PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 7, 2023
SNAP Second Chance Act of 2023
This bill limits the use of certain factors related to business integrity and reputation when determining the eligibility of retailers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). (The Food and Nutrition Service [FNS] must consider business integrity and reputation of the applicant under current law, and FNS regulations specify the factors that may be considered.)
The bill limits the use of criminal violations to assess an applicant's business integrity and reputation so that (1) FNS may not deny a retail food store or wholesale food concern authorization to redeem SNAP benefits solely based on a criminal conviction, (2) FNS may only consider a criminal offense that has occurred within the past five years for the purpose of approving an application for authorization to redeem SNAP benefits, and (3) an applicant that is convicted of a criminal offense must not be denied authorization to redeem SNAP benefits on the basis of business integrity and reputation if the applicant establishes sufficient mitigation or rehabilitation.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sufficient mitigation or rehabilitation includes
for financial fraud or deception, evidence that five years has elapsed since the felony conviction and compliance with all terms and conditions of probation or parole;
for any other felony conviction, evidence that three years has elapsed since the conviction without a subsequent conviction of a crime and compliance with all terms and conditions of probation or parole; and
other evidence of mitigation or rehabilitation and present fitness (e.g., the circumstances or social conditions surrounding the offense).
People & committees
Rep. Trone, David J. [D-MD-6] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1427 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1427 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1427 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1427 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.