Pillen vetoes bill ending Nebraska lifetime SNAP ban for certain drug convictions
State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, center, talks with State Sens. Danielle Conrad and George Dungan, both of Lincoln. April 10, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen late Wednesday vetoed a measure passed just hours earlier to end a lifetime ban preventing some Nebraskans from accessing SNAP benefits.
The veto of Legislative Bill 319, from State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, seeks to keep in place the status quo prohibiting anyone who has been convicted of selling or distributing a controlled substance from accessing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. People with three or more felonies for possessing or using a controlled substance also are ineligible.
The current law allows Nebraskans with one or two drug possession or use convictions to access SNAP if they have completed a licensed and accredited treatment program.
LB 319 would allow someone to access SNAP quicker if they have completed their sentence or are serving a term of parole, probation or post-release supervision.
Under Rountree's bill, a person with three or more felony convictions for felony drug possession or use could access SNAP only if they are participating in or have completed a licensed and accredited treatment program, unless a health care provider determines that substance abuse treatment is not needed.
Pillen said that would create 'loopholes' where 'habitual offenders' could evade treatment.
'Individuals that distribute or sell illicit drugs should not be entitled to taxpayer-funded benefits,' Pillen said in his one-page veto letter. 'Any illegal drug users should be required to complete treatment before they receive their third felony conviction.'
Versions of LB 319 have stalled in the past, the most recent led by State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha. LB 319 passed 32-17, and Rountree said the veto wasn't a surprise. It takes 30 votes to override a veto, but senators sometimes fall to gubernatorial pressure on such motions.
Rountree, a pastor who serves on the Legislature's Judiciary Committee, said the bill is about forgiveness and restoration. He said food shouldn't be a 'bargaining chip' and that someone should be able to access food once they've served their time.
'SNAP is an opportunity for them to reenter, get back on their feet, and I don't believe that people want to stay on SNAP forever, as many times the story is written that way,' he said.
The bill was also supported by law enforcement, Rountree noted. He said helping Nebraskans with past felony drug convictions can restore their dignity and reduce bad interactions with law enforcement officials. At the bill's hearing, only the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services opposed the measure.
Rountree said the changes would also help maintain family integrity, noting that as a substitute teacher, he saw the power of food for young children.
Advocates, such as Derrick Martinez, who had previously been banned from SNAP, had urged Pillen to sign the bill just after its passage. In a statement, Martinez said LB 319 'shows that years of advocacy can actually pay off.'
'This moves the needle in a positive direction for not just me but for our state as it works to reduce recidivism,' Martinez said. 'This means less of a struggle, less anxiety, less pressure overall for myself and for others who have been banned from SNAP because of past convictions.'
Jasmine Harris, director of public policy and advocacy with RISE, a nonprofit focused on habilitative programming and reentry support, said the legislation would remove 'another unnecessary barrier to help people meet their basic needs after incarceration.'
Eric Savaiano, program manager for food and nutrition access at Nebraska Appleseed, said LB 319 also represented a 'huge win' for Nebraskans impacted by the 'failed' War on Drugs of the 1990s.
He said more than 1,000 Nebraskans would be able to 'better support themselves and their households with critical food assistance, helping them better meet their needs and not fall back into bad habits because of desperation.'
Rountree said the bill would let impacted Nebraskans know 'their life has value and meaning.'
Also Wednesday, lawmakers voted to modify a separate SNAP-related bill with an 'unfriendly amendment' that was resurrected after having been previously defeated.
The underlying LB 192, introduced by State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, calls for an extension of current SNAP income eligibility levels, which otherwise would return in October to lower pre-pandemic eligibility levels.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha made LB 192 his priority bill this session. DHHS, which administers the program, has estimated that more than 4,000 families could be disqualified for earning too much money if the older eligibility threshold is restored.
While the essence of LB 192 remained, State Sen. Bob Anderson of Sarpy County successfully revived an amendment that largely mirrors his LB 656, which would prohibit DHHS from seeking what he called 'blanket' waivers that make exceptions to SNAP work requirements, such as living in areas with high unemployment.
Andersen's amendment this time passed on a 28-8 vote — a contrast from the 22-14 vote that defeated it last month. It needed at least 25 votes.
The newly amended LB 192, on a voice vote, then moved back to final reading.
Quick, during debate, noted that Andersen's was an 'unfriendly' amendment. He opposed it and said if Andersen wanted to help 'strengthen' it, as Andersen said was his goal, he could have discussed it with Quick earlier.
Quick said the amendment 'puts barriers' in place for SNAP recipients who already comply with work requirements.
Andersen said his amendment still allows for six specific work exemptions, and is aimed at about 20,000 people who he said were able-bodied Nebraskans currently exempt from work and training requirements.
He said his amendment would get workers 'trained and employed.'
State Sen. George Dungan of Lincoln pointed out that the amendment at one point was estimated to cost $2.2 million in the first year and even more in the next. He said a new financial estimate reduced the cost to zero only because, instead of requiring DHHS to help find work for impacted SNAP recipients, it says the agency 'may' do so.
Cavanaugh objected to the amendment and said the 'permissive language' is 'another sleight of hand to put off the books, to unbalance our budget behind people's backs.'
State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth said he was not opposed to strict work requirements but objected to Andersen's late change in the lawmaking process.
State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair was a fan of the amendment, saying it could result in able-bodied people getting back to work sooner. As for additional costs, he said: 'If the resources aren't there, they (DHHS) are not going to do it.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
SNAP Cuts Warning Over $85 Million of Nutrition Assistance
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Rhode Island could foot the bill for $85 million in SNAP benefits if the Republican budget bill passes, a senator has said. Why It Matters Under the Republican-led One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is making its way through the legislative process, states could be made to pay for a portion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. As it stands, states pay for half of the administrative costs of running the program, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture pays the other half. The USDA also covers the entire cost of benefits. In Rhode Island—which ranks 15th in the country for SNAP usage, according to an analysis by Trace One—SNAP is delivered to about 144,000 residents, providing monthly benefits to low- and no-income families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank reported in March that shifting some of the cost of SNAP benefits to states would negatively affect state budgets "at a time when many states are facing revenue downturns." What To Know Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, has said the Ocean State could be on the hook for $85 million of the roughly $343.5 million the state receives from the USDA to pay for SNAP benefits. Other provisions outlined in the bill, such as expanding work requirements and limiting future benefit increases, could "reduce monthly nutrition assistance for children from low-income families, seniors, disabled Americans, and veterans below what is necessary to maintain a healthy diet," a June 6 news release from Reed's office said. Reed said the entire state would be affected by the proposed SNAP cuts, not only through a potential loss of benefits for recipients but also lost productivity and increased expenditures in other public areas, such as health care. He said it would also affect the state's businesses and economy. A stock image of a SNAP sign in a retailer's window. A stock image of a SNAP sign in a retailer's window. GETTY "Every dollar in federal SNAP investment generates over $1.50 in economic activity," Reed said. "If you start taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the local economy, it means stores close, farms go under, and food prices keep going up. Ultimately, the Republican plan would make it harder for Rhode Island families to afford their grocery bills." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in its March report: "States are not in a position to absorb these substantial additional costs. In fiscal year 2024, tax revenue fell in 40 states after adjusting for inflation, and many states are projecting budget shortfalls in the short and long term." Other states have also warned that they could be forced to pay millions to keep SNAP benefits available if the bill passes in its current form. In late May, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the state would lose about $314 million in food assistance if the legislation came to pass. Michigan has also warned that it could be forced to foot a $900 million bill for food assistance. What People Are Saying Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said in a news release issued on June 6: "When Republicans threaten to cut SNAP benefits, they're really threatening public health, working families, and our economy. Access to food is essential for everyone. The Republican plan would mean less food for the poor, fewer jobs, and less economic activity in the community. It would increase hunger and hardship." Darcy Milburn, the director of Social Security and health care policy at the Arc of the United States, told Newsweek: "Any cuts to SNAP funding would make it even harder for people with disabilities and their families to access the food they need to live healthy lives. We urge Congress to reject proposals for any cuts to SNAP, and to work on a bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect this critical program." Lisa Roth Blackman, the chief philanthropy officer of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, said in a news release: "The impact that this cut will have on families, children, seniors, and veterans will be catastrophic. Kids will be less ready to learn in school. Working adults won't have the energy to work. Seniors will be forced to make terrible choices about whether to pay for prescriptions and healthcare or food. And veterans and people with disabilities will struggle to get the food they need to survive and thrive." President Donald Trump, who has not commented directly on the SNAP provisions, wrote on Truth Social following the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives: "It's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" What Happens Next The bill moves to the GOP-controlled Senate this week, where lawmakers may propose changes to the legislation.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Advocates: Medicaid ‘not a luxury,' lawmakers need plan for fallout
GAINES TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WOOD) — After the U.S. House approved the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which includes Medicaid reforms, advocates in West Michigan are sharing their concerns. 'Medicaid is not a luxury, it's a lifeline,' Vanessa Greene, CEO of the Grand Rapids African American Health Institute, said at a Thursday afternoon press conference. 'It is the difference between stability and crisis for over 75 million Americans, including working families, children people with disabilities, our veterans and people living with chronic conditions.' The press conference held at the Disability Advocates of Kent County included nonprofits, health care providers and residents who opposed the proposed changes to Medicaid. They include cuts to Medicaid to target waste and fraud, Republican lawmakers say, as well as enhanced work requirements. House passes Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in marathon overnight session 'We often say that health is wealth, and health is wealth because when you're healthy, you can thrive. You can work, you can go to school and you can take care of your family members,' Megan Erskine, CEO of Catherine's Health Center, said. Erskine said 60% of Catherine's Health Center patients are on Medicaid. They receive dental services, medical services and mental health services at the center. 'Thirty percent of people on Medicaid in Kent County are your friends, your neighbors and your family members. They are not fraud, abuse and waste,' she said. Scott Becker, who has osteogenesis imperfecta, a brittle bone disease, says Medicaid helps to pay for his medication and keeps him independent, and these changes could one day leave him homeless. 'If it weren't for Medicaid, I don't know where I would be living. Medication has just skyrocketed pricewise, and most of the medications that I take are $300, $400 (or) $1,000 for one prescription. That's just insane to me that other countries pay a tenth of what we do here in the states,' he said. President Trump announces plan to cut prescription drug costs 'No one should be denied care because they are too sick, too poor or too different to matter,' Greene said. Jennie Knight has worked in health care most of her life, and she is a mom of a Medicaid recipient. She says that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. '(Lawmakers should) talk to the people who actually have the expertise in how it could be fixed and managed to be better. We're always looking at cost, we're always looking at efficiencies, but this is not it. When you cut stuff like this so drastically without having plans in place for the fallout of it, it's disastrous,' she said. The Medicaid reforms are part of a bill that would also eliminate taxes on tips and overtime work, bring cuts to the SNAP program and raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The House approved the package in a 215-214 early Thursday morning vote. It is now off to the Senate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine lawmakers move forward with changes to 2021 transmission line referendum
A Versant Power technician energizes a line at the Tremont, Maine substation. (Photo courtesy of Versant Power) Though initially divided, lawmakers decided to move forward with a proposal to modify the law born out of a 2021 referendum question requiring the Maine Legislature to approve any new high-impact transmission lines. Although some legislators who worked on the campaign argued the proposal would clarify the law, LD 810 initially fell short of passage in the House of Representatives. After the Senate voted to pass the bill last Wednesday, the House ultimately decided to change course and passed the bill Monday by a one-vote margin. 'I'm shocked that we are being faced with this bill so soon after the historic and controversial battle,' said Rep. Elizabeth Caruso (R-Caratunk) during the House discussion last week. Caruso recounted the efforts by volunteers to gather signatures for the referendum question and the overwhelming support from roughly 60% of voters. The ballot question drew passionate grassroots support and overcame over $60 million in opposition spending fueled mostly by international energy companies. Therefore, the proposal before the Legislature to reform the law 'opposes the will of the people and the vote,' Caruso said. Approving it would send a message to voters that citizens' initiatives 'are a joke,' she added. Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-Freeport) said she was one of those Mainers who stood outside L.L. Bean to collect signatures for the campaign and was proud to vote 'Yes.' Though she still supports that referendum, Sachs also backed LD 810 because it 'is clarifying, not repealing.' Rep. Chris Kessler (D-South Portland), who sponsored LD 810, said he was also among the voters who supported the referendum, but argued his bill is meant to clean up the unintended consequences of the new law. Sen. Nicole Grohoski (D-Hancock), who worked on the referendum campaign, said while it is important to offer constituents legislative approval as a backstop on transmission lines proposed by private corporations, the current statute creates higher scrutiny for lines proposed by the Legislature than those from the private corporations. More specifically, the bill seeks to clarify that when the Legislature is seeking to develop a new transmission line, that project should not need to come back to the Legislature for approval after the Public Utilities Commission's review process. During committee hearings, the Office of Public Advocate, Maine State Chamber of Commerce and multiple environmental organizations agreed the duplicative process can deter developers, drive up costs for ratepayers and stand in the way of meeting climate goals. However, Sen. Matt Harrington (R-York) argued in favor of the current model because it gives the Legislature another opportunity to weigh in on a line after a route has been determined. This could be important because constituents could have issues with a line's route that wouldn't be known at the time of initial approval. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
