Food Stamps and Nutrition Programs in the 2002 Farm Bill

Congressional research reportOct 12, 2006

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

ŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

ȱȱ

ȱȱȱ¢ȱ

ȱŗŘǰȱŘŖŖŜȱ

ȱȱȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯǯȱ

řřŜşŖȱ

ȱȱȱ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

¢ȱ

Among the titles dealing with farm-support and other agriculture-related issues, Title IV of the

2002 farm bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act; P.L. 107-171) reauthorized

appropriations for and substantially revised the Food Stamp program. It also included provisions

affecting several other domestic food aid programs/activities operated under the aegis of the

Department of Agriculture that have typically been included in farm bills: nutrition assistance

block grants to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations (FDPIR), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity

Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), Community Food Projects, and rules governing foods used

in domestic feeding programs such as the School Lunch program. Beyond this traditional array of

food assistance programs, the 2002 bill encompassed provisions for a new Seniors Farmers’

Market program, a new Fruit and Vegetables pilot program, a set-aside to purchase fresh fruit and

vegetables for schools, a Congressional Hunger Fellows program, the purchase of locally

produced food, and changed eligibility rules for free and reduced-price school meals and the

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program).

As a historical source and in the expectation that the issues raised in and the results of actions

taken during consideration of the 2002 farm bill may come up again in the next scheduled farm

bill (2007), this report presents in some detail what happened with regard to nutrition programs in

2002.

The nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill (Title IV): substantially expanded food stamp eligibility

for legally resident noncitizens (the single largest change), liberalized food stamp benefits and

eligibility rules, provided new options for states to vary from regular Food Stamp program rules,

greatly changed the system for penalizing states with high rates of erroneous benefit and

eligibility determinations, increased funding for TEFAP and CSFP, and, as noted above,

introduced several new programs. It was estimated to cost $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion over

FY2002-FY2007. However, a number of issues were raised but not addressed: Administration

requests to loosen the food stamp asset test as it relates to vehicles and to limit state options to

make public assistance recipients automatically eligible for food stamps, a provision to increase

benefits for those with very high shelter costs, recommendations to open up work requirements

for able-bodied adults without dependents, a change to allow states to conform their method of

reviewing households’ food stamp eligibility to the method used for other public assistance

programs, and a proposal to allow food stamps to be used for dietary supplements.

Overall, the basic themes of the nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill were expanded eligibility for

legal noncitizens, more leeway for states to establish their own version of food stamp rules, and

support for expanded availability of fresh fruit and vegetables.

This report will not be updated.

ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Nutrition Programs and Activities Covered by the Farm Bill ................................................... 1

Overview of Nutrition Programs in the 2002 Farm Bill.................................................................. 2

Nutrition Programs in the Funding Context of the Farm Bill ................................................... 3

Nutrition Program Issues in the Farm Bill ................................................................................ 3

Food Stamps........................................................................................................................ 3

TEFAP................................................................................................................................. 4

The CSFP............................................................................................................................ 5

Fruit and Vegetable Initiatives ............................................................................................ 5

Major House-Senate Differences in the Farm Bill.................................................................... 5

Nutrition Program Costs in the Farm Bill ................................................................................. 5

Cost Estimates..................................................................................................................... 6

Experience Since the 2002 Farm Bill ................................................................................. 6

Outline of the Enacted Nutrition Program Provisions............................................................... 6

Reauthorization................................................................................................................... 6

Food Stamp Eligibility for Noncitizens .............................................................................. 6

Increased Food Stamp Benefits and Liberalized Food Stamp Financial Eligibility

Rules ................................................................................................................................ 7

Significant New State Options in Administering the Food Stamp Program ....................... 7

Changes to Quality-Control-Based Penalties and Bonus Payments ................................... 8

Changes to Employment and Training Provisions.............................................................. 8

Puerto Rico and American Samoa ...................................................................................... 8

Program Access Grants ....................................................................................................... 8

TEFAP................................................................................................................................. 8

CSFP ................................................................................................................................... 8

School Meal and WIC Eligibility........................................................................................ 9

Community Food Projects .................................................................................................. 9

Purchase of Locally Produced Foods.................................................................................. 9

Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program ...................................................................... 9

Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program ...................................................................................... 9

Congressional Hunger Fellows ........................................................................................... 9

Outline of Significant Issues Not Addressed in the Farm Bill .................................................. 9

Administration Proposals.................................................................................................. 10

Shelter Costs ..................................................................................................................... 10

Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents......................................................................... 10

Eligibility Reviews............................................................................................................ 10

Dietary Supplements......................................................................................................... 10

Table 1. Title IV (Nutrition) Provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill (Including Cost Estimates) ..........11

ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 36

ȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

Federal nutrition program policies, as well as farm support and other agriculture-related

programs, are governed by a variety of separate laws. Although these laws may be and often are

considered and amended in free-standing legislation, many of them, including those setting rules

for food stamps and several other nutrition programs, are evaluated periodically, revised, and

renewed through an omnibus, multi-year farm bill. The most recent farm bill, the Farm Security

and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-171), the first since 1996, reauthorized

appropriations for and substantially revised the Food Stamp program and a number of other

domestic food aid programs. Much of the Agriculture Department’s mandatory spending is and

was for food stamps and other programs in its nutrition title (Title IV). In 2007, Congress is

scheduled to take up the next farm bill because many of the provisions and authorizations for

appropriations expire at the end of FY2007. Proposed changes affecting food stamps and other

nutrition programs covered by the farm bill will likely, as in 2002, play a major role in any

congressional consideration.

As a historical source and in the expectation that some of the same nutrition program issues and

provisions of law addressed in 2002 will again come up—and that the effects of the changes

made in 2002 will be explored in designing any 2007 farm bill—this report lays out in some

detail what happened in 2002.1

ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ

Farm bills typically cover the following nutrition/domestic food assistance programs and

activities, all within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:2

•

the Food Stamp program, operated under the Food Stamp Act;

•

inflation-indexed nutrition assistance block grant programs, included in the Food

Stamp Act, for Puerto Rico and American Samoa—that are operated in lieu of the

regular Food Stamp program;3

•

the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)—offered, under

the Food Stamp Act, in lieu of the regular Food Stamp program to those tribal

organizations that choose it;

•

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), governed by provisions of

the Food Stamp Act and the Emergency Food Assistance Act;

Another report—CRS Report RL31195, The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status, by (name redacted) and (name r

edacted)—provides abbreviated coverage of the entire 2002 law.

Other domestic nutrition programs, like the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Special Supplemental

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (the WIC program), and Older Americans Act nutrition programs

are reauthorized separately.

It is unclear whether farm bills can cover a similar nutrition assistance block grant for the Northern Mariana Islands.

This grant is authorized by a 1980 law (P.L. 96-597), which, as part of a larger act dealing with the relationship

between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States, allowed the Agriculture Department to extend programs it

operates to the Northern Mariana Islands. No farm bill since 1980 has dealt with this grant program. The authority

granted in the 1980 act was implemented in July 1982.

ȱȱȱ

ŗȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

•

the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), authorized under Sections

4 and 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 and Section

1114(a)(2) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (i.e., the 1973 and 1981 farm

bills);

•

Community Food Projects, established under the Food Stamp Act; and

•

rules governing the provision of federally acquired food commodities to domestic

feeding programs (e.g., school meal programs).

In addition, the 2002 farm bill included new programs and provisions in areas not included in past

farm bills:

•

It put into law a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program.

•

It established a Fruit and Vegetable pilot program for schools and authorized a

program to increase domestic consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables.

•

It set aside funding to be used to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables for schools.

•

It authorized Congressional Hunger Fellowships.4

•

It included provisions to encourage schools to purchase locally produced foods.

•

It changed eligibility rules affecting military families applying for free or

reduced-price school meals and benefits under the Special Supplemental

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program).

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry exercises jurisdiction over all the

programs/activities noted above. On the other hand, the House Committee on Agriculture has

more limited jurisdiction. It shares jurisdiction over provisions affecting school meal programs

(the provision of commodities) with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and

has no jurisdiction over the WIC program (which is covered by the Education and the Workforce

Committee). As a result, farm bills covering shared jurisdictional areas have involved

participation by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱ

The 2002 farm bill—the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-171;

H.Rept. 107-424)—was enacted on May 13, 2002. Earlier, the House approved its version (H.R.

2646; the Farm Security Act of 2001) on October 5, 2001; the Senate approved its version (S.

1731; the Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001) on January 13, 2002;

and the House and Senate agreed to the conference report on the renamed Farm Security and

Rural Investment Act of 2002 (H.Rept. 107-424) on May 2, 2002, and May 8, 2002 respectively.5

With the exception of an expansion of the Fruit and Vegetable pilot project established by the

These fellowships were already funded under annual Agriculture Department appropriations acts.

A full chronology is presented in Appendix B of CRS Report RL31195, The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted).

ȱȱȱ

Řȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

2002 law (see later discussion), no significant changes to the nutrition program provisions of the

2002 farm bill have been made since.

At each stage, major provisions affecting food stamps and other nutrition programs were

included. This contrasted with the previous farm bill of 1996. In 1996, virtually all of the changes

in law affecting food stamps (the largest of the food assistance programs) and other nutrition

programs were made in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). The farm bill of that year

included only appropriations authority extensions and minor revisions affecting nutrition

programs.

ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ

Inclusion of food stamps and other nutrition programs in farm bills has historically been viewed

as a way of garnering support for farm legislation from non-farm sectors. However, the balance of

any new spending (or spending cuts) between domestic food assistance provisions and other parts

of each farm bill has been a subject of negotiation and contention. In the case of the 2002 bill, this

was particularly true.

In May 2001, Congress agreed to a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 83) that allowed for substantial

added funding for programs covered by the upcoming farm bill. The availability of this “new”

money and how it would be divided up among the various farm bill components dominated much

of the farm bill debate that began in earnest in July 2001. For example, the Senate version of the

farm bill provided more new funding for nutrition programs than the House bill (see the last

portion of the table at the conclusion of this report). And the fact that the ability to tap the new

funding would end in the spring of 2002, pushed the Agriculture Committees to take up the farm

bill earlier than would normally be the case. In the end, the nutrition title of the enacted farm bill

claimed between 5% and 6% of the total estimated new spending in the enacted bill, depending

on which Congressional Budget Office projection was used (also see later discussion of nutrition

program spending under the farm bill).

ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ

In addition to the debate over how much new spending would go into nutrition programs,

significant substantive debate arose with regard to food stamps, TEFAP, the CSFP, and support

for initiatives to increase the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in meal programs like the

School Lunch program.

ȱȱ

Three developments were basic to the farm bill food stamp debate: the relatively low level of

program participation at the time; frustration with federal food stamp eligibility, benefit, and

administrative policies; and the concerns of some over ineligibility of many legally resident

noncitizens (as provided for in the 1996 welfare reform law).

Although food stamp enrollment was increasing, in 2001-2002 it was well below its peak in the

spring of 1994 and only a bit over 10% higher than the all-time low. More than half of the decline

over the 5 years since the last major food stamp amendments was estimated to have come from a

sharp drop in the rate at which those who were eligible actually participated.

ȱȱȱ

řȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

State officials, program advocates, and supporters of the 1996 welfare reform law (with its goal of

moving families from welfare to work), maintained that various aspects of food stamp eligibility,

benefit, and administrative rules thwarted participation and effective administration—denying

needed support to working poor families and others in need, and interfering with efforts to

coordinate assistance. They pointed to overly complex policies that burden administrators and

applicants/recipients, food stamp rules that differ too much from those applied by states in other

welfare programs, and inadequate benefits not worth the “hassle” of applying and maintaining

eligibility. Finally, they contended that the program’s “quality control” system for measuring state

performance penalized too many states too harshly for erroneous benefit/eligibility

determinations—thereby pressuring states to “over-administer” the program and limiting

participation.

Food stamp advocates, states, and welfare reform supporters all expressed their dissatisfaction

with this state of affairs, but there was not a single, unified reform agenda, and most alternatives

for change imposed significant new costs. States called for simplified federal food stamp rules,

much greater state control over policies, lifting federal limits on work and training activities, and

revamped and more standardized benefit and eligibility rules to help administrators and

applicants/recipients. They also wanted major revision of the quality control system and a more

open federal policy as to waiving food stamp rules. Program advocates emphasized the

inadequacy of benefits and the need to grant eligibility to legally resident noncitizens. Although

they supported reform of the quality control system and selective changes to make

eligibility/benefit determinations easier for applicants/recipients, they resisted vesting too much

decision-making with states and tampering with what they saw as a nationally uniform food

stamp “safety net.” Welfare reform supporters also agreed with quality control reforms, but

stressed the need to ensure that the food stamp program fulfills a major role in supporting the

working poor as its first priority.

Within cost constraints, the farm bill’s food stamp provisions responded to many of these

criticisms, by easing/lifting administrative requirements, allowing states to achieve greater

conformity between rules used by food stamps and other welfare programs, reforming the food

stamp quality control system, increasing benefits, and opening up eligibility for noncitizens.

To a large extent, the Administration’s food stamp reform package also recognized the concerns

voiced by states, advocates, and welfare reformers. It included: (1) a modest benefit increase for

larger households (similar to the final law); (2) standardizing or giving states control over several

important federal rules; (3) liberalizing eligibility rules by excluding the value of one vehicle per

adult; (4) making eligible all low-income noncitizens who have resided in the U.S. legally for 5

years (similar to the final farm bill); (5) restructuring and reducing spending for employment and

training programs for food stamp recipients (similar to the final bill); (6) ending automatic

eligibility for some welfare beneficiaries; and (7) significantly reforming the food stamp quality

control system to penalize fewer states and give bonuses to states performing well (although in a

different way than the final farm bill). Advocates and state representatives welcomed the

Administration’s proposals, with reservations about the extent of the quality control reforms and

restrictions on food stamp eligibility for welfare recipients.

While federal food donations under TEFAP had increased in recent years and private-sector

donations to emergency feeding organizations were on the rise, many contended that federal help

was not keeping pace with growing demand. Perhaps more important, they argued that the costs

ȱȱȱ

Śȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

of storing and distributing food given out by state/local providers, (whether privately or federally

donated) were seriously underfunded. Both these criticisms were addressed in the final farm bill.

ȱȱ

CSFP operators were concerned over limits on how much of the program’s funding could be used

for administrative and related costs. The enacted farm bill increased money for these costs.

ȱȱȱ ȱ

Both agriculture and nutrition program advocates argued for specific initiatives to expand the

availability of fresh fruit and vegetables. The farm bill took tentative steps to do this (e.g., a pilot

project for schools, which was later expanded by the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC

Reauthorization Act, P.L. 108-265).

ȱ Ȭȱȱȱȱȱȱ

In addition to disagreement over how much new spending to allocate to the nutrition title of the

farm bill, the House and Senate differed over substantive issues with regard to the Food Stamp

program. The House bill included significant structural changes intended to increase benefits to

families with children and ease burdens on administrators and applicants/recipients, all of which

were largely included in the final bill. The Senate bill included amendments that—much like the

House bill—raised benefits to larger households, allowed states to conform some rules to those

for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and Medicaid and grant

transitional food stamps to those leaving the TANF program, eased quality control penalties, and

instituted new bonus payments to states for high performance. However, it went well beyond the

House measure, primarily by:

•

Expanding eligibility for noncitizens (more extensively than proposed by the

Administration);

•

Setting up state options to: establish when eligibility will be redetermined, reduce

recipient reporting requirements, simplify benefit calculations, and conform asset

eligibility rules with TANF and Medicaid standards;

•

Increasing benefits for recipients with very high shelter costs;

•

Liberalizing and simplifying work requirements for able-bodied adults without

dependents (ABAWDs);

•

Ending limits on spending of work/training funds and changing the federal share

of this spending; and,

•

Permitting use of food stamp benefits to buy dietary supplements.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

During the consideration of the 2002 farm bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued

two cost estimates for the farm bill’s nutrition title—one based on its April 2001 spending

“baseline” and another based on its March 2002 “baseline.” However, Congressional decisionmakers on the farm bill’s provisions used only the first (April 2001) version, although the

ȱȱȱ

śȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

estimate based on the second (March 2002) version was noticeably higher. Details of the varying

cost estimates for the nutrition title are included at the end of this report’s table laying out specific

provisions of the nutrition title (Title IV).

ȱȱ

Under the April 2001 baseline estimate, the total new cost of the Title IV nutrition provisions—

over the 6 years until the next scheduled farm bill—was $2.66 billion (new budget authority) and

$3.17 billion (outlays). Food stamp revisions represented 82% of new budget authority and 85%

of new outlays. On the other hand, the March 2002 baseline estimate envisioned new 6-year costs

brought on by Title IV at $2.79 billion (new budget authority) and $3.18 billion (outlays), with

food stamps still consuming the lion’s share.

¡ȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

No direct measure of the actual cost of the 2002 farm bill’s nutrition title (as opposed to costs

incurred due to other variables like unforeseen participation changes related to economic

conditions or increased participation rates) is available. However, through FY2005, total actual

costs—including “baseline” spending and new spending caused by the farm bill—for the

domestic food assistance programs covered by Title IV were 12% higher than projected by the

March 2002 baseline (including new spending). If current CBO estimates for FY2006 and

FY2007 are added in and compared to the March 2002 estimates for those years, the gap widens

to 20%.

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

The nutrition title of the final 2002 farm bill made substantial changes to almost every covered

domestic food assistance program, although not every proposal on the table was addressed. It also

included some new initiatives. The specific provisions of the enacted law and the House and

Senate versions are laid out in the table following this outline (in the order of their appearance in

the bill), and the specific items discussed are noted by item number, as delineated in the table.

£ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—items A23, B1 and B2, and D2.) Title IV reauthorized all expiring

authorizations of appropriations and other authorities through FY2007.

ȱȱ¢ȱȱ£ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A26.) Most important, Title IV expanded eligibility for legally

resident noncitizens (compared to the limits imposed by the 1996 welfare reform law) by making

eligible (1) legal permanent residents under age 18, regardless of their date of entry to the United

States or length of residence, (2) legal permanent residents receiving federal disability benefits,

without regard to their date of entry or length of residence,6 and (3) individuals who have resided

The effect of this change for the disabled is substantially mitigated by the fact that the primary federal disability

payment to those likely to be financially eligible for food stamps is made under the Supplemental Security Income

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

Ŝȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

in the United States legally for a period of 5 years (e.g., as legal permanent residents,

refugees/asylees, but not as temporary residents). These changes accounted for the majority of the

costs incurred under the provisions of Title IV.

ȱȱȱȱȱ£ȱȱȱȱ

¢ȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—items A3 and A7(a).) Title IV increased food stamp benefits, particularly

for larger households, by increasing and inflation-indexing the amount of income that is

disregarded when calculating their benefit (the “standard deduction”) and varying it by household

size.7 Title IV also increased the food stamp eligibility limit on liquid assets held by eligible

households with disabled members from the standard $2,000 to $3,000.8

ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Five provisions of Title IV provided states with new options to vary from regular food stamp

rules.

•

Disregarded Income. (Discussed in Table 1—item A2.) Title IV allowed states,

when determining food stamp eligibility and benefits, to disregard (exclude) any

type of income the state does not consider under its Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance program or its Medicaid program.

•

Tracking Household Expenses. (Discussed in Table 1—item A6.) Title IV

permitted states to disregard changes in household expenses (such as shelter

costs) until the household’s next eligibility redetermination. Household expenses

affect benefits by lowering (or raising) the amount of income counted in

calculating benefits.

•

Disregarded Assets. (Discussed in Table 1—item A7(b).) Title IV allowed states,

when determining food stamp eligibility, to disregard (exclude) liquid assets that

they do not consider under their TANF or Medicaid programs.

•

Reporting Changed Household Circumstances. (Discussed in Table 1—item

A9.) With some exceptions, Title IV gave states the option to require households

to report changes in their circumstances as infrequently as every 6 months.

•

Transitional Benefits. (Discussed in Table 1—item A16.) Title IV allowed states

to give up to 5 months’ “transitional” food stamp benefits to those leaving the

TANF program. The transitional amount would effectively be the food stamp

benefit received prior to leaving the TANF program.

(...continued)

program, which has stricter noncitizen eligibility rules than food stamps.

This change is phased in and, as of FY2007, it is not fully in place.

Households with elderly members already were eligible for the higher limit under existing law.

ȱȱȱ

ŝȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

ȱȱ¢ȬȬȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A18.) The Food Stamp program’s quality control (QC) system

measures the degree to which states erroneously determine eligibility and benefits. Based on the

extent to which they exceed certain thresholds, they may be assessed financial penalties. On the

other hand, if they fall below certain thresholds, they may receive “bonus” payments.

Title IV substantially changed the food stamp QC system of penalties and bonus payments. It

raised the threshold above which states are assessed penalties and effectively penalized only those

states with persistently (over 3 years) high rates of erroneous determinations. It also changed the

system of bonus payments to a requirement for performance bonuses totaling $48 million a year

to states meeting federal standards for high/most-improved performance.

ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A20.) In addition to continuing the requirements for unmatched

federal funding for employment and training programs for food stamp recipients (at $90 million a

year) and unlimited state-match (50%) funding, Title IV provided up to $20 million a year in

unmatched federal funding for employment/training services to able-bodied adults without

dependents (ABAWDs), eliminated a state “maintenance of effort” requirement, and eliminated

limits on funding for participant support costs (e.g., child care).

ȱȱȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A24.) Title IV consolidated the nutrition assistance block grants for

Puerto Rico and American Samoa and increased the new consolidated grant to an amount slightly

above what it would have been under regular inflation indexing. Inflation indexing for future

years was retained, and Puerto Rico’s share of the new grant was set at 99.6%.

ȱȱ ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A19.) In a new initiative, Title IV required the Agriculture

Department to spend up to $5 million a year on grants to improve program access.

(Discussed in Table 1—item B1.) Title IV increased required funding for TEFAP commodities

from $100 million to $140 million a year and raised the authorized funding level for TEFAP

administration/distribution costs from $50 million to $60 million a year.

(Discussed in Table 1—item B2.) Title IV increased and indexed funding for CSFP

administrative costs.

ȱȱȱ

Şȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item C2.) Title IV required schools to disregard housing allowances paid

to military personnel living in “privatized housing” when determining eligibility for free and

reduced-price school meals. It also allowed states the option to implement this same disregard in

the WIC program.

¢ȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item D2.) Title IV increased the required funding for community food

projects from $2.5 million to $5 million a year.

ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item D5.) Title IV authorized a program to encourage the purchase of

locally produced foods and required that schools in Puerto Rico purchase food produced in the

Commonwealth to the extent practicable (as was already the case for Hawaii).

ȱȂȱȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item D6). Title IV placed into law provisions, authorizing a pre-existing

Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program and provided mandatory funding of $15 million a

year.

ȱȱȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item D7.) Title IV established a pilot program making free fruit and

vegetables available in schools. It was provided funding of $6 million for the 2002-2003 school

year. Later law, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265)

extended and expanded this project. In a related action, a separate part of the farm bill (Section

10603) provided $50 million a year in fresh fruit and vegetable purchases (through the

Department of Defense procurement system) for schools and institutions participating in child

nutrition programs.

ȱ ȱ ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item D8.) Authorized a Congressional Hunger Fellows program (to be

funded from the proceeds of a trust fund and gifts). However, this program was, and continues to

be, funded through annual Agriculture Department appropriations at the level of $2.5 million a

year.

ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Several notable proposals for changes in the Food Stamp program were not covered in the

enacted 2002 farm bill.

ȱȱȱ

şȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

ȱȱ

Title IV did not include the Administration’s proposal to liberalize eligibility rules by excluding

the value of one vehicle per adult in judging households’ assets; however, it did include

provisions that have the effect of allowing states to do so if it conforms with the way they treat

vehicles in their TANF program. It also did not address the Administration’s proposal to limit the

granting of automatic (categorical) food stamp eligibility to recipients of TANF benefits.

ȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A4.) Title IV did not have a provision (suggested in the Senate bill)

to raise benefits for those with very high shelter costs.

Ȭȱȱȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A10.) Title IV did not (as recommended in the Senate bill) ease

work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs).

¢ȱ ȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A15.) Title IV did not include a change (put forth in the Senate bill)

to allow states to conform their method of reviewing households’ food stamp eligibility to the

method used for other public assistance programs.

¢ȱȱ

(Discussed in Table 1—item A25.) Title IV did not encompass a proposal (in the Senate bill) to

permit the use of food stamp benefits to purchase dietary supplements providing vitamins or

minerals.

It is likely that several of the issues noted above that were not taken up in the 2002 farm bill will

reappear as proposals for the 2007 farm bill: the recommendation to restrict automatic

(categorical) eligibility to public assistance (particularly TANF) recipients, increasing benefits for

those with very high shelter costs, loosening rules for ABAWDs, and allowing the use of food

stamps for dietary supplements. In addition, two areas in which the 2002 farm bill took action

will probably come under scrutiny: the trend in quality control “error rates” since the

liberalization of the state penalty system in 2002 and the degree to which states have taken up the

new options they were given in 2002.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŖȱ

.Title IV (Nutrition) Provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill (Including Cost Estimates)

Table 1

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Allowed states to exclude child support

payments from income, or continue to

deduct them.

Adopted the Senate provisions allowing

states to exclude or deduct child

support payments.

Adopted the Senate provisions requiring

simplified procedures that allow states

to use information from state child

support enforcement agencies.

The Secretary may prescribe the methods to

be used to determine the amount of the

deduction for child support payments.

Lifted some administrative and reporting

requirements on program operators and

recipients by (1) requiring the Secretary

to establish simplified procedures for

determining the amount of child support

payments that allow states to use

information from their child support

enforcement agencies and (2) permitting

states to freeze the amount of any child

support exclusion/deduction until a

household’s eligibility is next

redetermined.

[Section 5(e)(4) of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 411]

[Section 4101]

Allowed states to conform food stamp

income exclusions with those of other

assistance programs, and thereby lifted

some administrative and reporting

requirements on program operators and

applicants/recipients, by adding new

income exclusions:

Same as the House measure, with minor

and technical differences.

Adopted the Senate provisions adding

new income exclusions.

(1) at state option, education assistance

that must be excluded under its Medicaid

program;

(2) “state complementary assistance

program” payments excluded under state

(1) education assistance that must be

excluded under state Medicaid programs;

(2) “state complementary assistance

program” payments excluded under state

Medicaid programs; and

A. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM

A1. Child support

Child support payments are deducted from

the paying household’s income in

determining its benefits (and, in some cases,

its eligibility)—but only after all income has

been counted. [

Deducting child

support payments (rather than excluding

them from income before calculating any

deductions) increases benefits. Excluding

them raises benefits and increases the

likelihood of the paying household being

judged eligible based on its total counted

income.]

No provisions.

Note:

A2. Definition of income

When determining eligibility and benefits, a

household’s income excludes: (1) noncash

income, (2) loans, (3) most payments to

vendors, education aid, expense

reimbursements and money received on

behalf of third parties, (4) non-recurring

lump-sum payments, (5) the cost of

producing self-employment income, (6)

federal energy assistance benefits, (7) certain

payments related to supporting work efforts,

and (8) income excluded by other federal

laws.

Ȭŗŗȱ

Added new income exclusions (all at state

option):

No provisions as to freezing the amount

of any child support exclusion/

deduction.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

Medicaid programs; and

(3) at state option, any income a state

does not consider when judging eligibility

for cash assistance under its Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

program or its Medicaid program.

(3) any types of income a state does not

consider when judging eligibility for (or

the amount of) cash assistance under its

TANF program, or when judging

eligibility for its Medicaid program.

Under the third new exclusionary rule,

certain income could not be excluded:

earnings, various Social Security Act

payments, or other types of income the

Secretary judges essential to equitable

eligibility determinations.

Under the third new exclusionary rule,

certain income could not be excluded:

wages or salaries, various Social Security

Act payments, regular payments from a

government source (e.g., unemployment

benefits), workers’ compensation, child

support payments, or other types of

income the Secretary judges essential to

equitable eligibility determinations.

[Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 401]

[Section 412]

[Section 4102]

When determining food stamp benefits and

eligibility, all households are allowed a

“standard deduction” (not varied by

household size) from counted income. In

2002, it was $134 a month for the 48

contiguous states and the District of

Columbia, $229 for Alaska, $189 for Hawaii,

$269 for Guam, and $118 for the Virgin

Islands.

Increased standard deduction amounts.

Established multiple standard deductions

(varying by household size) equal to 9.7%

of the federal poverty income guideline

amounts used for income eligibility

determinations in FY2002. The new

standard deductions would not increase

over time. Required that the new

standard deductions not be less than the

current amount for each jurisdiction or

greater than 9.7% of the FY2002 poverty

guideline amount for 6-person

households.

Increased standard deduction amounts.

Established multiple standard deductions

(varying by household size) equal to an

increasing percentage of the inflationindexed poverty guideline amounts. For

FY2002-FY2004, the new standard

deductions would equal 8% of each

year’s poverty guideline amounts. This

percentage would rise, in stages, to 10%

for FY2011 and following years. Required

that the new standard deductions not be

less than the current amount for each

jurisdiction or greater than the applicable

percentage (see above) of the poverty

amount for 6-person households.

Increased standard deduction amounts.

Established multiple standard deductions

(varying by household size) equal to

8.31% of the inflation-indexed poverty

guideline amounts. Required that the

new standard deductions not be less

than the current amount for each

jurisdiction or greater than 8.31% of the

poverty amount for 6-person

households.

[Note Standard (and other) deductions

increase benefits by reducing the amount of

income counted when calculating them.

They also may affect eligibility because “net”

[Note Poverty guideline amounts vary

by household size and are inflationindexed annually. In both the House and

Senate measures, the new standard

[Note The House measure initially

provided higher deduction levels. But the

Senate bill, over time, would bring

somewhat higher deductions because it

[Note The new law effectively took the

House proposal for a fixed percentage

of the poverty amounts (though

reduced from the House percentage)

A3. Standard deductions

ȬŗŘȱ

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

household income (after deductions) is a

factor in some income eligibility decisions

(e.g., for households with elderly or disabled

members).]

deductions would vary by household size

and, thus, would be somewhat higher

than prior law.]

was keyed to each year’s inflationindexed poverty guideline amount (not

fixed at the FY2002 level).]

and coupled it with the Senate proposal

to allow for inflation indexing based on

changes in the poverty guidelines.]

[Section 5(e)(1) of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 402]

[Section 171(c)]

[Section 4103]

A4. Shelter costs

a. Households are entitled to an “excess

shelter expense deduction” for a portion of

their shelter expenses (if they are very high

in relation to their income). As with the

standard deduction (see above), this

deduction reduces the amount of income

counted when calculating households’

benefits (thereby increasing them) and can

affect some eligibility determinations.

No provisions.

The amount that may be claimed as an

excess shelter expense deduction is

“capped” for households without an

elderly/disabled member. The cap is indexed

for inflation, and, for FY2002, it was $354 a

month for the 48 contiguous states and the

District of Columbia, $566 for Alaska, $477

for Hawaii, $416 for Guam, and $279 for the

Virgin Islands.

[Section 5(e)(7) of the Food Stamp Act]

By regulation, only payments directly

related to shelter may be counted as shelter

costs when calculating the excess shelter

expense deduction.

Raised benefits for those with very

high shelter costs in relation to their

income. Increased the cap on the amount

that may be claimed as an excess shelter

expense deduction. For FY2003, the cap

would rise to $390 a month for the 48

states and the District of Columbia (with

commensurate increases for Alaska,

Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands).

For FY2004-FY2009, each amount would

be adjusted annually for inflation.

Effective with FY2010, all caps would be

eliminated.

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

No provisions affecting the cap on

excess shelter expense deductions.

Prior law remains in effect.

[Section 169(c)]

No provisions.

uced requirements on program

operators and recipients by mandating

that any required payment to a landlord

be treated as a shelter cost—without

regard to the specific charge it covers.

b. Red

No provisions as to payments to

landlords. Prior law remains in effect.

[Section 414]

States may establish (and must document

the development of) a shelter “allowance”—

Ȭŗřȱ

No provisions.

Reduced documentation requirements

on states. Permitted states to allow

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

homeless households.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

not to exceed $143 a month. As with the

standard deduction (see above), this

allowance may be used to reduce the

counted income of homeless households not

in free shelter throughout the month when

their income is calculated for benefit (and, in

some cases, eligibility) purposes.

Standard utility allowances” (SUAs) are

used in figuring shelter costs for the excess

shelter expense deduction (see above).

States may make their use mandatory for all

households. However, SUAs may not be

used for households that (1) live in certain

centrally metered public housing or (2)

share expenses with others (unless the

expenses are pro-rated).

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

homeless households not receiving free

shelter throughout the month to claim a

flat deduction from income ($143 a

month)—in lieu of any shelter expense

deduction. Repealed the existing shelter

“allowance.”

[Section 5(e)(5) of the Food Stamp Act]

d. “

SENATE BILL

[Section 414]

No provisions.

[Section 5(e)(7) of the Food Stamp Act]

Reduced administrative requirements

on program operators and recipients.

Allowed states choosing to make SUAs

mandatory to do so for all households

incurring heating or cooling expenses—

without regard to the current metered

public housing and expense pro-rating

rules.

[Section 4105]

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

SUAs.

[Section 415]

[Section 4104]

Allowed states more leeway in how they

convert weekly/bi-weekly income to

monthly amounts—if they lowered the

“earned income deduction” claimed by

all households with earnings to ensure

cost-neutrality.

No provisions as to conversion of

weekly/bi-weekly income to monthly

amounts. Prior rules remain in effect.

A5. Calculating earned income

By regulation, whenever income is received

on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, it must be

converted to a monthly amount—by

multiplying weekly income by 4.3 and biweekly income by 2.15, or by using the

state’s public assistance conversion standard.

No provisions.

[Section 416]

A6. Establishing and tracking

deductions

By regulation, states must adjust households’

benefits for most changes in

circumstances/expenses that affect the

amount of deductions (and thereby benefits)

they may receive.

ȬŗŚȱ

No provisions.

Lifted significant administrative and

reporting requirements on program

operators and recipients. Allowed states

to disregard many changes in household

circumstances/expenses that affect the

Adopted the Senate provisions allowing

states to disregard many changes in

household circumstances/expenses until

the household’s next eligibility

redetermination.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

amount of any deductions they might

claim—until the household’s next

eligibility redetermination. This

effectively allowed states to “freeze”

most household deductions (and thus

benefits) between eligibility

redeterminations (“recertifications”).

States could, for example, ignore changes

in shelter, dependent-care, or medical

costs, household size, or child support

payments. However, states could not

ignore changes in earnings and must

recalculate any excess shelter expense

deduction when a household reports a

change in residence.

[Section 417]

[Section 4106]

A7. Resources (assets)

Eligible households are limited to those with No provisions.

total counted liquid resources (assets) of

$2,000 (or $3,000 for households with elderly

members). Resources that are excluded

include items such as: a household’s home

and personal belongings/furnishings, life

insurance, income-producing property, some

retirement accounts, and (to a varying

degree), the value of vehicles.

Ȭŗśȱ

Added households with disabled

members to those covered by the higher

$3,000 asset limit.

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

households with disabled members.

[Section 171(c)]

[Section 4107]

Allowed states to conform food

b. Adopted the Senate provisions

stamp resource rules with those of other permitting states to exclude resources

major assistance programs, and thereby

(assets) they do not consider under

lifted some administrative requirements their TANF or Medicaid programs.

on program operators and recipients.

Required regulations permitting states to

exclude any types of resources they do

not consider when judging eligibility for

cash aid under their TANF programs or

medical assistance under their Medicaid

programs. This authority would not

allow exclusion of cash, vehicles (states

already could use their TANF standard),

readily available amounts in financial

institutions, or resources the Secretary

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

judges essential to equitable eligibility

determinations.

[Section 5(g) of the Food Stamp Act]

A8. Issuance systems in disasters

States may grant emergency food stamp

benefits in disasters. Benefits can be issued

through coupon allotments or electronic

benefit transfer (EBT) systems.

No provisions.

[Section 5(h) of the Food Stamp Act]

A9. Reporting requirements for

households

With some exceptions, most recipient

households must report significant changes

in their circumstances as they occur. Under

regulatory waivers for a number of states,

those with earnings may report every 6

months and certain others may report

quarterly.

No provisions.

[Regulations & waivers under Section 5(c) of the

Food Stamp Act]

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

[Section 418]

[Section 4107]

Allowed the Secretary to issue food

stamp disaster assistance in the form of

cash when other issuance systems are

impracticable.

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

disaster assistance.

[Section 419]

[Section 4108]

Lifted some administrative and reporting

requirements on program operators and

recipients by allowing states to require

households to report most changes in

their circumstances as infrequently as

every 6 months—in lieu of other

reporting requirements. Households

would have to report if their total

monthly income exceeds the food stamp

maximum for their household size. This

change effectively allowed states to

extend the rule allowed by waiver for

those with earnings to additional (or all)

households.

Adopted the Senate provisions allowing

states to require household reporting as

infrequently as every 6 months.

[Section. 420]

[Section 4109]

Based work requirements for ABAWDs.

No provisions. Prior law remains in

effect.

A10. Able-bodied adults without

dependents (ABAWDs)

ABAWDs are ineligible if, during the

preceding 36 months, they received food

stamps for 3 months without (1) working

20+ hours a week, (2) participating in a

ȬŗŜȱ

No provisions.

Changed the “3-months-out-of-36months” rule to make ABAWDs

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

work program 20+ hours a week, or (3)

participating in a workfare program—the “3months-out-of-36-months” rule.

ineligible if, during the preceding 24

months they received benefits for 6

months without meeting 1 of the 3 workrelated requirements.

Changed the definition of “work

program” to include job search or job

search training.

Qualifying “work programs” do not include

job search or job search training.

ABAWDs denied eligibility under this “3months-out-of-36-months” rule can regain it

if they meet 1 of the 3 work-related

requirements for a full month.

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Changed the rule for regaining eligibility

to provide eligibility whenever an

ABAWD meets 1 of the 3 work-related

requirements.

[Section. 421]

[Section. 6(o) of the Food Stamp Act]

A11. Benefit access through electronic

benefit transfer (EBT) systems

By regulation, states may take benefits

provided through EBT systems “off-line”

after 3 months of inactivity in the recipient’s

EBT account.

SENATE BILL

No provisions.

[

This period was scheduled to be

lengthened by regulation.]

Required that benefits provided through

EBT systems not be made inaccessible

until at least 6 months have elapsed since

the recipient last accessed the EBT

benefit account.

No provisions. Prior rules remain in

effect (as lengthened by new

regulations).

Note:

[Section 422]

A12. Cost of EBT systems

The cost of EBT systems must not, within

certain limits, exceed those of the prior

issuance system.

No provisions.

[Section 7(i)(2)(A) of the Food Stamp Act]

A13. Group living facilities

a. Where recipients live in substance abuse

treatment centers, states may require them

to designate the center as their “authorized

representative” and provide their benefits to

the center, but benefits/eligibility are

Ȭŗŝȱ

a. No provisions.

Deletes the existing EBT “costneutrality” requirement.

Adopted the Senate provisions deleting

the EBT cost-neutrality rule.

[Section 423]

[Section 4110]

a. In the case of recipients living in

a. Allowed the Secretary to authorize

substance abuse treatment centers, small

group homes for the disabled, or shelters

for battered women/children or the

homeless, permitted states to use new

nationwide implementation of new

methods of calculating and issuing

standardized benefits for recipients in

substance abuse centers, group homes

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

calculated normally. There are no similar

special provisions for residents of small

group homes for the disabled or shelters for

battered women/children or the homeless.

In all the above-noted group living facilities,

residents are treated as separate households

when determining eligibility and benefits.

[Section 8(e) of the Food Stamp Act]

Without a waiver, group living facilities

may not redeem food stamp benefits

through direct (on-site) use of EBT cards.

Recipients’ EBT cards must be presented

and used at approved retail food outlets.

No provision.

[Section 10 of the Food Stamp Act]

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

methods of their own devising for

calculating and issuing “standardized”

benefits.

for the disabled, or shelters—at the

conclusion of pilot projects to test the

feasibility of a range of new methods.

[Section 424]

[Section 4112]

Allowed the Secretary to authorize

group living facilities to redeem food

stamp benefits through direct (on-site)

use of EBT cards.

Adopted the Senate provisions

allowing group living facilities to redeem

food stamp benefits through direct use

of EBT cards.

[Section 425]

[Section 4113]

Required that states make food stamp

applications available on their internet

websites.

Adopted the Senate provisions for

applications on internet websites,

effective 18 months after enactment.

[Section 426]

[Section 4114]

Replaced assigned certification periods

and rules for recertification with new

“eligibility review periods,” under which

states would periodically review the

eligibility status of recipient households

following procedures set by the state.

No provisions. Prior law remains in

effect.

A14. Food stamp applications

States have responsibility for developing

food stamp applications, within certain

federal requirements.

No provisions.

[Section 11(e)(2)(B) of the Food Stamp Act]

A15. Continuing eligibility

Eligible households are assigned

“certification periods” of up to 12 months

(or 24 months for the elderly or disabled).

At the end of a certification period, specific

procedures must be followed to “recertify”

a household and continue issuing benefits.

No provisions.

[Note These provisions would lift

significant administrative requirements

on program operators and recipients by

allowing states to conform their method

of reviewing food stamp eligibility with

the method used for other major public

ȬŗŞȱ

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

assistance programs.]

[Sections 3(c) & 11(e) of Food Stamp Act]

[Section 427]

A16. Transitional food stamp benefits

for those leaving TANF

Regulations permit states to opt for 3

months’ “transitional food stamp benefits”

for households leaving TANF for reasons

other than a sanction. Transitional benefits

generally are adjusted for any loss of income

on leaving TANF and reported changes in

circumstances that would increase benefits.

A17. Notices to retailers

“Adverse action” notices must be delivered

to retailers by certified mail or personal

service.

Lifted significant administrative and

reporting requirements on program

operators and recipients by explicitly

permitting states to provide expanded

transitional food stamp benefits to

households, leaving TANF for reasons

other than a sanction. Food stamps were

to be automatically continued for 6

months, at the level the household was

receiving immediately prior to leaving

TANF.

Same as the House measure, except that

(similar to pre-existing policy),

transitional benefits would be adjusted

upward for the loss of TANF cash aid or

any reported changes in household

circumstances that would increase food

stamp benefits. Transitional benefits

would not be available to those ceasing

to receive TANF benefits because of a

sanction or to those in other stateestablished categories.

Allowed states to give up to 5 months’

transitional benefits to those leaving

TANF. The transitional benefit is the

amount received prior to leaving TANF,

adjusted to account for TANF income

and (at state option) for information

received through other aid programs.

Transitional benefits would not be

available as in the Senate measure.

[Section 403]

[Section 429]

[Section 4115]

No provisions.

Permitted notices to be delivered to

retailers by any form of delivery that

provides evidence of delivery.

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

notices to retailers.

[Section 430]

[Section 4117]

[Section 14(a)(2) of the Food Stamp Act]

A18. Quality control (QC) system &

bonus payments to states

a. The Food Stamp program’s QC system

measures the degree to which states make

erroneous benefit and eligibility decisions.

State “error rates” reported from annual

QC sample surveys are used to (1) provide

financial rewards to states with very low

error rates and (2) assess fiscal sanctions on

states having high error rates. Each year,

states with total error rates below 6%

receive added federal matching money for

Ȭŗşȱ

a. Substantially changed the QC system,

and eased its effect on states as it relates

to fiscal sanctions. Raised the threshold

above which states are sanctioned to the

national average error rate, plus 1

percentage point. Required a statistical

adjustment to individual state error rates

that effectively lowers all state error

rates.

Same as the House measure, except

that it reduced, then ended, added

federal funding for states with error

rates below 6%, and required the

Secretary to conduct annual

“investigations” of states with error rates

above the new (higher) threshold and

fine them if they are found to be

seriously negligent in their administration

of the Food Stamp program.

Substantially changed the QC system

and eased its effect on states as it

relates to fiscal sanctions. Ended added

federal funding for states with error

rates below 6%. Raised the threshold

above which states are held liable to

105% of the national average. Required

a statistical adjustment to individual

state error rates that effectively lowers

all state error rates.

LAW/POLICY

administration (an increase from the normal

50% match, to as high as 60%). States with

error rates above the national average are

assessed fiscal sanctions based on how far

above the national average they are.

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Effectively penalized only those states

with persistently (over 3 years) high

error rates. Made states liable for

amounts equal to 10% of the value of

erroneous benefits above 6% (this

liability amount is calculated for the 2nd

consecutive year in which a state

exceeds the threshold).

Provided that sanctions would not be

assessed until a state has been above the

new (higher) threshold for 3 consecutive

years. Sanctioned states based on how

far they are above a 10% error rate in

the 3rd year.

Authorized the Secretary to resolve

states’ liability amounts by (1) requiring

them to invest up to 50% of the amount

in administrative improvements, (2)

placing up to 50% of the amount “at

risk” for collection in the next year, or

(3) waiving any amount. If a state fails to

reduce its error rate for a 3rd

consecutive year, the “at-risk” amount

would be collected.

[Section 16(c) of the Food Stamp Act]

The Secretary has established a policy

whereby assessed sanctions are reduced for

states serving high proportions of

households with earners or noncitizens

(“error-prone” households).

[Section 404]

No provisions.

[Section 431]

Established in law, a requirement to

adjust all states’ error rates to account

for high proportions of error-prone

households.

[Section 4118]

No provisions as to error-prone

households. Prior policy remains.

[Section 431]

Federal reviews of QC error-rate

determinations and arbitration of federalstate differences must be completed by the

end of March each year. By the end of April,

final QC error rates must be determined

and states notified.

No provisions.

[Section 16(c)(8) of the Food Stamp Act]

d. No provisions for specific “bonus

ȬŘŖȱ

Required measurement of states’

June 30th, respectively.

Adopted the Senate provisions

changing deadlines.

[Section 432]

[Section 4119]

c. Changed deadlines to May 31st and

Required measurement of states’

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

payments” to states with high levels of

performance (but see “enhanced

administrative cost-sharing,” below).

performance as to: (1) compliance with

deadlines for prompt eligibility

determinations and benefit issuance and

(2) the degree to which negative

eligibility decisions are made correctly.

performance as to: (1) serving working

poor households with children, and (2) 4

additional measures set by the Secretary

in consultation with the National

Governors Association, the American

Public Human Services Association, and

the National Conference of State

Legislatures.

performance as to: (1) actions taken to

correct errors, reduce error rates, and

improve eligibility determinations, and

(2) other indicators of effective

administration established by the

Secretary.

QC provisions grant added federal funding

for administration (“enhanced administrative

cost-sharing”) for states with error rates

below 6%. This can raise the federal share of

state administrative costs from the normal

50% to as high as 60%.

Required annual federal “excellence bonus

payments” of $1 million each to the 10

states with the highest or most improved

combined performance in the 2

measures noted above.

Required annual federal “high

performance bonus payments” to states

totaling $6 million for each of the 5

measures noted above.

Required federal performance bonus

payments totaling $48 million a year to

states that meet the Secretary’s

standards for high or most-improved

performance in the areas noted above.

Retained added federal funding for states

with error rates below 6%.

Reduced, then ended added federal

funding for states with error rates below

6%.

Ended added federal funding for states

with error rates below 6%.

[Sec. 16(c) of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 404]

[Section 433]

[Section 4120]

No provisions.

Required the Secretary to spend up to

$9.5 million a year to pay states the cost

of developing and implementing simple

application and eligibility determination

systems.

Authorized grants to states and other

entities to pay a 75% federal share of the

cost of projects to improve access to

food stamp benefits or outreach to

eligible individuals. Authorized

appropriations totaling $3 million.

Required the Secretary to spend up to

$5 million a year on grants to states and

other entities covering the cost of

projects to improve program access, or

develop and implement simple

application and eligibility determination

systems.

[Section 405]

[Section 438]

[Section 4116]

Extended authority for funding for E&T

programs through FY2006, but reduced

the amount of unmatched federal money

and eliminated several requirements on

Substantially the same as the Senate

provisions, but provided slightly less

unmatched federal funding and

extended authority through FY2007.

A19. Grants for simple application and

eligibility systems & improved access

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

A20. Employment and training (E&T)

programs

Generally extended existing funding and

rul

ȬŘŗȱ

es for E&T programs through FY2011.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

states and limits on federal matching

funding.

a. Through FY2002, food stamp law

required unmatched federal funding for E&T

programs for food stamp recipients. For

each year, specific amounts were provided

(e.g., a total of $165 million for FY2002).

Unmatched money is available until

expended; a carryover balance exceeding

$300 million was available.

Extended the requirement for

unmatched federal funding for E&T

programs through FY2011. Set the

amount at the FY2002 level (a total of

$165 million a year).

Extended the requirement for

unmatched federal funding for E&T

programs through FY2006. Set the

amount at $90 million a year, available

until expended. Rescinded the unspent

carryover balance.

In addition to the $90 million noted

above, provided up to $25 million a year

(unmatched) for services to ABAWDs.

Eliminated the pre-existing “80%”

requirement for services to ABAWDs.

Extended the requirement for

unmatched federal E&T funding at $90

million a year through FY2007.

Rescinded the unspent carryover

balance.

Adopted Senate provisions (1) for

funding of ABAWD services (limited to

$20 million a year) and (2) eliminating

the “80%” requirement.

No provisions.

[Sections 6(d) & 16(h) of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 406(a)]

[Sections 169(c) & 434]

[Section 4121]

No provisions.

Made explicit states’ authority to use

TANF funds for food stamp

informational (“outreach”) activities.

No provisions. Prior law remains in

effect, but a federal guidance was issued

telling states that they may use TANF

funds for food stamp informational

States must use at least 80% of their total

allocation of unmatched federal funds for

services to ABAWDs.

To receive a portion of their federal funds

allocation (e.g., $75 million in FY2002),

states must maintain their E&T spending at

the FY1996 level.

The Secretary may set specific dollar

amounts that the federal government will

pay for each E&T program “placement.”

Federal matching funds are provided for

non-child-care E&T participant support costs

(e.g., transportation)—50% up to half of $25

per person per month.

Eliminated the “maintenance of effort”

requirement.

Ended the Secretary’s authority to set

per-placement funding amounts.

Eliminated limits on federal funding for

participant support costs.

Adopted Senate provisions

eliminating the “maintenance of effort”

requirement.

Adopted Senate provisions ending

authority to set per-placement funding

amounts.

Adopted Senate provisions

eliminating limits on funding for

participant support costs.

A21. Food stamp informational

activities

States’ authority to use TANF funds to

conduct food stamp informational

(“outreach”) activities is unclear.

ȬŘŘȱ

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

activities.

[Section 16(k) of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 436]

A22. Pilot project waivers

The Secretary may grant waivers from Food

Stamp Act rules when carrying out pilot

projects. The extent of this waiver authority

is unclear for pilot projects implemented by

nonfederal entities.

No provisions.

Made clear that the Secretary may grant

waivers from federal food stamp rules in

all pilot projects, regardless of the entity

that implements them.

Adopted the Senate provisions on

granting of waivers.

[Section 437]

[Section 4123]

Extended expiring authorities through

FY2011.

FY2006.

FY2007—except for the authority for

[Section 406]

[Section 435]

[Section 4122]

[Section 17 of the Food Stamp Act]

A23. Reauthorization

Expiring at the end of FY2002:

—appropriations authorizations for the

Food Stamp program, the Food Distribution

Program on Indian Reservations, and

nutrition assistance grants for Puerto Rico

and American Samoa;

—authority to reduce federal administrative

cost sharing payments otherwise due to

states by $197 million a year;

—authority for a limited number of pilot

projects granting cash food stamp benefits;

and

—authority for outreach pilot projects.

[Sections 18(a), 16(k), 17(b), & 17(i) of the

Food Stamp Act]

A24. Puerto Rico and American

Samoa

In lieu of regular food stamp

Puerto Rico.

program, Puerto Rico received an annual

nutrition assistance block grant, authorized

through FY2002. It covered all benefits costs

and 50% of any administrative costs. It was

ȬŘřȱ

Extended Puerto Rico’s nutrition

assistance block grant through FY2011,

retaining annual inflation indexing.

Consolidated nutrition assistance

grant funding for Puerto Rico and

American Samoa (see below). Mandated

the consolidated grant through FY2006.

The base consolidated grant was $1.356

outreach pilot projects (see Item #A19

above for similar new authority).

Consolidated nutrition assistance

grant funding for Puerto Rico and

American Samoa (see below). Mandated

the consolidated grant through FY2007.

The base grant would be $1.401 billion

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

annually indexed for food price inflation, and

the FY2002 grant amount was

$1,350,518,000.

Permitted Puerto Rico to use up to $6

million of its FY2002 grant to pay costs

of upgrading electronic systems, without

matching the amount.

[Section 19 of Food Stamp Act]

b. American Samoa. American Samoa

received an annual grant covering all

expenditures for a nutrition assistance

program primarily designed to assist the

elderly and disabled. The grant was

authorized through FY2002 and mandated

$5.3 million a year.

[Section 24 of the Food Stamp Act]

[Section 406(f)]

Extended American Samoa’s nutrition

assistance grant through FY2011.

Increased it to $5.75 million for FY2002

and $5.8 million a year for later years.

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

billion (FY2002). It was then to be

adjusted for food-price inflation

beginning with FY2003. Puerto Rico’s

annual share was 99.6%.

(FY2003), adjusted for food-price

inflation beginning with FY2004. Puerto

Rico’s annual share would be 99.6%.

Same as the House measure with regard

to permission to use up to $6 million for

costs of upgrading electronic systems.

Permitted Puerto Rico to use up to $6

million of its FY2002 grant for costs of

upgrading electronic systems, without

matching the amount. Also allowed

Puerto Rico to carry over up to 2% of

any year’s grant to the following year.

[Section 439]

[Section 4124]

American Samoa’s share was .4% of

each year’s new consolidated nutrition

assistance grant (see above). Its separate

grant was repealed.

American Samoa’s share was .4% of

each year’s new consolidated nutrition

assistance grant. (see above). Its

separate grant was repealed. Allowed

American Samoa to carry over up to 2%

of any year’s grant to the following year.

[Section 406(g) & (j)]

[Section 439]

[Section 4124]

No provisions.

Permitted the use of food stamp benefits

to purchase dietary supplements that

“provide exclusively one or more

vitamins or minerals.” Required a report

on the effects of this new provision.

No provisions. Prior law remains in

effect.

A25. Vitamin and Mineral

Supplements

Food stamp benefits can be used only to

purchase food items for home consumption

(or, in limited cases, prepared meals).

[Section 3(g) of the Food Stamp Act]

A26. Noncitizens

a. Children—Legal permanent residents

who were living in the U.S. as of August 22,

1996, and who are under age 18 are eligible

for food stamps under rules governing the

ȬŘŚȱ

[Section 445]

No provisions.

Made legal permanent residents under

age 18 eligible for food stamps—

regardless of their date of entry. Also

exempted them from requirements that

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

legal permanent residents under age

18—effective October 1, 2003.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

Work history requirement—Legal

permanent residents with a substantial work

history (defined as 40 quarters, or 10 years)

are eligible for food stamps under rules

governing the categorical eligibility of

noncitizens.

Humanitarian cases—Asylees, refugees,

Cuban/ Haitian entrants, certain aliens

whose deportation/removal is being

withheld for humanitarian reasons, and

Vietnam-born Amerasians fathered by U.S.

citizens are eligible for food stamps for 7

years after entry/grant of status under rules

governing noncitizens’ categorical eligibility.

—Legal

permanent residents who were living in the

U.S. as of August 22, 1996, and who are

receiving federal disability benefits—e.g.,

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

payments—are eligible for food stamps

under rules governing the categorical

eligibility of noncitizens.

d. Disability benefit recipients

e. Length of residence in the U.S.

No provisions.

ȬŘśȱ

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

their sponsor’s financial resources be

deemed to them in determining food

stamp eligibility.

categorical eligibility of noncitizens. In

general, their sponsors’ financial resources

may be deemed available to them in

determining their food stamp eligibility, as is

the case with other groups of legal

permanent residents with sponsors.

SENATE BILL

[Section 452(a)]

b. No provisions.

Reduced the work history

requirement to 16 quarters (4 years).

[Section 452(b)]

c. No provisions.

Removed the 7-year limit on eligibility

for humanitarian cases.

[Section 4401(b)]

No provisions. Prior law remains in

effect, but the new 5-year residence

rule described below has the effect of

shortening the work history

requirement.

No provisions, but the new 5-year

residence rule described below has the

effect of removing the 7-year limit.

[Section 452(c)]

d. No provisions.

No provisions.

Made legal permanent residents

receiving federal disability benefits

eligible without regard to their date of

entry.

Adopted Senate provisions as to the

eligibility of legal permanent residents

receiving federal disability benefits—

effective October 1, 2002.

[Section 452(d)]

[Section 4401(a)]

Made eligible individuals who have

continuously resided in the U.S. legally

for a period of 5 years (e.g., as legal

permanent residents, refugees/asylees,

but not as temporary residents). This

new 5-year residence rule would not

apply in the case of aliens who entered

the country illegally and remain illegally

Made eligible individuals who have

resided in the U.S. legally for a period of

5 years (e.g., as legal permanent

residents, refugees/asylees, but not as

temporary residents)—effective April 1,

2003.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

for 1 year or more (or who have been

“illegal aliens” for 1 year or more), unless

they have continuously resided in the

U.S. for 5 years as of enactment.

[Section 402(a) of the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996; P.L. 104-193]

[Section 170(b) & (c)]

B. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

B1. The Emergency Food Assistance

Program (TEFAP)

a. Commodity Purchases. From amounts

Extended the commodity purchase

available under the Food Stamp Act, the

Secretary was required to use $100 million a

year through FY2002 to purchase

commodities for TEFAP.

[Section 27 of the Food Stamp Act]

Extended the commodity purchase

a. Extended the commodity purchase

requirement through FY2006 and raised requirement through FY2007 and raised

the total amount set aside for TEFAP to the total amount set aside for TEFAP to

$110 million a year beginning in FY2002. $140 million a year beginning in FY2002.

Same as House bill with respect to the

use of $10 million for processing, storing,

transport and distribution costs.

[Section 406(i) & (j)]

[Section 441]

[Section 4126]

[

Section 166 of the Senate

measure required the Secretary to buy

not less than $40 million a year in

additional commodities for TEFAP each

year through FY2006.]

[

The $40 million in additional

commodities in Section 166 of the

Senate measure was not included in the

enacted law.]

requirement through FY2011; raised the

total amount set aside for TEFAP to

$140 million a year beginning in FY2002;

and required the Secretary to use $10

million a year to pay for costs related to

processing, storing, transporting and

distributing commodities.

Note:

B1. The Emergency Food Assistance

Program (TEFAP) (continued)

b. Administrative/distribution costs.

Appropriations of $50 million a year were

authorized, through FY2002, for the costs of

administration and distributing TEFAP and

non-TEFAP commodities handled by state

and local programs.

[Section 204(a) of the Emergency Food

ȬŘŜȱ

[Section 4401(c)]

In addition to $10 million set-aside

noted above, extended through FY2011,

the $50 million authorization of

appropriations for administrative and

distribution costs.

Same as the House measure, except

the authorization was extended through

2006.

Note:

Extended the authorization of

appropriations for administrative and

distribution costs through FY2007 and

raised the amount to $60 million a year.

[Section 443]

[Section 451(d)]

[Section 4204]

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Assistance Act]

B2. Commodity Supplemental Food

Program (CSFP) and commodity

authorities.

Expiring at the end

of FY2002: authority for the Commodity

Supplemental Food Program (CSFP),

requirements to provide cheese and nonfat

dry milk to the CSFP, requirements for

commodity processing agreements, and

general authority to obtain commodities to

maintain traditional levels of support for

various commodity distribution activities.

a. Expiring authorities.

[Sections 4 & 5 of the Agriculture and

Consumer Protection Act of 1973; Section

1114(a)(2) of the Agriculture and Food Act of

1981]

B2. Commodity Supplemental Food

Program (CSFP) and commodity

authorities (continued)

b. CSFP Administrative Costs. The

Secretary is required to pay the CSFP

administrative costs of state/local agencies—

but may not use more than 20% of the CSFP

appropriation.

Extended expiring CSFP and

commodity authorities/requirements

through FY2011.

Extended expiring CSFP and

commodity authorities/requirements

through FY2006.

Extended expiring CSFP and

commodity authorities/ requirements

through FY2007.

Also required the Secretary to provide

funds to permit Montana and Vermont

to continue to participate in the CSFP

at their originally assigned (FY2000)

caseload levels through the FY2002

“caseload cycle.”

[Sections 441 & 442]

No provisions.

[Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer

Protection Act of 1973]

[Section 451]

Replaced the limit on administrative

payments with a requirement for “grants

per caseload slot.” Required the

Secretary to provide each state a grant

per assigned caseload slot—set by law at

$50, indexed beginning in FY2003.

[Sections 4201 & 4203]

Replaced the limit on administrative

payments with a requirement for

“grants per caseload slot.” Required the

Secretary to provide each state a grant

per assigned caseload slot—set at the

FY2001 actual amount, indexed for

FY2003 and following years.

[Section 451]

[Section 4201(b)]

Barred the Secretary from prohibiting

Adopted the Senate provisions, with

B3. Use of Approved Food Safety

Technology

No provisions.

ȬŘŝȱ

No provisions.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

the use of “any technology that has been technical changes.

approved by the Secretary or the

Secretary of Health and Human Services”

in acquiring commodities for distribution

through domestic nutrition programs.

[Section 442]

[Section 4201(b)(3) & (d)]

Provided that any commodities acquired

in the conduct of Commodity Credit

Corporation (CCC) operations and any

“Section 32” commodities may be used

for any domestic feeding program.

Covered domestic programs include:

TEFAP, and programs authorized under

the Richard B. Russell National School

Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, the

Older Americans Act, or other laws the

Secretary determines appropriate.

Adopted the Senate provisions on use

of commodities.

B4. Use of Commodities for Domestic

Feeding Programs

No provisions.

This authority would apply to the extent

that the commodities involved are in

excess of those needed to carry out

other obligations (including quantities

otherwise reserved for specific

purposes).

[Section 457]

[Section 4202]

Delayed, until FY2004, the date by which

bonus commodities supplied to the

School Lunch program will begin

counting toward the 12% requirement—

in effect, mandating that only entitlement

Adopted the Senate provisions.

C. CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

C1. Commodities for the school lunch

program

Beginning with FY2002, any commodities

supplied to the School Lunch program must

be counted in meeting the requirement that

12% of all federal school lunch support (cash

+ commodities) be in the form of

ȬŘŞȱ

No provisions.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

commodities. This would include

commodities provided to meet schools’

“entitlement” (15 cents in value per lunch)

and “bonus” commodities provided at the

Secretary’s discretion from stocks acquired

to support the agricultural economy.

commodities count toward meeting the

requirement until then. This was the case

under pre-FY2002 law.

[Section 6(e)(1) of the Richard B. Russell

National School Lunch Act]

[Section 453]

[

Section 166 of the Senate

amendment required the Secretary to

provide at least $50 million a year

through FY2006 to the Defense

Department (DoD) for the purchase and

distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables

to schools and institutions participating

in child nutrition programs.]

Note:

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

[Section 4301]

Section 10603 of the enacted

law provided for at least $50 million a

year in fresh fruit and vegetable

purchases (through the DoD) for

schools and institutions in child

nutrition programs.]

[Note:

C2. Eligibility for Free and ReducedPrice School Meals and WIC Benefits:

Military Housing

a. School meals. All military housing

allowances reported on leave and earnings

statements are counted as income in

determining eligibility for free and reducedprice school meals. The value of on-base

(free) housing is not. For “privatized”

military housing—where formerly free

housing is converted to privately operated

housing (or families are moved from free

housing to privately operated housing) and

military personnel are given a housing

allowance to pass on to the housing

operator—the allowance is counted.

a. No provisions.

passed by the House

on December 11, 2001—contained the

provision included in the Senate’s

measure.]

[Note: H.R. 3216—

[Regulations under Section 9 of the Richard B.

Russell National School Lunch Act]

The WIC program. In determining

income eligibility for the Special

ȬŘşȱ

No provisions.

Through FY2003, required that, in

cases where military personnel live in

“privatized” housing, their housing

allowance will not be counted in

determining eligibility for free and

reduced-price school meals.

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

school meal eligibility and military

personnel in “privatized” housing.

[Section 454]

[Section 4302]

Added an option for states to exclude

any housing allowance provided to

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

WIC eligibility and military personnel in

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Supplemental Nutrition Program for

Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC

program), states may choose to exclude any

housing allowance received by military

personnel residing “off-base.”

military personnel living in on-base

“privatized” housing.

[Section 17(d)(2)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act]

[Section 455]

[Section 4306]

Made available an additional $15 million

in mandatory funding for the FY2002

WIC farmers’ market nutrition

program—no later than 30 days after

enactment.

Adopted the Senate provisions for

added FY2002 funding for the WIC

farmers’ market nutrition program.

[Section 460]

[Section 4307]

Required the Secretary to establish (on

the Agriculture Department’s website) a

nutrition education clearinghouse.

No provisions. [

In March 2002,

the Department established a website

that features a clearinghouse for

nutrition education initiatives.]

C3. Funding for the WIC Farmers’

Market Nutrition Program

No comparable provisions. [Note: For

FY2002, some $11 million was made

available for the farmers’ market program

from regular WIC appropriations and funds

carried over from FY2001.]

No provisions.

D. SPECIAL PROJECTS

D1. Nutrition education clearinghouse

No provisions.

Note:

[Section 428]

D2. Community food projects and

innovative programs addressing

common community problems

a. Community food projects. Through

FY2002, the Secretary was authorized to

make grants to private nonprofit entities for

“community food projects.” Funding was

reserved from Food Stamp Act

appropriations, and grants could not exceed

a total of $2.5 million a year.

[Section 25 of the Food Stamp Act]

ȬřŖȱ

Extended authority for community

food project grants through FY2011.

Increased the amount reserved to $7.5

million a year.

Extended authority for community

food project grants through FY2006.

Maintained the amount reserved at $2.5

million a year. Increased the federal

share of project costs from 50% to 75%.

Modified the list of projects that must be

given preference for grants.

[Section 406(h) & (j)]

[Section 440]

Extended authority for community

food project grants through FY2007.

Increased the amount reserved to $5

million a year. Modified the list of goals

that projects are designed to achieve

and the list of projects that must be

given preference for grants.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

D2. Community food projects and

innovative programs addressing

common community problems

(continued)

b. Innovative programs addressing

common community problems

b. No provisions.

No provisions.

SENATE BILL

Required the Secretary to contract

with a non-governmental organization to

recommend innovative programs for

addressing “common community

problems”—including loss of farms, rural

poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, the

need for job training, juvenile crime, and

individuals’ and communities’ need for

self-sufficiency. Made available $400,000

for the contract.

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Required that the Secretary contract

with (or make a grant to) a nongovernmental organization to

coordinate with federal agencies, states

and political subdivisions, and nongovernmental organizations in order to

gather information (and make

recommendations) about innovative

programs for addressing “common

community problems”—including loss

of farms, rural poverty, welfare

dependency, hunger, the need for job

training, and individuals’ and

communities’ need for self-sufficiency.

Reserved $200,000 a year (from the $5

million a year total) for this initiative.

[Section 443]

[Section 4125]

Required the Secretary to submit a

report to Congress on EBT systems (e.g.,

difficulties relating to their use, fraud,

efforts to address difficulties).

Adopted the Senate provisions for a

report on EBT systems and revised and

expanded the elements to be included

in the report.

[Section 444]

[Section 4111]

No later than December 31, 2002,

required a report from the Secretary—

No provisions.

D3. Report on Electronic Benefit

Transfer (EBT) systems

No provisions.

D4. Report on conversion of the WIC

program into an individual entitlement

program

No provisions.

Ȭřŗȱ

No provisions.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

to the House Committee on Education

and the Workforce and the Senate

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,

and Forestry—that analyzes conversion

of the WIC program from a discretionary

program into an individual entitlement

program.

[Section 456]

D5. Purchase of locally produced foods

a. Policy & Grants. No provisions.

b. School food purchases in Hawaii and

Requires—to the maximum

extent practicable—that school food

authorities in Hawaii purchase commodities

or food products that are produced in

Hawaii if produced in sufficient quantities to

meet their meal program needs.

No provisions.

Required Secretary to encourage the

purchase of locally produced foods in

school meal programs and authorized

appropriations for start-up grants

($400,000 a year) to defray costs

incurred in carrying out this policy.

Adopted the Senate provisions as to

grants to encourage the purchase of

locally produced foods.

[Section 458]

[Section 4303]

No provisions.

Puerto Rico.

[Section 12(n)(3) of the Richard B. Russell

National School Lunch Act]

As with Hawaii under pre-existing law,

required—to the maximum extent

practicable—that school food

authorities in Puerto Rico purchase

commodities or food products that are

produced in Puerto Rico if produced in

sufficient quantities to meet their meal

program needs.

[Section 4304]

D6. Seniors farmers’ market nutrition

program

Using funding available under Commodity

Credit Corporation authorities, a seniors

farmers’ market nutrition program was

instituted by the Secretary in January 2001.

Initial funding was set at $15 million.

ȬřŘȱ

For (FY2002 - FY2011), authorized a

seniors farmers’ market nutrition

program and required the Secretary to

support it with $15 million a year from

Commodity Credit Corporation funds.

For (FY2002 - FY2006), required the

Secretary to carry out and expand a

seniors farmers’ market nutrition

program. Provided mandatory funding of

$15 million a year. Authorized the

Adopted the House provisions as to the

seniors farmers’ market nutrition

program, but (1) reduced the FY2002

amount to $5 million (in addition to the

$10 million already appropriated) and

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Authorized the Secretary to issue

Under the FY2002 Agriculture Department regulations to carry out the program.

appropriations law, $10 million was provided

as a direct appropriation for a seniors

[Section 925]

farmers’ market nutrition program.

[

These provisions were located in

Title IX of the House measure.]

Secretary to issue regulations to carry

out the program.

(2) authorized the program through

FY2007.

[Section 459]

[Section 4402]

No provisions.

In the 2002-2003 school year, required

the Secretary to use “Section 32” funds

to conduct and evaluate a pilot program

to make free fruit and vegetables

available to elementary and secondary

school students. Provided $200,000 for

the pilot.

Adopted the Senate provisions with

technical changes; increases funding to a

total of $6 million.

[Section 461]

[Section 4305]

Note:

D7. Fruit and vegetable pilot program

No provisions.

D8. Congressional hunger fellows

Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger

Fellowships are provided through the

Congressional Hunger Center and given

funding through annual Agriculture

Department appropriations laws (e.g.,

$2.496 million in FY2002).

Ȭřřȱ

Established—as an independent agency in Same as the House bill, with minor and

the legislative branch—the Congressional technical differences.

Hunger Fellows Program to offer

fellowships providing training and

placements with domestic and

international organizations. The

program’s purposes would be to:

encourage careers in humanitarian

service; recognize the needs of poor and

hungry persons; provide aid to those in

need, increase awareness of the

importance of public service, and provide

training and development opportunities

for future leaders. The program would

be funded from the earnings of a trust

fund invested in federal securities (an

$18 million appropriation is authorized)

and gifts.

Adopted the House provisions, with

minor and technical revisions.

LAW/POLICY

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

[Section 461]

[Section 462]

[Section 4404]

No provisions.

Authorized a pilot program to increase

domestic consumption of fresh fruit and

vegetables. The federal share of project

costs would be 50%, and $25 million a

year was authorized to be appropriated.

Adopted Senate provisions, but reduced

the number of pilot states from 15 to 5

and lowered the annual appropriations

authorization to $10 million.

[Section 463]

[Section 4403]

D9. Fresh fruit and vegetables

No provisions.

E. COST ESTIMATES

a. 6-year CBO estimates: April 2001

“baseline”

Title IV (nutrition): $1.94 billion (budget Title IV (nutrition): $3.11 billion (budget Title IV (nutrition): $2.66 billion

(budget authority); $3.17 billion

authority); $3.63 billion (outlays).

authority; $1.92 billion (outlays).

(outlays).

Food stamp program: $1.65 billion

Food stamp program: $2.85 billion

Food stamp program: $2.19 billion

Commodity assistance programs

(TEFAP): $240 million (budget

Commodity assistance programs

(TEFAP): $260 million (budget

Commodity assistance programs

(budget authority/outlays).

authority); $238 million (outlays).

authority); $258 million (outlays). [

$200 million of these amounts is for

TEFAP commodity purchases under Title

I.]

Note:

(budget authority); $2.71 billion

(outlays).

(TEFAP & CSFP): $241 million (budget

authority/outlays).

Child nutrition programs (commodity

purchases, WIC farmers’ markets):

provisions.

Child nutrition programs (commodity

purchases, WIC farmers’ markets):

Special projects (community food

projects, senior farmers’ markets):

Special projects (community food

projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit projects, senior farmers’ markets,

& vegetable pilots): $85 million (budget fruit & vegetable pilots): $107 million

Child nutrition programs: No

$115 million (budget authority/outlays).

$118 million (budget authority); $110

million (outlays). [

$75 million of

these amounts is attributable to senior

Note:

ȬřŚȱ

(budget authority); $3.37 billion

(outlays).

authority); $90 million (outlays).

$115 million (budget authority/outlays).

(budget authority); $103 million

(outlays).

LAW/POLICY

b. 6-year CBO estimates: March 2002

“baseline”

HOUSE BILL

SENATE BILL

farmers’ market provisions in Title IX).

None available.

CONFERENCE

AGREEMENT AND

ENACTED LAW

Title IV (nutrition): $2.79 billion

(budget authority); $3.18 billion

(outlays).

Food stamp program: $2.33 billion

(budget authority); $2.72 billion

(outlays).

Commodity assistance programs

(TEFAP & CSFP): $241 million (budget

authority/ outlays).

Child nutrition programs (commodity

purchases, WIC farmers’ markets):

$115 million (budget authority/outlays).

Special projects (community food

projects, senior farmers’ markets,

fruit & vegetable pilots): $108 million

(budget authority); $103 million

(outlays).

Source: P.L. 107-171

Ȭřśȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŘȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov , 7-....

ȱȱȱ

řŜȱ

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.