Rich Neal: “I want to commend the efforts of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee, which have resulted in this bipartisan…”

“I want to commend the efforts of my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee, which have resulted in this bipartisan bill. I am particularly pleased that the conference report rejects controversial provisions from the House bill, which would have increased hunger and hardship for millions of Americans, who are struggling to work. The House-passed cuts would have harmed many children, seniors, and working parents in my home state of Massachusetts, where about one in nine residents currently relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program (SNAP) to put food on the table. I would like to comment in more detail about one specific cut that the Conference Committee rejected. It was titled ``Update to Categorical Eligibility'', but the proposal was largely a repeal of a decades-old state option in SNAP that allows states to liberalize the SNAP gross income and asset test by providing them or providing access to a TANF-funded benefit. Repealing this option would have terminated food assistance to close to 2 million low-income people across the country, including families in Massachusetts. The Conference Committee was wise to reject the cut. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee since 1993 and as a member who was actively engaged in our debates and supported final passage of the 1996 law, I'd like to remind my colleagues of this option in SNAP to use TANF income and asset tests to simplify administration and access to benefits families need.…”