Heated hearing on SNAP work‑requirement waivers: sponsor urges ending broad exemptions; opponents warn of rural harm

Sen. Bob Anderson introduced LB656 to remove state language that allows broad exemptions or local waivers from federal SNAP work requirements (for able‑bodied adults without dependents, commonly called ABAWDs). The sponsor said Nebraska currently reports about 23,200 ABAWDs exempted from work requirements and that the state’s voluntary Employment & Training (E&T) program reaches only a few hundred participants. He argued that waivers and permissive exemptions have functionally weakened the federal work requirement and that Nebraska should instead invest in mandatory E&T programming that helps people gain skills and join the workforce.

Proponents (policy reform groups) argued the legislation would close what they called a “loophole” in statute that permits discretionary waivers and “no‑good‑cause” exemptions to be banked up and used in ways that reduce participation in work‑oriented programming. Proponents cited other states (Kansas, Idaho, Arkansas, Utah) that are using more active work or E&T programs and said mandatory E&T, virtual training options and stronger third‑party partnerships could scale at relatively modest per‑participant costs when carefully implemented.

Opponents urged caution and strongly opposed removing waiver discretion. DHHS‑neutral testimony, tribal leaders (Winnebago), local officials and anti‑hunger advocates argued that waivers exist to respond to local labor markets, high rural unemployment, lack of transportation, childcare shortages and sparsely distributed jobs. Tribal leaders said reservation economies still lack sufficient jobs and that removing waiver flexibility would disproportionately harm Indigenous and rural households; Winnebago testimony described a fragile local labor market and said SNAP spending circulates in local economies. Multiple opponents also said federal proposals to change SNAP funding or block grants could change fiscal calculations and make an expensive mandated E&T rollout riskier. DHHS and policy advocates urged that mandatory E&T would require tens of staff and significant program investment; the department’s fiscal discussion included a multi‑million dollar figure in testimony (opponents cited an estimate of about $5.2M to scale E&T statewide) and said the agency was not prepared to operationalize mandatory statewide E&T without a phased plan.

Ending: The committee heard sharply divided views. Sponsors push for tighter rules and greater E&T participation; opponents argued that waivers are an essential tool to respond to local labor market realities and that a mandatory statewide E&T program would be costly and could reduce food access if underfunded.