd Congressional district, which contains all of Onondaga and Madison counties and portions of Oneida, Cortland and Cayuga counties, including the cities of Syracuse, Utica and Auburn. Congressman Mannion, welcome back to the program, it’s good to see you again.
John Mannion: Great to see you, Grant. And it's always an honor to be on here. Thank you so much for having me again.
GR: Well, that's nice of you to say, and we really appreciate you making the time. So let me start right in. I heard you talking recently about the Farm Bill, and it was passed by the house at the end of April, it's now with the Senate I believe, hasn't been moved out of there yet, but, I just would, I think our listeners would want to know why is that bill so important to central New York, and what are some of the provisions in the bill that are most relevant to us up here, and any that you might have worked on as it was working its way through?
JM: Well, thank you for bringing that up. I'm a proud member of the Agriculture Committee and when I was in the state Senate, I was not in in my first term. And I asked to be on it because I felt like we needed that voice an upstate voice and I've got great relationship with our local farmers and the Farm Bureau. We are the number one producer of yogurt in the country, in New York State, and the number one producer of cottage cheese. And it's not all about the dairy industry, but it is, those are important pieces to our economy. So, a few things about the Farm Bill. First of all, I will say that there's important grant programs in there, and access to loans that we have to make sure that those programs are funded, that they're rebuilt, and, that we have these farm’s service agency offices in every county in New York state, and we want to make sure that those are properly staffed and funded. And there's a piece of the Farm Bill that does that. A lot of what was supposed to happen in the Farm Bill, and it's more and more challenging to get one of these passed because of the polarized political climate that exists, was what happened in the Reconciliation Bill or what the president would call the Big Beautiful Bill, which took care of some of the provisions of what would typically be in the Farm Bill, and that includes nutrition assistance programs. So, the SNAP cuts that happened within that, you know, Reconciliation Bill, which I opposed, we wanted to restore some of those cuts. So, there's, you know, two big sides here of the Farm Bill and the Agriculture Committee, which is the nutrition side, and then really the agriculture and the farming side. We wanted to reverse some of those cuts while, of course, still maintaining the critical programs related to access to loans for farmers, environmental grants that are out there. Also, you know, insurance that's a critical piece of farming when we just had, you know, recently an early frost in which could really affect some of our farmers. We're hoping that the data will come in that things are better than what it could have been. But, you know, there's disaster relief, provisions within the department of Ag, all those things make it important. I did oppose it because I was hoping the biggest thing, and there's a few others in there that we restored some of those cuts to nutrition assistance. I did get an amendment into the bill. It has to do with immersive technology, and that is using virtual reality and other technologies in relation to precision farming. And we want to be good stewards of our environment and farmers certainly are, but in making sure that there is a proper amount of fertilizer or fungicide put on and not an unnecessary load being delivered. Immersive technologies and precision farming are a piece of that. So even though I opposed it, I did, I am proud to have contributed to the Farm Bill and look forward to working with, you know, both sides moving forward to support our ag communities.
GR: Well, that's interesting. So, you successfully got an amendment in there, but in the end , you opposed the bill as a whole, right?
JM: I did. And, you know, I can get, and certainly that is, there's room for political action there against me, right? But this is very common. And sometimes, you know, the legislative process can be complex. Sometimes the bills bounce back and forth between the houses or they change coming out of committee. Ultimately, getting one good provision in there, and honestly, Grant, to be truthful, a few words, right, just a few words in a massive bill that has multiple elements to it was simply not enough. I mean, we've got veterans families who are on SNAP assistance, as you probably know, part of it was frozen for a period of time during the government shutdown. And also what we might see is some of the offloading of these responsibilities away from, like, state employees and on to other for-profit or not for profit agencies to administer the SNAP programs. There was a lot of great amendments that were rejected, there were a lot that were accepted. I'm glad one was accepted, but ultimately the cuts to SNAP and other things were just too much for me. And I do believe, reflective of how the majority of central New Yorkers would have wanted me to vote.
GR: One of the things in the, you mentioned the Big Beautiful Bill, that struck me as, well, I guess I'm making an editorial comment here, but kind of strange in its logic was, but I've lost track of where it is and I would like you to remind me and our listeners of it, that the SNAP provisions, what we used to call food stamps, were now going to be tied to work requirements. And, that to me, I'm not quite sure what the logic is for that, but is that still the case now? Is that what we have as our system, or where are we with that?
JM: It's what we had and what we will honestly, always have. So, there are certain provisions that qualify individuals for SNAP. If you are not disabled, you're an able-bodied adult, there can be, you know, you're, the idea is that you should not be receiving SNAP benefits, you should be working, and there's a minimum number of work hours. But there's also other provisions as related to some adults are not working because they have to care for a member of their family that's disabled or, you know, one of their children. They also may be dedicated to volunteering, and they have a number of volunteer hours. It's really a lot of red tape which was being added here to make it more challenging for individuals to qualify for SNAP and have to apply more frequently. In a bipartisan way there were requests and actually amendments that were rejected to delay the implementation of these cuts and these work requirements, but those did not go through. An additional piece to this is that there is going to be greater cost sharing. So, there's going to be a shifting on to the states of greater administrative costs and the costs of the program. And those are based on error rates. Now, every state does not pitch a perfect game when it comes to distributing SNAP benefits, including New York State. This is a way from the administration and the majority standpoint to make things better. And you hear the phrase, fraud, waste and abuse, we have inspectors and investigators, we want to catch all of that. Sometimes it's an overpayment, sometimes it's an underpayment, but those error rates, Alaska has the highest, and you can probably imagine why, is being used to push the costs on to the states. And what we're concerned about is that some states can't handle that cost. I don't think that's New York, but other states can't handle it. And as a result, they just may end their SNAP benefit programs entirely, because they can't absorb that. That's the kind of thing that, you know, for $6 a day, and that's what we're looking at from a maximum SNAP benefit, I think we can, in the wealthiest country in the world, support those folks. And still make sure that the program is administered with prudence.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm speaking with Congressman John Mannion from New York's 22nd Congressional district. Well, in the last six months since I spoke to you before, what other major issues or policy initiatives have you been prioritizing? And if you could be relatively brief here because I've got so many other questions for you.
JM: Sure, yes, I'll try to be brief. You know, there's one piece of legislation related to veterans, and I'm on the education committee, that their transcripts not be withheld if they've got, you know, a parking fee, coming out of, you know, money that may have been tied to the GI Bill, whether they're at a four year institution, two year, or they're in, you know, a work training program, we don't want their transcripts held up. We don't want to prevent them from moving on. I also supported a piece of legislation that's mine called the Match Act. The Match Act is trying to make sure that our technology here as it relates to semiconductor chip manufacturing, doesn't get into the hands of bad actors like China. And, finally, just newly announced, related to mental health in K-12 and higher education. Two of my pieces of legislation I just announced making sure that our school districts have every resource necessary to meet the demanding needs of mental health therapies in our school districts. And, you know, the other piece of legislation is tied to best practices in colleges and making sure that they have programs in place to assist those with mental health challenges in that setting, including suicide prevention. And there's great consensus and bipartisanship around, really all three or all four of those pieces of legislation. So, we're trying to build consensus and get them over the line.
GR: There's a lot of research recently that the rates of all of those things have been going up for this generation of students. And so, yeah, it's good to hear.
JM: Yes, Grant, before you ask, you know, before, I was in the classroom, I taught before faster cellphones and I would say to my students and my colleagues, we're going through the largest experiment in the history of human beings by handing the world to an 11 year old in a handheld device, and to expect it to go just fine was not realistic.
GR: Yeah. Well, I'm going to, I think, have a policy about this in my classes coming up in the fall. So, one of the previous times that we spoke, I asked you if you would support new impeachment proceedings against the president if the Democrats took control of the House. And at that time, you indicated that you would. I wanted to come back to that question now because it really is looking more and more like the Democrats are going to retake the House. I mean, as a political scientist, I would say that's almost a lock now based on the polling and the surveys that I've seen. The Senate is a question mark, but the House less so. Have your thoughts on that changed at all?
JM: They have not. I want to say a few things, and I'll try to be brief. Number one, I want to make sure that this election upcoming is protected. And we know, in 2024 and 2020, our elections are well-run, they're professional, they're run on a bipartisan basis, and widespread voter fraud simply doesn't exist. So, the president perpetuating that is very dangerous. And I hope that does not impact our elections coming up in November here. Articles of impeachment have been brought to the House floor three times already in the second Trump administration. And, you know, every Republican has voted to table them. I do believe that the president has committed impeachable offenses and has lied to, you know, Congress and lied about various serious things, including war. He's violated, you know, war powers provisions and not met deadlines. And there's a reason why many of these items were enshrined into the Constitution and other documents to make sure that our authority in Congress is within, you know, appropriated dollars and trade and war powers because we're the closest connection to the people. The president's self-benefitting, the creation of his own meme coin and crypto coin and then since then providing elevated access to those and commuting sentences and ending restitution. Some individuals, due to fraud, have been, you know, had their life savings taken from them. And if you cozy up to the president and support not just his campaign, but support family businesses and family meme coins personally, that restitution is wiped away. And every day Americans who have been defrauded are in our in a bad situation. So, you know, I will say this impeachment is very serious and also very unpopular. Very unpopular, even after January 6th of 2021, when the president is on his way out the door. Not a huge majority, but the majority of people that I represent, polling in this area in central New York, in the Mohawk Valley, showed that still, people were rejecting that. So, it's serious business. It's going to require subpoenas, investigations, testimony, prior to any move forward towards impeachment. And we will have serious business to conduct outside of that. And it does consume a massive amount of time, so. But I do support it.
GR: I want to come back after the break and ask you just the exact point that you just brought up. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Congressman John Mannion, who represents New York's 22nd district. Well, as I mentioned, I wanted to ask you another question about this. What do you do with the concerns that if the Democrats go down this path, as you say, it's going to take up a lot of oxygen, and it will probably distract from getting things passed to the degree that's possible in the split government that we have, especially since, really the futility of actually removing him from office because you're not going to get two thirds of the Senate to go along, unless something just comes up that you and I can't almost even imagine at this point. So how, I mean, how do you weigh that? How well does it serve sort of the long-term strategy here?
JM: There are many that would argue grant, that impeachment was put into place exactly for this purpose, in this moment. And people are looking for accountability for this president. I hear it every single day, and I and I hear it from Republicans who will tell me that they never voted for me or they always voted for Trump. They don't like, people, Americans care about their Constitution, they care about the branches of government and the balance of power and checks and balances and I hear that every single day. I do think that the president has kind of stepped back a little bit, as I think I saw in the first Trump administration as well, get a little closer to the general election date and things seem to be just like, you know, his, what is being agreed to in Iran and hopefully the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. He sees that that is unpopular. But I say I'm on a team, and that team is not necessarily the Democratic Party team. It is a team of the House of Representatives and the role that we have to play in the good of this country and what has really been a big part of the success of this country, and what makes us unique is that the judicial, the legislative and the executive branch being a check on each other. The president has taken advantage of the fact that he has a Republican majority, and that majority is unlike others that we've seen in the past, where they will oppose the president's actions when he is in violation of the Constitution. And therefore, it takes an incredible amount of time, like we saw with the tariffs to make it through the courts. But the courts, by and large, with exceptions, of course, have upheld the law in my opinion. So, we need accountability. And just like in a post-Watergate era, I believe the people of this country are demanding reining in executive powers and putting restrictions around the pardon process and the executive order process. That's something we have to do while we also do that accountability piece, even if impeachment proceedings don't result in a conviction in the Senate.
GR: I have to ask you about the Senate race in Maine. I know you're not in the Senate, but it's become a kind of a Rorschach test for Democrats. And very few Democrats, it seems, have publicly disavowed Graham Platner, the Democratic nominee who's been beset with a number of different controversies. Briefly here, what's your view of his campaign?
JM: Well, listen, I'm not here to defend the past actions of Graham Platner. At least he has owned up to some of his past transgressions. You know, the voters, the Democratic voters in Maine have spoken. And I think what we've seen over the course of the past decade in the Trump era, are new norms, and that the character does not matter like it used to. A rumor about an elected official or lying by an elected official was disqualifying within our lifetime, and that is not the case. So, you know, I will say this, the stakes are very high in that race. You are seeing fewer and fewer members of each party breaking from whoever their guy or their woman is. And, you know, Susan Collins, in my opinion, has not been the best of senators. True that she is more moderate, and maybe that's reflective of the state she she's in, but we've seen some positive votes on, you know, cabinet positions and certainly the Supreme Court that has now put us in a more precarious position as it relates to the stability of our democracy. I personally believe Susan Collins needs to go and she needs to be replaced. I think that, again, many times she has appeared to stand up to do the right thing. I wish others, through those Supreme Court nomination processes and cabinet position processes, did something else, but she seems to be one of the faces of it. And unfortunately, in my opinion, she has caved and put really, individuals that should have been disqualified into great positions of power that is difficult to remove them from.
GR: Do you have concerns though, that, it seems like the Democrats have taken a little bit of a black eye on this one, and a lot of commentators have pointed out, look, you know, what happened to believing the women?
JM: Yeah.
GR: We were believing the women with Brett Kavanaugh, now we're not believing the women necessarily, with Graham Platner. And I wonder whether this doesn't sort of hurt the Democratic Party brand in some fundamental ways when you add it with some of the other things. Because one of the things I think that the Democrats are trying to put forward is, we're a better, speaking for Democrats now, we're a better positive alternative to the Republicans, but the public doesn't seem to be buying it. I mean, the Democratic Party is six points less favorably viewed, I just checked this yesterday, we're talking on Wednesday, then the Republican Party. And I wonder whether it's not like things like this guy running and the relative silence about this. The gerrymandering issue. Granted, Trump and the Republicans started that in Texas, but Democrats have responded in kind. And so, it kind of makes it hard to say for the Democrats, hey, this is a better, positive alternative. I mean, do you worry about that?
JM: You know, listen, I don't speak for the Democratic Party. I'm so grateful that I represent central New York. But this is real, you know, this is real. The bar has been lowered on both sides, and we have dug in, and as I said, you know, I'm not here to defend Graham Platner, I am not. I do think that it maybe isn't necessarily a fair fight as it comes to our accountability for our own candidates, and the Republicans maybe have a skewed view of that. I mean, Al Franken, there's one bad photo, and the next thing you know, his career is over, right? And we look at other examples in the Republican Party where they have put up people who really have major character issues and documented issues. We can look at their Senate candidate in Texas, in Ken Paxton, and this is members of his own party, again, I believe doing the right thing in an attempt to impeach him and almost successfully because of the corruption that existed there. So, you know, I swear, Grant, I did not take your time to twist that and make it about bad Republican candidates. But yeah, it's true. And this is why, you know, I left a profession that was incredibly popular and trusted to honestly do the right thing, knowing that Congress’ popularity, the Democratic and Republican parties, their popularity is very low and not trusted, you know? And I left the classroom to try to restore that trust. So, I try to be honest with people and acknowledge when it's a problem. He is not a perfect candidate. The people got behind him. But in the in the world of opposition research and cancel culture, it's happening to both parties. He is going to have to wear that, as will our party and the Republicans have their crosses to bear as well in Texas and other places. So, I think that, I believe character should matter. I think in New York 22, it matters almost more than anywhere else in this country and that people do support truly candidates versus parties here and then other places and we'll see what the results look like in Maine and what both candidates are going to have to contend with up there.
GR: Yeah, I think you're right about that observation about this area. If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and my guest is Congressman John Mannion. We're going to have to move to more like a lightning round now because I've got several questions, but we've really only got about four minutes or so, so we'll have to get going.
JM: This is always a problem with me.
GR: Yeah, it's okay, it's all right. So, national debt. The national debt is up where it was in World War Two as a percentage of the economy, that's the way most economists measure it. We're, and this problem started in 2007, 2008 and the government reaction to the financial crisis. And we've been on almost a straight upward curve since then. So, this is, predates Trump. How do we deal with this? I mean, we're going to have to have a very difficult conversation, or else we're really going to be saddling our children with something.
JM: You're absolutely right.
GR: 30 seconds or less.
JM: It's unsustainable, all right, we need to, on the revenue side, we do need to adjust some of these tax loopholes for corporations and the ultra-wealthy and revisit that. We also need inspector generals and auditors and investigators and the federal government to actually find where we can save. And we've got to do that. As I say, as we fight each other, I was briefed on this before I was in office, but after the election and just briefed on it a couple of weeks ago. This is serious business, we've got serious challenges in this country, and we have to address it. And I do not believe that, you know, providing tax benefits to billionaires like that was in the ‘big ugly bill’ is a good way to do it and only blew up the debt further, as did this war.
GR: All right. Let me ask you a little more personal question, in a way. Your Republican opponent, Kailee Buller, she recently issued a statement saying John Mannion is being criticized from the right, the center and the left. I imagine there's an element of truth to that. Is this job, do you think, being a member of Congress, because of all these problems that you and I have been talking about in the last 20 minutes, is it fair to say that the job may be becoming impossible?
JM: Well, I can say this. I'm not sure who would want to do this job, you know, and I mean that as somebody who takes my job very seriously. There's an unfairness to all of this, and I think we've had really great representatives locally on both sides of the aisle, you know, Sherwood Boehlert, Richard Hanna, Arcuri, Brindisi, myself, Katko. We're trying to represent the district. And, you know, the personal attacks, the threats that occur are just awful. So, listen, I signed up for it. I'm a big kid, I've been around the block, and I'm willing to take it to make things better for this country and this region.
GR: Last quick question. Is there anybody on the other side of the aisle, since you've been in office, that you have struck up a good working relationship that was a priority for your predecessor two members ago, John Katko? Have you have you got some folks on the Republican side that you can name?
JM: Yeah. Well, listen, you know, Nick Langworthy had a bill to try to expedite permitting, right, and Nick and I see each other on occasion. We're not on the exact same committees so perfectly aligned, but we know that there are certain things that are good for the region. Claudia Tenney and I many times are like, right next to each other as we're traveling and we discuss certain things we've signed on to, you know, emergency relief letters and supporting, like, local businesses who are high tech. So, listen, it's New York delegation, right? We overlap for sure and I overlap in committee. We've got to find ways to work together. And we've seen, me and others cross the aisle to vote for various pieces of legislation. I'm going to continue to do that.
GR: Okay, great. We'll have to leave it there. That was Congressman John Mannion. And I want to note for our listeners that I do plan to speak with Congressman Mannion’s Republican challenger Kailee Buller in the coming weeks. But right now, Congressman Mannion, thanks again, as always. You've been making regular time for us and we really appreciate it. And so, thank you for making the time to speak with me.
JM: Thank you for having me on, Grant.
GR: You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO, Public Media conversations and the public interest.
