24-04-2025
Conflict arises during debate on bill to extend SNAP eligibility levels
An amendment by State Sen. Bob Andersen of north-central Sarpy County was at the center of debate Wednesday on the legislative floor. April 8, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — A bill that would extend an expanded eligibility threshold for Nebraska food benefits has advanced to its final lawmaking round, but not before a latecomer amendment that some described as hostile was debated and defeated.
Legislative Bill 192, by State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, calls for the elimination of an October expiration on Nebraska's current eligibility levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Right now, a key qualifier for households is if gross income is at or below 165% of the federal poverty level.
If the Quick bill fails, the lower pre-pandemic income eligibility level of 130% of gross income is set to return.
The SNAP program helps qualified recipients buy groceries. The federal government pays 100% of program benefits, and 50% of administrative costs.
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the program, estimated that more than 4,000 families that otherwise might be disqualified because of income could remain on SNAP if the eligibility threshold is maintained.
LB 192, which State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha made his priority this session, ultimately advanced Tuesday by a voice vote and now moves on to a third and final reading.
The bulk of debate came after State Sen. Bob Andersen of north-central Sarpy County tried to attach an amendment essentially mirroring his LB 656, which would prohibit DHHS from seeking federal waivers that make exceptions to SNAP work requirements, such as living in areas with high unemployment.
Andersen said his proposal still would retain certain exceptions, including for caregivers of a child with disabilities, students enrolled at least half-time and teens ages 16 to 18 who are in training programs. But generally, he said, he wants able-bodied SNAP recipients to work.
State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln led opposition to Andersen's amendment, peppering him with questions about rationale and cost.
While a previous fiscal analysis of Andersen's LB 656 came with an estimated price tag of more than $2.2 million next fiscal year, Andersen told colleagues Wednesday that DHHS officials more recently told him expenses could be absorbed into their existing budget.
That's because instead of requiring DHHS officials to help find work for impacted SNAP recipients, the agency 'may' help provide assignments.
State Sen. Ashlei Spivey of Omaha said the Andersen amendment represented an approach she has seen this session of 'demonizing' and 'dehumanizing' the working class.
Some Democratic lawmakers took issue with Andersen's late and 'hostile' amendment to someone else's bill, which Quick also opposed.
State Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha invoked the lyrics of Beyoncé — 'If you like it, then you shoulda put a ring on it' — to drive home her point that he should have 'prioritized' the effort as his own legislation.
While Andersen's LB 656 was advanced out of a legislative committee and onto full debate by the Legislature, it was not prioritized and therefore is unlikely to be debated this session on its own.
Some Republicans, however, defended Andersen's tactic as not extraordinary and said they supported his goal.
State Sen. Rob Clements of Elmwood, chair of the budget-writing Appropriations Committee, said that if Andersen's amendment would add no state cost, he was supportive.
State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair said he saw Andersen's effort to ratchet up work requirements for the SNAP program as compatible and a 'good compromise' to Quick's effort to extend current eligibility levels. Hansen has brought similar legislation in the past.
Hansen noted he was the only member of the Health and Human Services Committee who voted against pushing Quick's LB 192 out of the committee stage and onto the legislative floor.
'I think that's good governance,' Hansen said of the Andersen amendment, which ultimately failed 22-14, three votes short. 'To say that it's not, maybe I'm missing the point.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
