Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Child Poverty topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate bill would ask USDA to waive SNAP eligibility impacts from monthly advance dependent-care tax credit payments

2149414 · January 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 64 would direct the Oregon Department of Human Services to request a waiver from USDA so that monthly advanced payments of the dependent care tax credit do not affect SNAP eligibility determinations; the committee heard a brief sponsor presentation describing the bill's history and federal precedent during COVID-era advance payments.

Senate Bill 64 would require the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) to seek a waiver from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) so that monthly advanced payments of the dependent care tax credit would not be treated as countable income for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility determinations. The bill would also require the department to report annually to the Legislative Assembly on the waiver status and would sunset on Jan. 2, 2001; it takes effect on the 91st day following adjournment.

Sen. Hayden, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee the measure revives an approach used during the COVID-19 response when federal advance payments cut childhood poverty. "We want to front-load these dollars just like we did during COVID and we want to keep that childhood poverty and hunger down," Sen. Hayden said, describing previous efforts in 2017 and again in 2023 to obtain a USDA waiver. He said a waiver was requested under a prior administration and that federal officials had previously signaled support for the concept.

The sponsor framed the measure as a pilot limited to the dependent care credit and did not ask the committee to act on expanded credits at this time. There was no formal public testimony in the hearing after the sponsor’s presentation and the committee kept the record open through the next meeting for additional written testimony.

The committee did not take a vote on the bill in this hearing.