Order Code RL33829
Domestic Food Assistance: The 2007 Farm Bill
and Other Legislation in the 110th Congress
Updated August 8, 2007
Joe Richardson
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Domestic Food Assistance: The 2007 Farm Bill
and Other Legislation in the 110th Congress
Summary
The nutrition title of the omnibus 2007 “farm bill” will be the focus of
legislative proposals affecting domestic food assistance programs in the first session
of the 110th Congress. The program areas that are expected to be addressed (because
various authorities, like authorizations for appropriations expire at the end of
FY2007) include: the regular Food Stamp program, programs operating in lieu of
food stamps in Puerto Rico and American Samoa and on Indian reservations, The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP), Community Food Projects, the Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition
Program (SFMNP), and fresh fruit and vegetable initiatives. Other nutrition
assistance — child nutrition programs (like the School Lunch program), the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC
program), the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program — is on a different
reauthorization and review schedule and probably will not be a significant part of the
nutrition assistance and farm bill debate in the first session.
The most significant issues that have been raised are those surrounding the Food
Stamp program and fruit and vegetable support policies. Proposals to significantly
changes rules governing food stamp eligibility and benefit levels and how the Food
Stamp program is administered by states have been advanced by the Administration
and in a number of comprehensive bills, as have calls for program revisions and grant
initiatives aimed at easing access to food stamp benefits. In addition, major boosts
in funding and other support for increasing the availability of fruits and vegetables
in nutrition programs have been proposed by the Administration and others.
Action on most of the food assistance proposals and issues taken up as part of
the farm bill will depend heavily on budgetary considerations — specifically,
whether any new funding is available and whether spending cuts will be needed to
finance program expansions.
On July 27, 2007, the House adopted its version of the 2007 farm bill (H.R.
2419); it incorporates controversial tax law changes to fund those provisions of the
nutrition title that would create new federal spending. The nutrition title (Title IV)
would significantly increase food stamp benefits, loosen some eligibility rules for
food stamps, and add new support for TEFAP and fruit and vegetable programs; it
also would impose substantial limits on states’ ability to “privatize” administration
of the Food Stamp program and allow for the exercise of geographic preference in
procuring food for child nutrition programs. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that Title IV would add new costs of $4.2 billion over the next five years
($11.5 billion over the next 10 years).
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has not yet taken
action on a 2007 farm bill.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The 2007 Farm Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Food Stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Program Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Administration Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Programs in Lieu of Food Stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Community Food Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Farmers’ Market Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fruits and Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Domestic Food Assistance Issues and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Proposed Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2007 Farm Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
House Bill Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
House Bill Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

---

Domestic Food Assistance:
The 2007 Farm Bill and
Other Legislation in the 110th Congress
Introduction
In the first session of the 110th Congress, it is likely that virtually all domestic
food assistance issues calling for legislative action will arise and be addressed in the
context of the omnibus 2007 “farm bill” — periodic legislation (the last farm bill was
enacted in 2002) that covers most programs and activities carried out by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA or “Agriculture Department”). Farm bills serve
as a vehicle for reauthorizing a wide range of expiring authorities, making changes
in (or ending) existing programs, and launching new initiatives.1
On the other hand, some food assistance efforts are reauthorized and reviewed
on a different schedule and are up for review in 2009; these include child nutrition
programs (like the School Lunch program), the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program), and the WIC
Farmers’ Market Nutrition program.2 With exceptions, annual appropriations laws
typically are not the arena for significant policy decisions relating to nutrition
assistance programs. And some important nutrition program changes now under way
at the USDA are unlikely to become the subject of legislation per se, such as revision
of the content of food packages distributed through the WIC program, revamping the
nutrition guidelines for school meals, modification of food offerings under the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
1 For a look at the farm bill as a whole, see CRS Report RL33037, Previewing a 2007 Farm
Bill, coordinated by Jasper Womach, and CRS Report RL33934, Farm Bill Proposals and
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress, coordinated by Renee Johnson.
2 Normally, the only child-nutrition or WIC-related provisions that might appear in a farm
bill are those relating to commodity assistance to schools or initiatives like fresh fruit and
vegetable projects, discussed later in this report. However, past farm bills have, in some
cases, included minor revisions affecting child nutrition and WIC program operations. Child
nutrition and WIC programs were last subject to a comprehensive review and
reauthorization in the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-265).
Unlike in the Senate, where they (along with most other food assistance programs) are
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, child
nutrition and WIC programs are in the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee
in the House.

---

CRS-2
This report covers both issues and proposed legislation that are explicitly tied
to the farm bill and those that involve programs and activities that are normally not
part of the farm bill but may become so (e.g., some child nutrition issues and bills).
The 2007 Farm Bill
Background
In FY2006, the $35 billion spent for federal programs and activities covered by
the nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill (and likely to be addressed in the 2007
measure) accounted for over half of the spending projected for all farm-bill-covered
programs and activities and 36% of USDA outlays.3 The lion’s share of this support
is for the Food Stamp program, which (along with child nutrition and WIC programs)
is widely viewed as the federal government’s primary response to the food needs of
low-income Americans. Nutrition assistance programs also play a role in federal
support for the agricultural sector through direct commodity purchases and increased
demand.
The USDA oversees almost 20 domestic nutrition assistance programs, spending
some $54 billion in FY2006, 55% of USDA outlays.4 Virtually all are administered
by states, schools, or local grantees under federally prescribed rules. Federal
oversight of these programs (e.g., regulations governing program operations) is the
responsibility of the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). In addition, the
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA),
and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) play roles in the procurement and
distribution of food commodities for some programs.

The upcoming farm bill is expected to cover 7 of these program areas
accounting for about 65% of federal spending on domestic nutrition aid. Farm bills
traditionally reauthorize expiring authorities and appropriations for these domestic
nutrition assistance initiatives and are the principal vehicle for revising rules that
govern how they operate and how much they will cost. They include the following:
! the regular Food Stamp program in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands;
! programs operating in lieu of the regular Food Stamp program —
nutrition assistance block grants for Puerto Rico, American Samoa,
and the Northern Mariana Islands, along with the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR);
! The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP);
3 For domestic food assistance in the USDA budget, see CRS Report RL33412, Agriculture
and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, and CRS Report RS22621, The FY2008
Budget Request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both coordinated by Jim Monke.
4 In FY2006, another $700 million was appropriated for the Department of Health and
Human Services’ nutrition programs for the elderly (authorized under the Older Americans
Act).

---

CRS-3
! the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP); and
! Community Food Projects.
Moreover, the 2002 farm bill added to this list. It provided statutory authority
and mandatory funding for a new Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
(SFMNP) and established a pilot program to distribute free fruits and vegetables in
schools (later expanded and made permanent). It also included a provision affecting
commodities distributed to schools — earmarking some federal spending on these
commodities for fresh produce acquired and distributed through Defense Department
procurement facilities (the “DOD Fresh” program).
All farm bill domestic nutrition assistance programs, except for the CSFP, the
FDPIR, and the administrative and distribution-cost component of TEFAP, generally
are treated as mandatory entitlements for budget purposes. For the regular Food
Stamp program, this means that, in order to affect costs, eligibility and benefit rules
must be changed. Specific annual mandatory funding levels are set by law for the
Puerto Rico and American Samoa grants (these are indexed), the food component of
TEFAP, Community Food Projects, the SFMNP, and fruit and vegetable projects.
The amount of the Northern Marianas’ grant is negotiated between the USDA and the
Commonwealth. And decisions made with each year’s appropriation govern the
CSFP, the administrative and distribution cost component of TEFAP, and the amount
set aside for the FDPIR.
The 2002 farm bill made extensive changes to Food Stamp program rules and
relatively minor revisions to those for the other programs.5 Using its March 2002
“baseline,” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the total additional
cost of the provisions in the nutrition assistance title of the 2002 farm bill would be
about $3 billion over the six-year life of the bill, representing 5%-6% of total new
spending prompted by the bill. However, while there is no direct measure of the real
cost of the 2002 bill’s nutrition title (as opposed to costs incurred because of other
variables like unforeseen participation changes related to economic conditions or
increased participation rates), total actual costs through FY2005 for the programs
covered by the nutrition title — including both “baseline” spending and new spending
caused by the farm bill — were 12% higher than projected in 2002. If current CBO
estimates for FY2006 and FY2007 are added in and compared to the 2002 estimates
for those years, the gap widens to 20%.
A number of nutrition assistance issues for the 2007 farm bill are emerging (over
20 bills have been introduced) and are described later in this report. Moreover, the
Administration has announced its recommendations for the upcoming farm bill (its
proposals for nutrition programs also are discussed in the following outline), and the
House has adopted its version of the 2007 farm bill (described in the discussion of
congressional action at the end of this report). But action on proposals for change
will depend heavily on budgetary considerations — specifically, whether any new
5 For a detailed discussion of nutrition assistance program changes made and considered in
the 2002 farm bill, see CRS Report RL33690, Food Stamps and Nutrition Programs in the
2002 Farm Bill, by Joe Richardson.

---

CRS-4
funding is available and whether spending cuts will be required to finance separate
program expansions.
Food Stamps 6
The largest of the nutrition assistance programs is the Food Stamp program. At
$33 billion in FY2006, it represents some 95% of the federal spending for farm bill
nutrition assistance programs, is the foundation of federal initiatives to give low-
income households the chance to obtain at least a minimally adequate diet, and is a
major factor in overall federal policy for the poor.
The purpose (and structure) of the program has evolved over time. It is meant
to play a role in three areas of federal public policy. Food stamps originated as a way
of providing an outlet for surplus agricultural production, with the notable side
benefit of supporting poor families. However, its goals and role in the country’s
support system for the low-income population have shifted and expanded greatly. To
the extent it expands food purchasing power, it continues to support demand for
agricultural products.7 But it now also is seen as the government’s primary response
to important concerns about the overall “food security” status of the low-income
population, although only an estimated 65% of eligible individuals choose to
participate by the most recent count (2005). A 2006 Economic Research Service
(ERS) study reports that, in 2005, 11% of U.S. households were “food insecure,” and
that the prevalence of “very low food security” was 3.9%.8 Finally, the Food Stamp
program has become an integral part of the overall “safety net” for the needy. It
ranks as the fourth largest needs-tested program, behind Medicaid, the Earned Income
Tax Credit, and the Supplemental Security Income program. It is perhaps the largest
on-going program providing immediate aid to those affected by natural and other
disasters. According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, when its benefits
are added to other income, food stamps are estimated to move almost 10% of
recipients out of poverty, and, for a typical low-income recipient family with children,
food stamps can provide some 25% of their purchasing power.
Program Operation. The regular Food Stamp program provides inflation-
indexed monthly benefits to low-income households that supplement their own
spending on food; benefits vary by income, household expenses (like shelter costs),
6 Authorized under the Food Stamp Act; 7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.
7 A dollar in food stamp benefits is estimated to result in new food spending of 17-47 cents,
depending on household income and type, versus 5-10 cents in the case of a dollar of cash.
Although food stamp aid itself must be spent on food, a dollar in food stamps does not lead
to a full dollar of additional food spending because cash previously spent on food is freed
up and can be used for nonfood expenses that, for the recipient, may be more pressing.
8 This second category was denominated as “food insecure with hunger” in reports for
earlier years. Households classified as “food insecure” were grouped into two categories.
Those classified as having “low food security” (7.1%) reported multiple indications of food
access problems, but typically reported few, if any, indications of reduced food intake.
Those classified as having “very low food security” (3.9%) reported multiple indications of
reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns due to inadequate resources for food.

---

CRS-5
and household size — but generally not by state or region.9 They are delivered
through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards that are used like debit cards.
Eligibility for food stamps is primarily based on a household’s financial status.
Monthly gross income typically must be below 130% of the inflation-indexed federal
poverty income guideline for the household’s size (e.g., about $1,800 for a 3-person
household in FY2007), and liquid assets must be under $2,000 ($3,000 for those
households with elderly and disabled members). However, some households can be
“categorically eligible” if they participate in or receive services under another
income-tested program like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. And certain categories are barred
irrespective of their financial need, such as many noncitizens, able-bodied adults
without dependents not meeting a work test.
Program costs are shared with the states, which administer the program under
generally uniform federal rules. The federal government pays the full cost of benefits
and about half the cost of administration, operating work or training programs for
recipients, and state-directed nutrition education and outreach activities. States, and
in some cases localities, pay the remainder (some $2.7 billion in FY2006).
The level of food stamp spending varies with participation, which is closely
linked to economic conditions and eligibility rules, and benefit levels. Benefits are
indexed to food-cost inflation and adjusted for recipients’ income, household size,
and certain nonfood expenses (like high shelter costs, child care spending); in
addition, a basic minimum amount (the “standard deduction”) is disregarded when
calculating a household’s ability to contribute to its food needs. The basic theory
underpinning food stamp benefits is that they should provide the difference between
what a recipient household can afford for food out of its own monthly cash income
(assumed to be about 30% of counted income) and the estimated minimal cost of an
adequate diet (the monthly cost of the USDA’s “Thrifty Food Plan” for its size).
Since the 2002 farm bill, participation has increased substantially, from some 19
million persons per month in FY2002 to 26.4 million (May 2007), and the average
monthly benefit level has jumped from $80 a person in FY2002 to $95 in May
2007.10 Federal costs have grown from $20.6 billion in FY2002 to $33 billion in
FY2006 and an estimated $33.4 billion for FY2007.
Finally, the Food Stamp program has a “quality control” system that measures
the degree to which eligibility and benefit decisions are erroneously made. The most
recent national quality control statistics (for 2005) show historically low error rates:
4.5% of benefits over-issued and 1.3% under-issued.11 States with persistently high
9 Alaska and Hawaii are special exceptions to this general rule.
10 To put these participation figures into perspective, it should be noted that the all-time high
in food stamp participation was reached shortly before enactment of the 1996 welfare reform
law — 27.5 million persons a month in FY1994. The all-time low for the modern program
was in FY2000 — 17.2 million persons a month.
11 Information on error rates and fraud (“trafficking” in food stamp benefits) can be found
in two recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports: Food Stamp Program:
States Have Made Progress Reducing Payment Errors, and Further Challenges Remain
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
error rates can be assessed financial sanctions; those achieving high performance
criteria can receive bonus payments.
Issues and Proposals. The 2002 farm bill reauthorized expiring Food
Stamp program authorities and appropriations through FY2007. It greatly expanded
eligibility for noncitizens (most notably allowing eligibility for noncitizen children
and those who meet a five-year legal residence requirement), raised benefits modestly
for larger households (by counting less of their income), and allowed states to provide
“transitional” food stamps for families leaving the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program. In addition, the 2002 bill set up a number of state options
to ease access to the program and administrative burdens on applicants and recipients
and program operators (e.g., allowing states to reduce recipient reporting
requirements, simplify benefit calculations, conform some food stamp rules to those
used in the TANF and Medicaid programs) and revamped the quality control system
to reduce the number of states subject to financial sanctions and grant bonus
payments to states demonstrating exemplary administrative performance.12 Virtually
no program cuts were made.
Even small changes to eligibility or benefit rules in a program as large as food
stamps can bring on relatively large budget costs or savings. And, as with the 2002
farm bill, the ability to revise the Food Stamp program in 2007 will depend heavily
on budget constraints at the time the farm bill is considered. Major issues that have
emerged in proposed legislation and the Administration’s farm bill package include
eligibility for food stamps (including the treatment of household assets), the use of
food stamp benefits, benefit levels, state administration, and program access.
Eligibility. Both loosening and tightening current rules governing the
eligibility of noncitizens are likely to be considered. Although no legislation to
further restrict noncitizens’ eligibility has yet been introduced, in the 109th Congress,
the House version of the bill implementing spending reductions to comply with the
FY2006 budget reconciliation measure would have further limited eligibility for
noncitizens. And several bills call for ending existing limits on legally resident
noncitizens.
Under current law, states may make households participating in their TANF
programs categorically eligible (automatically eligible) for food stamps, and most
11 (...continued)
(GAO-05-245; May 2005) and Food Stamp Trafficking: FNS Could Enhance Program
Integrity by Better Targeting Stores Likely to Traffic and Increasing Penalties (GAO-07-53;
October 2006).
12 Information on state options can be found in a 2004 GAO report — Food Stamp Program:
Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burdens, but Opportunities Exist to Streamline
Participant Reporting Rules among Programs (GAO-04-916; September 2004). Coverage
of the current status of state options is on the USDA website at [http://www.fns.usda.gov/
fsp/rules/Memo/Support/State_Options/sixth/default.htm]. And information about states’
use of their options as to how to count the value of vehicles when determining food stamp
eligibility can be found in a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — State
Vehicle Asset Policies in the Food Stamp Program (revised November 6, 2006) — available
through the Center’s website: [http://www.cbpp.org].

---

CRS-7
states make use of this option. The Administration contends that states have taken
advantage of this rule and made those with financial resources above normal food
stamp standards eligible, simply by providing some minimal TANF-linked services.
And, to protect program integrity, it proposes to limit categorical eligibility to those
TANF recipients getting cash aid, which presumably is subject to financial tests
similar to or more stringent than food stamps. On the other hand, opponents of this
view note that many of the estimated 300,000 persons affected are receiving services
(e.g., child care, transportation assistance for work) that help them keep working, that
they still must have their benefit calculated under normal food stamp rules and can
only qualify for a benefit if they have high living expenses (e.g., shelter costs), that
limiting categorical eligibility would impose added administrative burdens on states
and applicants, and that, as a side-effect, a number of children would lose eligibility
for free school meals.13 No legislation concerning categorical eligibility has been
introduced, but it is important to remember that limiting categorical eligibility is one
of very few proposals being discussed that can produce significant cost savings.
Opponents of the current restrictions on participation by able-bodied adults
without children (ABAWDs), which bar eligibility after three months unless the
individual meets a work-related test, contend that they should either be abolished as
too punitive (and administratively complex) or greatly eased. These restrictions were
put in place as part of the 1996 welfare reform law, and, in many cases, they can be
(and are) waived by states.
Finally, the Administration has proposed (1) new rules that would disqualify
food stamp recipients who exchange food purchased with their benefits for cash and
bar from food stamps those who have been disqualified from the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations (the FDPIR) and (2) making permanent a rule
disregarding combat pay when considering the eligibility of (and benefit amounts for)
military households.
Assets. Current policy excludes most, but not all, retirement savings from
consideration as assets when testing for food stamp eligibility. While the 2002 farm
bill allowed states to expand the list of excluded retirement savings (e.g., to include
Individual Retirement Accounts) if they did so in their TANF program, very few
states have. In a similar vein, current food stamp policy disregards savings for
education as assets only if a determination is made that they are “inaccessible.” The
Administration and others have supported disregarding all retirement savings and
plans and Internal Revenue Service-approved education savings to avoid penalizing
those who save for retirement or education but are temporarily in need. The Food
Stamp program’s dollar asset limits have not been significantly changed in over 25
years. Program advocates argue that they should be raised (or possibly abolished) to
encourage saving and simplify administration. In addition to the Administration’s
farm bill package, a number of bills dealing with loosening asset rules have been
introduced.
13 A fuller discussion can be found in a report — Administration Proposal Would Cut Over
300,000 People Off Food Stamps — from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
available at the Center’s website: [http://www.cbpp.org].

---

CRS-8
Use of Benefits. Under current law, food stamp benefits can be used for
virtually any food purchase; they cannot be used for alcohol, tobacco, hot prepared
food, or dietary supplements. Food choice has been a recurring theme in food stamp
policy debates. Critics argue that nutrition-related limits should be placed on the types
of food that can be bought with food stamps. On the other hand, some contend that
incentives to purchase healthy foods should be built into the Food Stamp program
and that support for nutrition education should be increased and expanded to cover
a broader range of initiatives. Separately, some have proposed to allow food stamps
to be used for dietary supplements, as in the Senate version of the 2002 farm bill.
Benefit Levels. A major contention of critics of the current structure of the
Food Stamp program is that the value of food stamp benefits has been significantly
“eroded” since the 1996 welfare reform law; that is, benefits are significantly smaller
than they would have been without the changes made in 1996.14 Although basic
(maximum) food stamp benefits are indexed annually, they point out that rising non-
food living costs are heavily affecting recipients’ budgets (limiting their ability to
supplement their food stamp benefits as the program expects) and that the program’s
major method for taking these costs into account when calculating benefits (the
“standard deduction”) has been effectively frozen since 1996. They also note that the
1996 law imposed an across-the-board 3% benefit cut. Program advocates, and a
number of bills, aim to address this by increasing and indexing the standard
deduction, raising maximum benefits by 3%, or both. Opponents of this type of
action are concerned about the substantial costs involved and argue that the Food
Stamp program should not be expected to be a general purpose income support
program responding to all of the needs of the low-income population.
Separately, the Administration and several bills propose to remove the current
dollar limits on the degree to which dependent care expenses are considered when
calculating benefits, thus increasing assistance for those with very high dependent
care expenses related to work.
Finally, as in earlier farm bill debates, there are proposals to increase and index
the Food Stamp program’s minimum benefit level ($10 a month for 1- and 2- person
households). It has not been changed since originally set in the late 1970s and is seen
as so low that it discourages participation, especially among the elderly. However,
this relatively costly change would most help those in the program with the highest
incomes.
State Administration. States (most notably Florida, Indiana, and Texas) have
taken, or are taking, major steps to revamp the way they administer food stamps,
Medicaid, and the TANF program.15 Although current food stamp law requires that
final eligibility and benefit decisions be made by government employees and that
contracts for computer-related services with federal matching money be federally
14 A fuller discussion can be found in a report — Families’ Food Stamp Benefits Purchase
Less Food Each Year — from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, available at the
Center’s website: [http://www.cbpp.org].
15 Florida’s project is effectively fully implemented; Indiana is in the process of
implementing its initiative; Texas has, for the time-being, put a stop to its project.

---

CRS-9
approved, these state initiatives can involve “privatizing” (contracting out or
outsourcing) many “back-office” and other, more important administrative tasks and
“modernizing and streamlining” administration through efforts like performing
program intake by computer application or using private-sector employees, resulting
in cost savings from fewer state staff and offices and, it is hoped, better client service.
There are no federal minimum standards for these types of initiatives (e.g., with
respect to client service, pilot testing, what roles private company employees can
play, how extensive displacement of government employees can be). Many of those
watching the current initiatives (and several bills) argue that standards should be set
legislatively to give the FNS the ability to more effectively oversee the progress in
this area and that limits should be placed on states’ ability to delegate administrative
responsibilities to non-state employees and entities. They point out that
modernization and streamlining steps can potentially leave some vulnerable groups
without real access to food stamp help, needlessly complicate the application and
benefit process, blur lines of accountability, result in incorrect information for, or
treatment of, applicants and recipients, and end many state jobs. However, a number
of states are concerned that legislatively set privatization standards/limits will
severely restrict innovation in administering food stamps and other public assistance
programs and reduce or eliminate cost savings that might result. On the other hand,
the Administration is concerned about widespread benefit overpayments that can
occur in a changeover to new administrative systems and would like to hold states
(not recipients) responsible in cases of “widespread systemic errors.”
The Food Stamp program’s quality control system for overseeing state
administration also is under some scrutiny. The Administration would like to make
two important changes: (1) impose financial penalties on states with high rates of
error in denying food stamp benefits and (2) end an option for states to “invest”
amounts owed as financial penalties for high rates of error in overissuing or
underissuing benefits in administrative improvements as an alternative to paying part
of their fiscal sanction to the federal government. Others would increase bonus
payments to states meeting high performance standards.
As the result of experiences related to Hurricane Katrina, there also have been
proposals to allow or require the federal government to increase its share of food
stamp administrative costs (above the normal 50%) in the case of major disasters.
Program Access. The participation rate among food stamp eligibles has
increased since 2002 (when a number of changes were put in place to encourage this).
However, with the most recently reported rate at 65% (2005), program advocates
argue that further steps need to be taken. In their view, procedural rules governing
how applicants and recipients are treated (e.g., reporting requirements), as well as
those relating to eligibility for applicants participating in other public assistance
programs (like TANF), could be further loosened to ease access to food stamp
benefits to eligible households. Added federal administrative cost-sharing for access-
oriented state administrative changes (e.g., longer office hours) and grants for access-
improving efforts could be legislated. In addition, advocates are concerned about any
access restrictions that might result from the initiatives to privatize, modernize, or
streamline administration noted above.

---

CRS-10
In addition to issues surrounding applicants’ access to food stamps, proposals
from the Administration would change rules governing food retailers’ participation
in the Food Stamp program, such as revising rules governing fines imposed on
retailers’ violating food stamp rules.
Administration Initiatives.16 The USDA has advanced a number of
recommendations for changes in the Food Stamp program as part of the 2007 farm
bill; they have not been introduced as a legislative package.
! Eligibility. The Administration proposes to restrict categorical
(automatic) eligibility for food stamps to households who receive
cash TANF benefits; those receiving only TANF-funded services
would not be automatically eligible (on the premise that cash benefit
recipients are subject to stricter eligibility tests).17 This revision
accounts for the bulk of savings attributed to its proposals for
nutrition program changes. The Administration is especially
concerned that states can, in effect, “game” the categorical eligibility
option and make households with financial resources well above
normal food stamp limits eligible for food stamps by simply
providing minimal services financed with TANF funds. On the other
hand, critics point out, as noted earlier, that the services being
provided often are key to supporting households’ work efforts (e.g.,
child care), that there would be added administrative costs to carry
out full eligibility determinations for those who chose to apply
through regular procedures, and that some households losing their
categorical food stamp eligibility would, as a result, lose their food-
stamp-participation-based automatic eligibility for free school meals
for their children. The Administration also proposes to place into
permanent food stamp law a rule disregarding combat-related
military pay as income when determining eligibility (and benefits).
This has been done through provisions of appropriations laws since
the FY2005 Department of Agriculture appropriations act. However,
some observers contend that better use of the Defense Department’s
special family assistance supplemental allowance program for
military families might be a better way to deal with these families’
needs. Finally, the Administration has proposed new rules that
would disqualify food stamp recipients who exchange food
purchased with their benefits for cash and those who have been
barred from the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR).
16 A more extensive discussion of the Administration’s proposals is available in CRS Report
RL33916, The USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposal: Possible Questions, coordinated by Jasper
Womach.
17 The Administration’s proposal also would apply a “cash-only” categorical eligibility rule
to recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. However, it is unlikely that
a “cash-only” rule would have any effect on SSI recipients because virtually all, if not all,
SSI recipients get cash payments (or are authorized to receive them).

---

CRS-11
! Assets. The Administration proposes to disregard all retirement
savings and plans and Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-approved
postsecondary education savings and plans as assets when judging
food stamp eligibility. This proposal accounts for most of the cost
of its nutrition program proposals. Its purposes are to reinforce
federal policy encouraging savings for these ends and avoid
penalizing those in temporary need who have put aside money for
retirement or education. However, some critics argue that asset
eligibility rules should be loosened even further than recommended
by the Administration, for example, by raising or indexing the dollar
limit on allowable assets or by standardizing the application of more
liberal rules on how to count the value of households’ vehicles.
! Benefit Levels. In order to support recipients’ work and education
efforts, the Administration recommends removing limits on benefit
increases that adjust for households’ dependent care expenses. At
present, work and education-related dependent care costs above $200
a month for each child under age 2 and $175 a month for all other
dependents are not taken into account; these “caps” would be
eliminated (at an estimated benefit cost of $20 million over 5 years
and $42 million over 10 years). However, some critics argue that
food stamps should not be viewed as a “child care” program, while
others maintain that there is a need to go further in recognizing the
effect high non-food living expenses have in eroding the value of
food stamps.
! State Administration. The Administration has advanced four
revisions to rules governing state administration of food stamps. It
would assess states a quality control financial penalty if the state has
a “negative action” error rate above the national average for two
consecutive years; negative action error rates measure the extent to
which states improperly deny, suspend, or terminate food stamp
applicants and recipients.18 Secondly, it proposes to eliminate an
option permitting states to invest in administrative improvements as
an alternative to paying part of any quality control fiscal sanction.
In addition, in the case of “widespread systemic errors” (e.g.,
computer system failures and flaws) in a state’s administration of the
program, the Administration proposes to (1) prohibit states from
pursuing claims against recipients for over-issued benefits and (2)
require states to pay the federal government for the cost of over-
issuances.
! Retailers Participation in the Program. With regard to retailers’
participation in the Food Stamp program, the Administration argues
that it needs more flexibility to respond to the seriousness of a
retailer’s violation of program rules and would like more authority
18 At present, states are only penalized for high rates of error in overpaying or underpaying
benefits.

---

CRS-12
to impose fines in lieu of disqualification for minor violations and
new authority to fine retailers in addition to disqualification for
major violations. It also has advanced a proposal to allow the
Department of Agriculture to seize retailers’ food stamp receipts
(where expedited action is warranted) in “certain egregious
trafficking cases.”
! Other proposals. The Administration’s farm bill package would
rename the Food Stamp program as the Food and Nutrition program,
in recognition of the changes in how food stamp benefits are
delivered (i.e., through electronic benefit transfer systems) and the
program’s role in improving nutrition.19 It also would establish a
pilot project under which states would be allowed to pay (with 50%
federal matching) for state support for some work-related expenses
incurred by working food stamp recipients. And it proposes to add
specific language to the Food Stamp Act referring to nutrition
education as an approved activity for federal funding.20
Programs in Lieu of Food Stamps
Four programs, three authorized under the Food Stamp Act, operate in lieu of
food stamp assistance.
! Puerto Rico receives an inflation-indexed annual block grant ($1.5
billion in FY2006, serving about 1 million persons per month) to
operate a nutrition assistance program that works much like the
regular Food Stamp program, including delivery of benefits through
EBT cards.21 The major feature distinguishing Puerto Rico’s
program from the regular Food Stamp program (other than more
restrictive financial eligibility tests and lower maximum benefit
levels) is that just 75% of a household’s benefit must be used for
food purchases, as opposed to 100% in the regular Food Stamp
program. Puerto Rico was converted to its nutrition assistance block
grant in 1982; as a quid pro quo, it was given total flexibility in how
its program is designed.
! Since 1994, American Samoa has received an annual nutrition
assistance grant ($6.1 million in FY2006); it has designed a program
that serves low-income elderly and disabled persons (some 3,000
persons in FY2005). This grant was established under the USDA’s
discretionary authority to extend USDA programs to American
19 It would also “de-obligate” the few food stamp coupons still in circulation, making them
no longer usable (redeemable). Another proposal to rename the Food Stamp program would
change its title to the Secure Nutrition Access program.
20 Nutrition education activities are already eligible for federal funding as a state
administrative expense.
21 Authorized under Section 19 of the Food Stamp Act; 7 U.S.C. 2028.

---

CRS-13
Samoa and other territories, but is now funded under the same
section of the Food Stamp Act as Puerto Rico’s block grant and
indexed like Puerto Rico’s.
! Since 1982, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
has been provided an annual grant (negotiated with the USDA, with
an estimated $8.4 million available for FY2006) to operate a food-
stamp-like program with 30% of benefits earmarked for locally
produced products. This grant is authorized under P.L. 96-597 (a
law governing relations with the Commonwealth) and, as such, has
not, in the past, been part of a farm bill.
! Indian tribal organizations may choose to operate the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), instead of
having the state offer regular food stamp benefits; the full cost of
benefits and most administrative expenses are covered by the federal
government.22 This option operates on over 250 Indian reservations
in 22 states. The program offers nutritionally balanced monthly food
packages of USDA-provided commodities to those meeting
eligibility rules close to those used for food stamps; households may
not get both food stamp and FDPIR benefits. In FY2005, it served
about 100,000 persons per month at a cost of about $80 million
(30% for administrative and distribution costs). The FDPIR
distributes both commodities bought specifically for it (“entitlement”
commodities) and “bonus” commodities acquired by the USDA for
farm support reasons; in FY2005, $55 million worth of entitlement
commodities were distributed, supplemented by $2 million in bonus
food items. The monthly value of the food packages averaged $41
a person.
Issues and Proposals. The 2002 farm bill extended through FY2007 the
three programs now authorized under the Food Stamp Act: grants to Puerto Rico and
American Samoa and the FDPIR.23 It also slightly increased and indexed the
nutrition assistance grants for Puerto Rico and American Samoa, and specifically
authorized American Samoa’s grant as part of the Food Stamp Act. Legislative
issues related to these programs are focused on Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance
grant and the FDPIR.
Puerto Rico advocates argue that funding for assistance in Puerto Rico lags
behind need. Bills in the House and Senate would increase Puerto Rico’s nutrition
assistance grant (and then index it for both food cost inflation and population
growth), require a study of the feasibility and effects of treating Puerto Rico as a state
under the regular Food Stamp program, or both. Opponents are concerned over the
costs associated with expansion of the grant and the prospect of having (potentially)
over half the Commonwealth’s population receiving aid. There are no
22 Authorized under Section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act; 7 U.S.C. 2013(b).
23 No extension was necessary for the Northern Marianas grant because it operates under a
separate permanent authorization.

---

CRS-14
Administration proposals (other than extending existing law) with regard to Puerto
Rico.
Significant questions have been raised over the level of federal support for
FDPIR costs for administration and distribution of commodities on Indian
reservations and the degree to which funding for the FDPIR limits the types and
quality of the foods provided. The Administration has proposed a slight increase in
the amount provided for FDPIR administrative and distribution costs in order to
speed implementation of a new formula for allocating federal aid that is more directly
tied to participation while easing the negative effects for tribal organizations that
would lose money under the new allocation method. Others have called for a major
increase in funding for FDPIR administrative and distribution expenses. In addition,
some consideration is being given to boosting support for federal spending on the
commodities provided through the FDPIR, and program advocates would like to see
a thorough review of the adequacy and quality of FDPIR food packages and attention
given to purchase of tribally produced foods.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)24
TEFAP was begun in 1981-1982 as a temporary expedient designed, at least
initially, to dispose of huge stocks of government-held food commodities. It also
occurred in the aftermath of noticeable reductions in the coverage of and benefits
provided by food assistance programs like food stamps and school meal programs
legislated in 1981-1982, and in the midst of an economic recession and concern over
“hunger” and homelessness among the needy. In 1983, the Emergency Food
Assistance Act gave the program official status and authorized funding for
administrative and distribution costs.
In the early years (through FY1988), the only significant federal expenditures
involved were appropriations for administrative and distribution costs. The
commodities were so-called “bonus” commodities, those acquired for farm-support
reasons and held in excess of what was needed to fulfill other federal commitments
(e.g., to school meal programs). The establishment of TEFAP helped reduce federal
commodity stocks (and storage costs associated with them), provided an alternative
source of food assistance for the needy, and was instrumental in supporting and
expanding a network of emergency food aid providers that also drew food and other
resources from many non-governmental sources.
In 1988, after the Administration indicated plans to phase out the program
because of the lack of bonus commodity inventories, Congress began the practice of
mandating funding for TEFAP commodities, thereby creating a minimum
“entitlement” to a certain level of commodity assistance. This entitlement component
was ensconced in permanent law by the 1996 welfare reform act (P.L. 104-193),
which guaranteed the program $100 million a year. Additional bonus commodities
continued to be made available — differing each year according to USDA
24 Authorized under (1) Section 27 of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 2036) and (2) the
Emergency Food Assistance Act (7 U.S.C. 7501-7516).

---

CRS-15
acquisitions. This guarantee was increased to $140 million a year in the 2002 farm
bill.
Under TEFAP, the federal government provides food commodities to states
along with grants for administrative and distribution costs. This assistance
supplements other sources of food aid for needy persons and often is provided in
concert with food bank and homeless shelter projects. Eligibility decisions for
TEFAP assistance are made by states. They may direct their TEFAP commodities
directly to (state-defined) needy households and meals served to (state-defined) needy
persons at congregate meal sites. Local TEFAP administering agencies also are
chosen by states. National emergency provider and food bank networks (like Second
Harvest) are also heavily involved.
In addition to state allocations of the $140 million in entitlement commodities,
each state receives a share of the $50 million a year appropriated as discretionary
money to fund expenses associated with administration and distribution (storage,
transportation) of the commodities, and states may divert some of the $140 million
to administration and distribution costs.25 Moreover, state entitlements to TEFAP
commodities are supplemented with bonus commodities (about $150 million in
FY2005) that the USDA has acquired in its agriculture support programs.
Issues and Proposals. The 2002 farm bill extended TEFAP authorities
through FY2007 and increased the level of entitlement commodities from $100
million to $140 million a year. Since the 2002 farm bill, bonus commodity donations
from USDA stocks to TEFAP have dropped dramatically — from over $240 million
in FY2003 to about $150 million in FY2005, with estimates of less than $100 million
for FY2006 and perhaps FY2007 and FY2008. Because USDA commodities provide
an important underpinning to emergency food assistance providers’ activities and
they have come to rely on them, there are several proposals for the 2007 farm bill to
substantially increase the level of entitlement commodity assistance above the current
$140 million a year.
In contrast, the Administration asks for two relatively minor changes in the rules
governing TEFAP operations.26 It would make all TEFAP state plans effectively
permanent (no requirement to re-submit plans once every four years) and mandate
that states only submit revisions that are warranted by changes in state operations or
rules. And it would require that states open competition for contracts with TEFAP
distributing organizations at least once every three years.
25 In FY2005, $20 million was diverted.
26 It should be noted that increased purchases of fruits and vegetables (proposed separately
by the Administration and discussed later in this report) could have the effect of increasing
commodity support for TEFAP.

---

CRS-16
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)27
The CSFP was originally established in the late 1960s, under the authority of a
series of appropriations laws, to provide aid to low-income women (pregnant and
postpartum), infants, and children, who at that time had no other food assistance
program to turn to for aid specific to their needs. Since then, the WIC program has
largely taken over this role. However, the CSFP continues to operate and now serves
mostly elderly low-income individuals who either need extra help beyond food stamp
benefits or are reluctant to apply for food stamps. Projects supported by the CSFP
typically provide a range of other services to their communities.
The CSFP provides supplemental foods to low-income elderly persons and low-
income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants, and children
through over 140 projects in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and on two Indian
reservations. Eligibility is limited to those with income below 130% of the federal
poverty income guidelines (e.g., about $13,000 a year for 1 person). The foods are
purchased by the USDA and distributed to grantees, and food packages received and
distributed by CSFP projects are designed with the specific nutritional needs of the
elderly and women, infants, and children in mind. CSFP grantees also receive
significant funding for administrative costs. The program is a discretionary program
depending on annual appropriations decisions, and commodities and administrative
funding generally are apportioned by the number of persons served in the prior year;
if new money is appropriated or allocated “slots” are not used, new projects can be
added. The commodities provided by the USDA are of two types: (1) “entitlement”
commodities bought with annually appropriated funds and included in the food
packages and (2) “bonus” commodities donated from USDA stocks and provided in
addition to, or as part of, food packages.
In FY2005, the CSFP served over 500,000 persons a month, 90% of whom were
elderly. Some $82 million in entitlement commodities and $38 million worth of
bonus commodities were distributed; food packages were valued at between $18 and
$21 per person per month. Administrative cost support was $29 million.
Issues and Proposals. The 2002 farm bill extended the authorization for
the CSFP through FY2007 and increased the proportion of appropriations earmarked
for administrative costs. In recent appropriations requests, the Administration has
proposed terminating the CSFP, as duplicative of other programs (the WIC program
and food stamps). However, neither House nor Senate Agriculture appropriations
measures have adopted this position. CSFP advocates have, for a number of years,
called for a change in rules that would boost the income eligibility limit from 130%
of the federal poverty guidelines to 185%, and bills to do so are before Congress for
consideration in the farm bill.
27 Authorized under Sections 4 and 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of
1973; 7 U.S.C. 612c note.

---

CRS-17
Community Food Projects
In the 1996 farm bill, Congress established, as Section 25 of the Food Stamp Act
(7 U.S.C. 2034), a program of assistance for community food projects, intended to
promote innovative local self-help initiatives to meet nutrition and farm needs.
Community food projects are funded at a total of $5 million a year — a sum set
aside from each year’s Food Stamp Act appropriation. The program consists of
competitive grants administered through the USDA’s Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and requiring a 50% match.
Project grants provide one-time infusions of federal dollars for local projects
designed to increase the food self-reliance of communities; promote comprehensive
responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues; develop innovative linkages
among the public, for-profit, and nonprofit food sectors; encourage long-term
planning and multi-agency approaches; or improve the availability of locally or
regionally produced foods to low-income people. In addition, one grant is mandated
— to a non-governmental entity that coordinates and disseminates recommendations
garnered from the various local projects.
Issues and Proposals. With little debate, the 2002 farm bill extended
funding for community food projects through FY2007. Several measures before the
110th Congress would substantially increase funding for Community Food Projects,
raise the federal share of projects’ costs, expand the projects’ scope, and raise the
time limit on project grants.
Farmers’ Market Programs
Two farmer’s market programs receive federal funding, and money for a
farmers’ market promotion program is authorized.
The nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill provided statutory authority and
mandatory funding (at $15 million a year through FY2007) for a new Senior Farmers’
Market Nutrition program (SFMNP), under which low-income seniors receive
vouchers that they may redeem at farmers’ markets and roadside stands for fresh
produce. The SFMNP was set up to give low-income elderly the same help that
women, infants, and children (WIC recipients) receive through WIC farmers’ market
vouchers. Separately, the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program provides vouchers
for WIC recipients, with the level of support set by annual appropriations (typically
about $20 million a year). The 2002 farm bill also authorized a farmers’ market
promotion program.
Issues and Proposals. Several legislative proposals would increase
mandatory funding for the SFMNP and, for its WIC counterpart, increase funding and
make it mandatory. In both cases, new funding levels would be set at $20 million a
year, rising to $75 million a year. Some of the same bills would provide mandatory
funding for the farmers’ market promotion program: $25 million a year, with $5
million set aside to support the use of food stamp electronic benefit transfer systems

---

CRS-18
in farmers’ markets. In addition, several initiatives would support farmers’ market
promotion programs.
The Administration proposes to (1) require that the value of SFMNP vouchers
be disregarded in judging eligibility and benefits for federal and state means-tested
aid and (2) prohibit states from participating in the SFMNP if state or local sales
taxes are charged on the food purchased with SFMNP vouchers (as is already the case
for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program).
Finally, food stamp benefits can be used in approved farmers’ markets, and
several proposals for grants to help increase the number of participating farmers’
markets (through technical assistance, infrastructure improvement, and training) have
been advanced. These are primarily aimed at facilitating the use of food stamp
electronic benefit transfer cards at farmers’ markets.
Fruits and Vegetables
The nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill addressed, for the first time, the
availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in schools — because of growing concerns
over childhood obesity and the quality and types of foods offered through school meal
programs. It established a pilot project under which a small number of schools in a
limited number of states and Indian reservations receive funding to offer free fresh
fruit and vegetables to students.28 The project was expanded, given mandatory annual
funding, made permanent through the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization law (P.L.
108-265), and further expanded and given added money in P.L. 109-97. In FY2006,
about 400 schools in 14 states and 3 Indian reservations received support for this
project, supported by funding totaling $15 million; this funding was used for
activities covering both FY2006 and FY2007.
Separate from its nutrition title, the 2002 farm bill (in Section 10603) required
that a minimum of $200 million a year in Section 32 funds be used to purchase
“specialty crops” (like fruits and vegetables) and that $50 million a year of this
amount be used for fresh fruit and vegetables acquired for school meal programs
through the Defense Department procurement system, known as the DoD Fresh
program.
Issues and Proposals.29 Given concerns over obesity and the quality of
government-provided commodities and school meals, there are many initiatives
relating to fruits and vegetables. The fresh fruit and vegetable program set up by the
2002 farm bill has proved popular; for example, both the House and Senate
appropriations bills for FY2007 included a significant expansion in funding and the
number of states covered. And the Administration’s farm bill package, as well as a
number of bills now before Congress, would greatly expand the federal commitment
28 In Section 4402 of the 2002 farm bill.
29 A more extensive discussion of the Administration’s proposals for fruit and vegetable
purchase policies is available in CRS Report RL33916, The USDA 2007 Farm Bill
Proposal: Possible Questions, coordinated by Jasper Womach.

---

CRS-19
to making more fruits and vegetables available through federally supported nutrition
programs.30
A number of bills would boost funding for the existing fresh Fruit and Vegetable
program to some $300 million a year so that it could operate in all states (although
not all schools). Some of the same bills would up the minimum required spending
(from Section 32 funds) to at least $400 million a year and increase the set-aside for
the DoD Fresh program; most of these purchases would go to schools. The
Administration proposes to provide new money, $50 million a year, for the purchase
of fruits and vegetables specifically for the School Lunch program (above
acquisitions under any other authority). It also would increase purchases of fruits and
vegetables using Section 32 money by an escalating amount starting at $200 million
a year and totaling $2.75 billion over 10 years.
Other initiatives include new funding for a fruit and vegetable promotion
program, pilot projects offering financial incentives for food stamp recipients to
purchase fruits and vegetables, grants to facilitate the procurement and transportation
of highly perishable healthy foods for low-income persons, a proposal to require the
Agriculture Department to establish its own program for acquiring fruits and
vegetables for schools and allowing schools to divert a significant portion of their
federal commodity “allowance” to purchase fruits and vegetables through the
Department’s program, and grants to community-based organizations and other local
agencies to promote greater consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other healthy
foods in low-income communities.
Other Domestic Food Assistance
Issues and Proposals
A number of issues and proposals may be taken up in the 2007 farm bill or may
be considered in another legislative vehicle. Most are related to concerns expressed
in the farm bill initiatives discussed earlier in this report. In addition, one bill
relating to nutrition support has been enacted (P.L. 110-19); this law makes clear that
nutrition programs for the elderly operated under the authority of the Older
Americans Act (home-delivered meals and congregate meal projects) may use their
Older Americans Act funding to obtain food commodities for meals they serve
through the Department of Agriculture.
The Administration has proposed a pilot obesity initiative that calls for
competitive grants ($20 million a year over five years) to develop and test ways of
addressing obesity in the low-income population, with evaluations of the results.31
According to the Department of Agriculture, ideas that might be tested include point-
30 In addition, the House version of the FY2008 Agriculture Department appropriations bill
(HR. 3161) would provide an extra $21million for the free fresh fruit and vegetable
program, and the Senate version (S. 1859) would allow all states and Indian reservations
now participating to continue through FY2008.
31 A similar initiative in included in the House-passed 2007 farm bill (H.R. 2419).

---

CRS-20
of-sale incentives for the purchase of fruits and vegetables by food stamp recipients,
grants to connect food stamp shoppers with farmers’ markets, and integrated
communication and education programs to promote healthy diets and physical
activity.
Several bills propose to encourage the purchase of locally produced foods by
the Agriculture Department, the Defense Department, and nutrition program
providers (e.g., schools). They would effectively override current rules that limit the
extent to which the Departments, schools, and other providers can specify a
geographic (e.g. local) preference when procuring food for donation or meals.
Others would provide grants to support the work of food banks and similar nonprofit
emergency feeding organizations related to obtaining, handling, storing, and
distributing locally produced food.32
A number of proposals include grants to community-based organizations for
activities bolstering food security in their communities, as well as grants to national
and regional groups to provide training and technical assistance.
Child nutrition program initiatives include the following:
! Mandatory funding for a currently authorized pilot project for raising
the income limit for free school meals to 185% of the federal
poverty income guidelines;
! Authorizing a school breakfast program in which all meals are
served free, without regard to family income, in place of the current
breakfast program;
! Expanding the provision of federal child nutrition subsidies for
dinners served in after-school programs to all states.33
! Making simplified summer food service program rules nationally
applicable.34
! Changing “competitive foods” requirements by (1) mandating that
the current limited definition of “foods of minimal nutritional value”
be revised and expanded and (2) using this new definition to
effectively bar selling these foods (sold in “competition” with school
meal programs) on school campuses at any time during the school
day; and
! Establishing and funding a competitive grant program for schools to
create healthy school nutrition environments and assessing the
effect of these environments on the health and well-being of their
students.
32 An override of rules against geographic preference is included in the House-passed 2007
farm bill (H.R. 2419).
33 The House version of the FY2008 Agriculture Department appropriations bill (H.R. 3161)
would expand the use of this provision to one state (West Virginia).
34 These rules are intended to encourage expansion of the summer program by freeing
program sponsors from a requirement that they provide detailed documentation of their
expenses. The House version of the FY2008 Agriculture Department appropriations bill
(H.R. 3161) would make these rules nationally applicable.

---

CRS-21
! Expanding the summer food service program by increasing the
number of areas in which free summer meals may be offered and
providing start-up grants for new summer program sponsors.
! Making nationally applicable rules (now used in a pilot project in
Pennsylvania) that ease participation by summer program sponsors
in rural areas.
Proposed Legislation
As discussed earlier, the Administration has announced its nutrition program
(and other) proposals for the 2007 farm bill and included a few of them in its FY2008
appropriations request for food stamps. These have not been formally put forward
in legislative form; however as noted below, several bills include food stamp
amendments close to some of the Administration’s proposals.
To date, the following federal nutrition-assistance-related bills have been
introduced. And, the House has approved its version of the 2007 farm bill, H.R. 2419
(discussed under Congressional Action at the end of this report). The House and
Senate FY2008 Agriculture Department appropriations measures also include some
provisions affecting the free fresh fruit and vegetable program, the summer food
service program, and after-school programs. The House FY2008 Agriculture
appropriations bill (H.R. 3161) provides an extra $21 million to expand the free fresh
fruit and vegetable program, and the Senate version (S. 1859) allows all states and
Indian reservations now participating in the program to continue through FY2008.
The House version also makes simplified summer food service program rules (freeing
summer program sponsors from certain documentation requirements and encouraging
program expansion) nationally applicable and extends federal meal subsidies for
dinners served in after-school programs to one additional state (West Virginia)
beyond the existing seven states.
It is also important to note that some of the proposals listed below (i.e., those
specifically targeted on child nutrition and WIC programs) will probably not be acted
on this year, at least as part of the farm bill, because child nutrition and WIC
legislation is next scheduled for a major review in 2009.
H.R. 45, Healthy Foods for Healthy Living Act
Authorizes grants to community-based organizations and other local agencies
to promote greater consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods
in low-income communities. Also adds services related to obesity prevention and
treatment under Medicare and Medicaid.
H.R. 206, Anti-Hunger Empowerment Act of 2007
Raises federal cost sharing for state administrative expenses related to new
activities to increase access to food stamps, requires annual progress reports on
implementing steps to improve access, and authorizes a pilot project providing
“Beyond the Soup Kitchen” grants to community- based groups for activities

---

CRS-22
bolstering food security and technical assistance grants to community-based nonprofit
feeding and anti-hunger groups.35
H.R. 208
Expands the existing free fresh fruit and vegetable program in schools to include
schools in New York state and selected Head Start programs in participating states.
H.R. 1344
! Increases and indexes required administrative funding for the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
! Requires and funds periodic surveys of the types of foods purchased
by schools with federal cash assistance for school meals.
! Provides mandatory funding for a currently authorized pilot project
for raising the income limit for free school meals to 185% of the
federal poverty income guidelines.

H.R. 1551 and S. 919, Healthy Farms, Fuels, and Foods Act of 2007
Title III — Healthy Food Choices
! Raises the required amount for Community Food Projects (from $5
million to $60.5 million a year, increases federal matching, and
expands the purposes of project grants.
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in schools to
include at least 100 schools in every state, increase required funding
to $300 million a year, and allow states to reserve money for
administrative expenses (the program currently operates in a limited
number of schools in 14 states and on 3 Indian reservations, at a cost
of $15 million).
! Specifies an appropriations authorization of $20 million a year for
grants to encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g.,
“farm-to-cafeteria” projects).
! Provides mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition
program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in FY2012.
! Increases mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million
in FY2012.
! Provides mandatory funding for the farmers’ market promotion
program — $25 million a year (with $5 million set aside to support
the use of food stamp electronic benefit transfer systems in farmers’
markets).
! Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and
other nutrition providers can specify a geographic preference (e.g.,
35 H.R. 206 also would terminate a provision of food stamp law that reduces federal
spending on food stamp administrative expenses by shifting certain costs to states.

---

CRS-23
for locally produced food) when procuring food for the meals they
serve.
! Establishes a fruit and vegetable promotion program of matching
grant assistance to trade organizations — funded at $100 million a
year.
! Requires that foods and meals served in schools participating in
federal school meal programs meet the most recent Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.
! Increases the minimum requirement for specialty crop (e.g., fruit and
vegetable) purchases using Section 32 funds to $400 million a year
(from $200 million) and raises the set-aside for fresh fruit and
vegetable purchases through the DoD Fresh Program from $50
million to $150 million a year.
! Defines “nutrition education” for purposes of funding under the
Food Stamp Act (more broadly than under current rules) and makes
specific in food stamp law that nutrition education expenses are
eligible for federal matching funding.
! Authorizes a pilot project (at $10 million a year) under which food
stamp recipients would receive financial incentives for the purchase
of fresh fruit and vegetables.
H.R. 1600, EAT Healthy America Act
Title V — Nutrition
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program in schools to
include at least 100 schools in every state, increases required funding
to $300 million a year, and allows the Agriculture Department and
states to reserve money for administrative expenses (the program
currently operates in a limited number of schools in 14 states and on
3 Indian reservations, at a cost of $15 million).
! Establishes a fruit and vegetable promotion program of matching
grant assistance to trade organizations — funded at $50-$100 million
a year.
! Requires that foods and meals served in schools participating in
federal school meal programs meet the most recent Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.
! Increases the minimum requirement for specialty crop (e.g., fruit and
vegetable) purchases using Section 32 funds to $400 million a year
(from $200 million) and raises the set-aside for fresh fruit and
vegetable purchases through the DoD Fresh program, in steps, from
$50 million in FY2008 to $125 million in FY2012.
! Requires a study of school preferences as to the commodities
supplied to them by the Agriculture Department, including the extent
to which they prefer these commodities to include fresh fruit and
vegetables, an analysis of logistical problems that impede
distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables, and recommendations for
improving the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables to schools.

---

CRS-24
! Requires an independent evaluation of the Agriculture Department’s
commodity purchasing processes, especially with regard to purchases
of perishable specialty crops.
! Defines “nutrition education” for purposes of funding under the
Food Stamp Act (more broadly than under current rules) and makes
specific in food stamp law that nutrition education expenses are
eligible for federal matching funding.
! Includes a sense of Congress provision stating that food stamp
benefits should not be available to purchase nutrition supplements or
anything other than food.
! Authorizes a pilot project (at $10 million a year) under which food
stamp recipients would receive financial incentives for the purchase
of fresh fruit and vegetables.
! Requires decennial evaluations of WIC program food packages in
light of the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
! Provides mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition
program: $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in FY2012.
! Increases mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program: $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in
FY2012.
H.R. 2129, Feeding America’s Families Act of 2007
Food Stamps
! Increases food stamp benefits for all eligible households over time
by (1) raising basic (maximum) food stamp benefits to 103% of the
inflation-adjusted cost of the Agriculture Department’s “Thrifty
Food Plan” (currently, benefits are set at 100% of the inflation-
adjusted cost of this plan) and (2) increasing and inflation indexing
the minimum amount of household monthly income (the “standard
deduction”) that is disregarded when calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Places into permanent law a rule that disregards combat-related pay
for families with military members when calculating food stamp
eligibility and benefits (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases the food stamp minimum monthly benefit.
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by (1) increasing, and then indexing,
the dollar limit on disregarded assets, (2) requiring the disregard of
all retirement savings (as in the Administration’s proposal), and (3)
requiring the disregard of savings for education (as in the
Administration’s proposal).
! Repeals the provisions of law substantially limiting food stamp
participation by able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)
who are not working at least half-time or in a work or training
program.

---

CRS-25
! Makes all legally resident noncitizens eligible (if they meet other
food stamp eligibility requirements), requires that state food stamp
agencies not require “unnecessary” information from noncitizens
who may be exempt from rules governing the attribution of financial
resources from noncitizens’ sponsors, and eases reporting
requirements on state agencies in cases where they grant “indigence”
exemptions from the rules for attribution of sponsors’ financial
resources.
! Requires states to “opt in” to rules limiting food stamp participation
by convicted felons (as opposed to current provisions barring their
receipt of food stamps unless a state “opts out”).
! Eases reporting requirements on elderly households and allows state
food stamp agencies to choose whether and how to act on
information received through another program (unless it clearly
indicates the household is not eligible for food stamps).
! Limits state food stamp agencies’ ability to establish requirements as
to how and when households receive their food stamp benefits.
! Limits state food stamp agencies’ ability to delegate administrative
responsibilities to non-state employees or entities and specifies the
Agriculture Department’s authority to limit contracting out these
responsibilities.
! Increases required funding for grants to improve access to the Food
Stamp program and simplify application for the program from $5
million to $45 million a year.
! Provides new funding (not to exceed $80 million a year) for state
agency initiatives to improve program access, efficiency, or integrity
and requires funding ($9 million a year) for research or
demonstration projects (primarily for studying ways to increase
program access, reduce state agency and household administrative
burdens, and improve program integrity).
! Increases required bonus payments to states achieving exemplary
administrative performance from $48 million to $68 million a year.
! Increases federal matching payments for states’ food stamp
administrative costs in cases of natural disasters from the normal
50% to 90%.
! Provides mandatory funding ($5 million a year) for grants to expand
the number of farmers’ markets that accept food stamp benefits (e.g.,
providing equipment and training).
! Reauthorizes expiring Food Stamp Act provisions and
appropriations authorities through FY2012.
Other Provisions
! Indexes the $5 million a year provided for Community Food Projects
funded under the Food Stamp Act.
! Increases required funding for commodities provided under The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) from $140 million
to $250 million in FY2008 — indexed in future years.
! Reauthorizes appropriations for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP) through FY2012.

---

CRS-26
! Provides funding ($5 million in FY2008, indexed in future years) for
grants to support the work of food banks and similar nonprofit
emergency feeding organizations in reducing hunger or food
insecurity in their communities through improved infrastructure and
obtaining, handling, storing, and distributing locally produced food.
! Provides funding ($5 million in FY2008, indexed in future years) to
support grants to facilitate the procurement and transportation of
highly perishable healthy food for low-income persons.
! Provides funding ($4 million in FY2008, indexed in future years) for
matching grants to organizations (like public food service providers,
nonprofit organizations, and emergency feeding organizations)
demonstrating that they have collaborated (or will collaborate) with
local partner organizations in order to reduce hunger in communities
that are underserved by existing programs or have high rates of food
insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment.
! Revamps provisions governing the Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowship program, particularly by providing mandatory
funding ($3 million in FY2008, indexed in future years).
H.R. 2144, Farm, Nutrition, and Community Investment Act of 2007
Title IV — Healthy Diets
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in schools to
include at least 100 schools in every state, increase required funding
to $300 million a year, and allow states to reserve money for
administrative expenses (the program currently operates in a limited
number of schools in 14 states and on 3 Indian reservations, at a cost
of $15 million).
! Increases the minimum requirement for specialty crop (e.g., fruit and
vegetable) purchases using Section 32 funds to $400 million a year
(from $200 million) and raises the set-aside for fresh fruit and
vegetable purchases through the DoD Fresh program, in steps, from
$50 million in FY2008 to $125 million in FY2012.
! Requires a study of school preferences as to the commodities
supplied to them by the Agriculture Department, including the extent
to which they prefer these commodities to include fresh fruit and
vegetables, an analysis of logistical problems that impede
distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables, and recommendations for
improving the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables to schools.
! Requires an independent evaluation of the Agriculture Department’s
commodity purchasing processes, especially with regard to purchases
of perishable specialty crops.
! Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and
farm-to-school programs can specify a geographic preference (e.g.,
for locally produced food) when procuring food for the meals they
serve.
! Specifies an appropriations authorization of $20 million a year for
grants to encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g.,
“farm-to-cafeteria” projects).

---

CRS-27
! Provides mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition
program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in FY2012.
! Increases mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million
in FY2012.
! Provides mandatory funding for pilot program to expand disabled
individuals’ access to farmers’ markets.
! Provides mandatory funding for the farmers’ market promotion
program of $25 million a year (with $5 million set aside to support
the use of food stamp electronic benefit transfer systems in farmers’
markets).
Title VI — Food Stamp Program and Other Nutrition Programs
! Bars any reductions in basic (maximum) food stamp benefit levels.
! Increases food stamp benefits for eligible households over time by
increasing and inflation indexing the minimum amount of household
monthly income (the “standard deduction”) that is disregarded when
calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Places into permanent law a rule that disregards combat-related pay
for families with military members when calculating food stamp
eligibility and benefits (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by (1) increasing, and then indexing,
the dollar limit on disregarded assets and (2) requiring the disregard
of all retirement savings (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Eases reporting requirements on elderly households and allows state
food stamp agencies to choose whether and how to act on
information received through another program (unless it clearly
indicates the household is not eligible for food stamps).
! Repeals the provisions of law substantially limiting food stamp
participation by able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)
who are not working at least half-time or in a work or training
program.
! Increases the food stamp minimum monthly benefit.
! Limits states’ ability to add eligibility requirements for food stamps
(like biometric identification requirements).
! Limits states’ ability to deny food stamp applications based on lack
of verification.
! Substantially limits states’ ability to delegate administrative
responsibilities to non-state employees or entities.
! Makes all legally resident noncitizens eligible for food stamps (if
they meet other eligibility requirements).
! Increases required funding for commodities provided under The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) from $140 million
to $250 million in FY2008 — indexed in future years.

---

CRS-28
! Raises the required amount for Community Food Projects (from $5
million to $30 million a year), increases federal matching, and
expands the purposes of project grants.
H.R. 2364, Local Food and Farm Support Act
! Provides mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition
program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in FY2012.
! Increases mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million
in FY2012.
! Raises the required amount for Community Food Projects (from $5
million to $60.5 million a year, increases federal matching, and
expands the purposes of project grants.
! Specifies an appropriations authorization of $20 million a year for
grants to encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g.,
“farm-to-cafeteria” projects).
! Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and
farm-to-school programs can specify a geographic preference (e.g.,
for locally produced food) when procuring food for the meals they
serve.
! Requires a study of school preferences as to the commodities
supplied to them by the Agriculture Department, including the extent
to which they prefer these commodities to include fresh fruit and
vegetables, an analysis of logistical problems that impede
distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables, and recommendations for
improving the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables to schools.
! Establishes a demonstration project within the Food Stamp program
under which recipients would receive financial incentives for
increased purchases of fruits and vegetables.
! Requires an independent evaluation of the Agriculture Department’s
commodity purchasing processes, especially with regard to purchases
of perishable specialty crops.
H.R. 2392, Family and Workplace Balancing Act of 2007
! In place of the current School Breakfast program, authorizes a school
breakfast program in which free breakfasts are served to all children
(without regard to family income) in schools making application for
the free breakfast program.
! Requires the Department of Agriculture to establish a competitive
grant program for local educational agencies to create healthy school
nutrition environments and assess the effect of these environments
on the health and well-being of their students. Provides mandatory
funding of $10 million, rising to $35 million a year.
! Allows regulations that govern the service of any food in schools
participating in federally subsidized school meal programs in
competition with regular meal services. These regulations would
apply to all school grounds during the school day, would not
supersede state and local rules on competitive foods that conform to

---

CRS-29
the nutritional goals of the regulations, require that all proceeds from
any sale of competitive foods be used for the benefit of schools or
student organizations, take into account differing needs of
elementary, middle, and high schools, and implement required
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute
of Medicine.
! Expands the provision of federal child nutrition subsidies for dinners
served in after-school programs to all states.
H.R. 2401, Nutrition and Opportunities for the Underserved and Rural
Incentives to Secure the Heartland (NOURISH) Act of 2007
Title VI — Healthy Food Choices
! Raises the required amount for Community Food Projects (from $5
million to $30 million a year), increases federal matching, and
expands the purposes of project grants.
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program in schools to
include at least 100 schools in every state, increases required funding
to $300 million a year, and allows the Department of Agriculture and
states to reserve money for administrative expenses (the program
currently operates in a limited number of schools in 14 states and on
3 Indian reservations, at a cost of $15 million).
! Specifies an appropriations authorization of $20 million a year for
grants to encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g.,
“farm-to-cafeteria” projects).
! Provides mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition
program of $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in FY2012.
! Increases mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program: $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in
FY2012.
! Provides mandatory funding for the farmers’ market promotion
program of $25 million a year (with $5 million set aside to support
the use of food stamp electronic benefit transfer systems in farmers’
markets).
! Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and
other nutrition providers can specify a geographic preference (e.g.,
for locally produced food) when procuring food for the meals they
serve.
! Establishes a fruit and vegetable promotion program of matching
grant assistance to trade organizations, funded at $100 million a year.
! Requires that foods and meals served in schools participating in
federal school meal programs meet the most recent Dietary
Guidelines for Americans.
! Increases the minimum requirement for specialty crop (e.g., fruit and
vegetable) purchases using Section 32 funds to $400 million a year
(from $200 million) and raises the set-aside for fresh fruit and
vegetable purchases through the DoD Fresh program, in steps, from
$50 million in FY2008 to $125 million in FY2012.

---

CRS-30
! Makes specific in food stamp law that nutrition education expenses
are eligible for federal matching funding.
Title IX — Nutrition
! Renames the Food Stamp program as the Secure Nutrition Access
program.
! Increases food stamp benefits by increasing and inflation indexing
the minimum amount of household monthly income (the “standard
deduction”) that is disregarded when calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Places into permanent law a rule that disregards combat-related pay
for families with military members when calculating food stamp
eligibility and benefits (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases, in steps, the food stamp minimum monthly benefit.
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by (1) increasing, and then indexing,
the dollar limit on disregarded assets, (2) requiring the disregard of
all retirement savings (as in the Administration’s proposal), and (3)
requiring the disregard of savings for education (as in the
Administration’s proposal).
! Substantially loosens the provisions of law limiting food stamp
participation by able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)
who are not working at least half-time or in a work or training
program.
! Makes all legally resident noncitizens eligible (if they meet other
food stamp eligibility requirements), requires that state food stamp
agencies not require “unnecessary” information from noncitizens
who may be exempt from rules governing the attribution of financial
resources from noncitizens’ sponsors, and eases reporting
requirements on state agencies in cases where they grant “indigence”
exemptions from the rules for attribution of sponsors’ financial
resources.
! Eases reporting requirements on elderly households and allows state
food stamp agencies to choose whether and how to act on
information received through another program (unless it clearly
indicates the household is not eligible for food stamps).
! Allows state agencies the option to allow “telephonic signatures”
(recorded verbal consent) in applying for food stamps.
! Limits state food stamp agencies’ ability to establish requirements as
to how and when households receive their food stamp benefits.
! Limits state food stamp agencies’ ability to delegate administrative
responsibilities to non-state employees or entities and specifies the
Agriculture Department’s authority to limit contracting out these
responsibilities.

---

CRS-31
! Increases required funding for grants to improve access to the Food
Stamp program and simplify application for the program from $5
million to $15 million a year.
! Requires funding ($9 million a year) research or demonstration
projects (primarily for studying ways to increase program access,
reduce state agency and household administrative burdens, and
improve program integrity).
! Increases required bonus payments to states achieving exemplary
administrative performance from $48 to $68 million a year.
! Increases federal match payments for states’ food stamp
administrative costs in cases of natural disasters from the normal
50% to 90%.
! Increases Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance grant and then indexes
it for both food costs and population growth; requires a study of the
feasibility and effects of treating Puerto Rico as a state under the
Food Stamp program.
! Provides mandatory funding ($5 million a year) for grants to expand
the number of farmers’ markets that accept food stamp benefits (e.g.,
providing equipment and training).
! Increases required funding for commodities provided under The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) from $140 million
to $250 million in FY2008, indexed in future years.
! Reauthorizes expiring Food Stamp Act provisions and
appropriations authorities, as well as appropriations for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) through FY2012.
H.R. 2419, Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007
As approved by the House on July 27, 2007, includes substantial amendments
affecting nutrition programs (Title IV). See the 2007 Farm Bill section of the
discussion of Congressional Action at the end of this report.
H.R. 2667, Disabled Farmers’ Market Nutrition Pilot Program of 2007
Provides mandatory funding for pilot program to expand disabled individuals’
access to farmers’ markets.
H.R. 2720, Food and Agriculture Risk Management for the 21st Century Act of
2007 (FARM21 Act of 2007)
Title IIB — Healthy Foods
! Substantially increases funding for the program providing free fresh
fruits and vegetables in schools and expands coverage of the
program to all states.
! Specifies annual appropriations authorizations for grants to
encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g., “farm-to-
cafeteria” projects).
! Provides mandatory funding for the farmers’ market promotion
program — $25 million a year (with $5 million set aside to support

---

CRS-32
the use of food stamp electronic benefit transfer systems in farmers’
markets).
! Establishes (and provides mandatory funding for) a fruit and
vegetable promotion program of matching grant assistance to trade
organizations — funded at $20 million a year.
Title IIF — Nutrition
! Places into permanent law a rule that disregards combat-related pay
for families with military members when calculating food stamp
eligibility and benefits (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases food stamp benefits for eligible households by increasing
and inflation indexing the minimum amount of household monthly
income (the “standard deduction”) that is disregarded when
calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases the food stamp minimum monthly benefit.
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by requiring the disregard of all
retirement savings (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Eases reporting requirements on elderly households and allows state
food stamp agencies to choose whether and how to act on
information received through another program (unless it clearly
indicates the household is not eligible for food stamps).
! Increases required funding for grants to improve access to the Food
Stamp program and simplify application for the program.
! Provides limited new funding for state initiatives to improve Food
Stamp program access, efficiency, and integrity.
! Increases federal matching payments for states’ food stamp
administrative costs in cases of natural disasters from the normal
50% to 90%.
! Increases funding for Community Food Projects.
! Provides funding for grants to expand the use of food stamp benefits
through farmers’ markets.
! Substantially increases mandatory funding for TEFAP commodities.
! Authorizes funding for a competitive grant program for emergency
feeding organizations — to make infrastructure improvements and
assist them in obtaining locally produced food.
! Authorizes funding to support grants to facilitate the procurement
and transportation of highly perishable healthy food for low-income
persons.
H.R. 3030, Summer Food Service Improvement Act of 2007
! Makes simplified summer food service program rules nationally
applicable (see S. 790/H.R. 1740).

---

CRS-33
! Expands the summer food service program by increasing the number
of areas in which free summer meals may be offered.
! Provides funding for start-up grants for new summer program
sponsors.
S. 100, Healthy Students Act of 2007 36
! Requires development of new nutritional standards for child
nutrition programs and provides added funding to cover compliance
with these standards in the Summer Food Service program.
! Authorizes a pilot project of grants to schools and nonprofit
organizations to promote healthy nutrition alternatives through
provision of organic foods, promotion of “healthy food education,”
operation of “farm-to-cafeteria” projects, and provision of
professional development for teachers.
S. 541, Rural Opportunities Act of 2007
Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and farm-to-school
programs can specify a geographic preference (e.g., for locally produced food) when
procuring food for the meals they serve.
S. 591, Food Stamp Personal Savings and Investment Act of 2007
Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when judging food
stamp eligibility by (1) indexing the dollar limit on disregarded assets, (2) requiring
the disregard of all retirement savings (as in the Administration’s proposal), and (3)
requiring the disregard of savings for education (as in the Administration’s proposal).
S. 770, Food Stamp Vitamin and Mineral Improvement Act of 2007
Allows food stamp benefits to be used to purchase nutritional supplements.
S. 771/ H.R. 1363, Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act
of 2007
! Requires new regulations revising and expanding the definition of
“food of minimal nutritional value” to be applied in schools
participating in federally subsidized school meal programs.
! The new definition would effectively bar selling these foods outside
school meal programs on school campuses at any time during the
school day.
! The revised definition would take into account (1) the contributions
of nutrients, ingredients, and foods to children’s diets, (2) evidence
concerning the relationship between consumption of specific
36 This bill also includes related provisions that are outside the typical purview of child
nutrition laws. They authorize a pilot program of grants to schools to increase the length
of school days for physical activity and other initiatives.

---

CRS-34
nutrients, ingredients, and foods in preventing and promoting the
development of overweight, obesity, and chronic illnesses, (3)
recommendations made by scientific organizations, and (4) special
exemptions for school-sponsored fundraisers.
S. 790/H.R. 1740
Makes simplified summer food service program rules nationally applicable.
These rules are intended to encourage expansion of the summer program by freeing
summer program sponsors from a requirement that they provide detailed
documentation of their expenses.
S. 1031, School Food Fresh Act of 2007
! Requires the establishment of a multi-agency USDA task force to
evaluate, monitor, and provide coordination and direction for the
Department’s programs acquiring and distributing commodities to
recipient agencies like schools, Indian reservations, and emergency
feeding organizations. The task force is to review and make
recommendations as to the specifications used for procuring
commodities, their effective distribution, the best use of federal
funds, and updates of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
! Authorizes competitive grants for evaluating commodity
specifications.
! In place of the current set-aside of $50 million a year in funding for
the DoD Fresh program for purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables for
schools, effectively requires the Department of Agriculture to
establish its own program for acquiring fruits and vegetables for
schools (funded at the same level) and allows schools to divert up to
30% of their commodity “allowance” to purchase fruits and
vegetables through the Department’s program.
! Requires the Department of Agriculture to purchase commodities for
distribution to schools and other outlets that are in the “least-
processed state.”
S. 1090, Senior Nutrition Act of 2007
Increases the income eligibility limit for elderly persons in the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) from 130% to 185% of the federal poverty
income guidelines.
S. 1160, Specialty Crop Competition Act of 2007
Title VI — Nutrition
! Increases the minimum requirement for specialty crop (e.g., fruit and
vegetable) purchases using Section 32 funds to the amount spent in
FY2001 plus $200 million a year and raises the set-aside for fresh
fruit and vegetable purchases through the DoD Fresh program, in
steps, from $50 million in FY2008 to $125 million in FY2012.

---

CRS-35
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program to all states and
an additional 12 Indian reservations, directs an increase in the
number of participating schools in each state and on each Indian
reservation (above the current 25 schools per state or reservation),
increases mandatory funding, in stages, to $100 million in FY2010
and FY2011, and allows the Department of Agriculture and states to
reserve money for administrative expenses.
! Defines “nutrition education” for purposes of funding under the
Food Stamp Act (more broadly than under current rules) and makes
specific in food stamp law that nutrition education expenses are
eligible for federal matching funding.
! Authorizes a pilot project (at $10 million a year) under which food
stamp recipients would receive financial incentives for the purchase
of fresh fruit and vegetables.
! Requires the Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and
Education Departments to coordinate in establishing a Nutritional
Education Program Review Committee. The Committee would
submit a report describing methods of (1) evaluating the
effectiveness of federal efforts to inform schools and other interested
parties about federally-funded nutrition education programs, (2)
improving these programs, and (3) making federal nutrition
education funds more widely available.
! Includes a sense of the Senate provision stating that the Agriculture
Department has an important role in educating families about
nutrition and healthy lifestyles and that all federal nutrition programs
should follow the latest nutritional science and be sensitive to the
diverse cultures of the people they serve.
S. 1172, Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2007 37
! Requires a study (with periodic updates) of matters relating to the
problem of hunger in the United States and recommendations for
removing obstacles to achieving a substantial reduction in domestic
hunger. Domestic hunger goals are set at (1) a reduction of hunger
to at or below 2% by 2010 and (2) a reduction in food insecurity to
at or below 6% by 2010.
! Authorizes a program of matching grants to organizations (like
public food service program providers, nonprofit organizations, and
emergency feeding organizations) demonstrating that they have
collaborated (or will collaborate) with local partner organizations in
order to assess and reduce hunger in communities that are
underserved by existing programs or have high rates of food
insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment.
! Authorizes a program of matching grants to emergency feeding
organizations to support their infrastructure expansion activities and
obtaining locally produced foods and wild game.
37 A similar measure was approved by the Senate on December 8, 2006.

---

CRS-36
! Authorizes a program of matching grants to national or regional
nonprofit organizations to provide training and technical assistance
to help achieve domestic hunger reduction goals.
! Appropriations are authorized at $50 million a year.
S. 1422/H.R. 2720, Farm Risk Management Act for the 21st Century
Title IV — Nutrition Programs
! Places into permanent law a rule that disregards combat-related pay
for families with military members when calculating food stamp
eligibility and benefits (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases food stamp benefits by increasing and inflation indexing
the minimum amount of household monthly income (the “standard
deduction”) that is disregarded when calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by (1) requiring the disregard of all
retirement savings (as in the Administration’s proposal) and (2)
requiring the disregard of savings for education (as in the
Administration’s proposal).
! Increases federal matching payments for states’ food stamp
administrative costs in cases of natural disasters — from the normal
50% to 90%.
! Eases reporting requirements on elderly households and allows state
food stamp agencies to choose whether and how to act on
information received through another program (unless it clearly
indicates the household is not eligible for food stamps).
! Increases, in steps, the food stamp minimum monthly benefit.
! Increases required funding for grants to improve access to the Food
Stamp program and simplify application for the program from $5
million to $15 million a year (indexed).
! Provides funding (up to $10 million a year in increased federal
administrative matching money) for state initiatives to improve
program access, efficiency, or integrity.
! Provides funding (up to $5 million a year) for projects to expand the
number of farmers’ markets that accept food stamps (through
equipment, training, and technical assistance).
! Increases, in steps, funding for commodities provided by TEFAP —
to $245 million in FY2011 — and indexes the amount for later years.
! Authorizes a program of competitive grants to emergency feeding
organizations to support their infrastructure expansion activities and
obtaining locally produced foods.
! Makes simplified summer food service program rules nationally
applicable. These rules are intended to encourage expansion of the
summer program by freeing summer program sponsors from a

---

CRS-37
requirement that they provide detailed documentation of their
expenses.
! Provides additional mandatory funding for expansion of the free
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program in schools — increased in steps
to $15 million in FY2014.
! Specifies an appropriations authorization for grants to encourage
schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g., “farm-to-cafeteria”
projects) — $5 million a year rising to $10 million in FY2011.
! Authorizes funding ($5 million in FY2008, indexed in future years)
to support grants to facilitate the procurement and transportation of
highly perishable healthy food for low-income persons.
! Reauthorizes expiring provisions and appropriations authorities
through FY2014.
S. 1424, Farm, Nutrition, and Community Investment Act of 2007
Title IV — Nutrition Programs
! Bars any reduction in basic (maximum) food stamp benefits based
on the Agriculture Department’s “Thrifty Food Plan.”
! Places into permanent law a rule that disregards combat-related pay
for families with military members when calculating food stamp
eligibility and benefits (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases food stamp benefits by increasing and inflation indexing
the minimum amount of household monthly income (the “standard
deduction”) that is disregarded when calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by (1) indexing the dollar limit on
disregarded assets and (2) requiring the disregard of all retirement
savings (as in the Administration’s proposal).
! Eases reporting requirements on elderly households and allows state
food stamp agencies to choose whether and how to act on
information received through another program (unless it clearly
indicates the household is not eligible for food stamps).
! Repeals the provisions of law substantially limiting food stamp
participation by able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)
who are not working at least half-time or in a work or training
program.
! Makes all legally resident noncitizens eligible (if they meet other
food stamp eligibility requirements), requires that state food stamp
agencies not require “unnecessary” information from noncitizens
who may be exempt from rules governing the attribution of financial
resources from noncitizens’ sponsors, and eases reporting
requirements on state agencies in cases where they grant “indigence”
exemptions from the rules for attribution of sponsors’ financial
resources.

---

CRS-38
! Increases the food stamp minimum monthly benefit.
! Limits state food stamp agencies’ ability to delegate administrative
responsibilities to non-state employees or entities and requires that
no food stamp application be denied for lack of verification unless
the state agency determines that the applicant household has refused
to comply with a request made by a state agency employee (e.g., not
a contractor).
! Raises the required amount for Community Food Projects (from $5
million to $30 million a year, indexed), increases federal matching,
and expands the purposes of project grants.
! Increases required funding for commodities provided under The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) from $140 million
to $250 million in FY2008 — indexed in future years.
! Requires a study of the feasibility and effects of treating Puerto Rico
as a state under the Food Stamp program.
Title VIII — Healthy Diets
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program in schools to
include at least 100 schools in every state, increases required funding
to $300 million a year, and allows the Agriculture Department and
states to reserve money for administrative expenses (the program
currently operates in a limited number of schools in 14 states and on
3 Indian reservations, at a cost of $15 million).
! Specifies an appropriations authorization of $20 million a year for
grants to encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g.,
“farm-to-cafeteria” projects).
! Increases the minimum requirement for specialty crop (e.g., fruit and
vegetable) purchases using Section 32 funds to $400 million a year
(from $200 million) and raises the set-aside for fresh fruit and
vegetable purchases through the DoD Fresh program, in steps, from
$50 million in FY2008 to $125 million in FY2012.
! Requires a study of school preferences as to the commodities
supplied to them by the Department of Agriculture, including the
extent to which they prefer these commodities to include fresh fruit
and vegetables, an analysis of logistical problems that impede
distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables, and recommendations for
improving the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables to schools.
! Requires an independent evaluation of the Agriculture Department’s
commodity purchasing processes, especially with regard to purchases
of perishable specialty crops.
! Provides mandatory funding for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition
program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in FY2012.
! Increases mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program — $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million
in FY2012.
! Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and
other nutrition providers can specify a geographic preference (e.g.,
for locally produced food) when procuring food for the meals they
serve.

---

CRS-39
S. 1432, Food Outreach and Opportunity Development for a Healthy America
Act of 2007
Title I — Food Stamp Program
! Raises the required amount for Community Food Projects (from $5
million to $30 million a year).
! Defines “nutrition education” for purposes of funding under the
Food Stamp Act (more broadly than under current rules) and sets
aside at least $100 million a year for nutrition education.
Title II — National School Lunch Program
! Expands the free Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program in schools to
include at least 100 schools in every state, increases required funding
to $300 million a year, and allows the Agriculture Department and
states to reserve money for administrative expenses (the program
currently operates in 14 states and on 3 Indian reservations, at a cost
of $15 million).
! Specifies an appropriations authorization of $20 million a year for
grants to encourage schools’ access to locally produced food (e.g.,
“farm-to-cafeteria” projects).
! Overrides current rules that limit the extent to which schools and
other nutrition providers can specify a geographic preference (e.g.,
for locally produced food) when procuring food for the meals they
serve.
Title IV — Miscellaneous
! Provides mandatory funding for the farmers’ market promotion
program at $25 million a year and expands the types of activities that
may be supported.
! Provides mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition program at $20 million in FY2008, rising to $75 million in
FY2012.
S. 1529, Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007
Food Stamps
! Increases food stamp benefits by inflation indexing the minimum
amount of household monthly income (the “standard deduction”)
that is disregarded when calculating benefits.
! Increases food stamp benefits for households with dependent or child
care expenses by removing dollar limits on the degree to which these
costs are taken into account when calculating food stamp benefits (as
in the Administration’s proposal).
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging food stamp eligibility by (1) indexing the dollar limit on
disregarded assets, (2) requiring the disregard of all retirement

---

CRS-40
savings (as in the Administration’s proposal), and (3) requiring the
disregard of savings for education (as in the Administration’s
proposal).
! Makes all legally resident noncitizens eligible (if they meet other
food stamp eligibility requirements), requires that state food stamp
agencies not require “unnecessary” information from noncitizens
who may be exempt from rules governing the attribution of financial
resources from noncitizens’ sponsors, and eases reporting
requirements on state agencies in cases where they grant “indigence”
exemptions from the rules for attribution of sponsors’ financial
resources.
! Significantly loosens the provisions of law limiting food stamp
participation by able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs)
who are not working at least half-time or in a work or training
program.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
! Increases required funding for commodities provided under TEFAP
from $140 million to $180 million a year.
S. 1575, Food Employment Empowerment and Development Program Act of
2007 (the FEED Act of 2007)
Authorizes grants ($20 million a year) to public agencies and private nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of (1) recovering donated food from food service
businesses (e.g., restaurants) and farms, (2) distributing meals or recovered food to
entities feeding vulnerable populations, (3) training unemployed or underemployed
adults in food service careers, and (4) carrying out “welfare-to-work” programs in
combination with the production of school and after-school meal programs.
S. 1755/H.R. 2968, Summer Food Service Rural Expansion Act
Makes nationally applicable rules (now used in a pilot project in Pennsylvania)
that ease participation by summer program sponsors in rural areas.

Congressional Action
Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs
On April 23, 2007, P.L. 110-19 was enacted. This law makes clear that nutrition
programs for the elderly operated under the authority of the Older Americans Act
(home-delivered meals and congregate meal projects) may use their Older Americans
Act funding to obtain food commodities for meals they serve through the Agriculture
Department.

---

CRS-41
2007 Farm Bill
House Bill Provisions. On June 15, 2007, the House Agriculture
Committee’s Subcommittee on Departmental Operations Oversight, Nutrition, and
Forestry forwarded its recommendations for the nutrition title of the 2007 farm bill
to the full committee. On July 19, 2007, the House Agriculture Committee approved
its version of the 2007 farm bill (H.R. 2419; H.Rept. 110-256), accepting the
subcommittee’s proposals with minor amendments. On July 27, 2007, the House
adopted H.R. 2419, with amendments. The Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry has not yet taken any action on the 2007 farm bill.
The House bill’s nutrition title (Title IV) incorporates the following changes.
Most of the amendments in the House bill do not affect nutrition program costs.
However, a number of important provisions do, and the required new funding (from
tax law changes) is provided. The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost
of the provisions of the nutrition title projects that they will add some $4.2 billion in
federal spending over the next five years and $11.5 billion over the next 10 years (in
both budget authority and outlays). Six provisions of Title IV account for 98% of its
cost in the first five years: increasing food stamp benefits by raising the “standard
deduction” (52%), boosting food stamp benefits by eliminating limits on income
disregards ties to dependent care expenses (6%), raising minimum benefits (6%),
disregarding retirement savings/plans and education savings as countable assets when
judging eligibility (13%), increasing mandatory spending on TEFAP commodities
(14%), and expanding support for the fresh fruit and vegetable program in schools
(7%).
Food Stamps
General Provisions
! Renames the Food Stamp program as the Secure Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance program.
! Makes coupons issued under the Food Stamp program — prior to the
changeover to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards as the method
of issuing benefits — no longer redeemable.
! Renews all existing Food Stamp program authorities (e.g., the
authorization for appropriations) through FY2012.

---

CRS-42
Benefit Levels and Eligibility 38
! Increases benefits (and, to a limited degree, liberalizes income
eligibility standards) for most households by raising and indexing the
minimum amount of household monthly income (the “standard
deduction”) that is disregarded when calculating household benefits
(and income eligibility). The monthly standard deduction is initially
increased by 8% — from $134 to $145 a month — for a benefit
increase of about $3 a month for most households. This change
accounts for just over half of the new spending brought on by the
provisions of the nutrition title.
! Increases benefits (and, to a limited degree, liberalizes income
eligibility standards) for households with dependent or child care
expenses by removing the dollar limits on the degree to which these
expenses are taken into account (i.e., disregarded when calculating
household income) when establishing a household’s benefits.39 This
change accounts for about 6% of the new spending expected under
the provisions of the nutrition title.
! Increases minimum benefits for recipient households near the
income eligibility limits by calculating minimum benefits as 10% of
the (indexed) maximum benefit for a one-person household. The
minimum benefit is now $10 a month for one- and two-person
households, and the change would initially lift it to an estimated $16
a month. This change represents some 6% of the new spending in
the nutrition title.
! Places into permanent law a rule (now in annual appropriations laws)
that disregards combat-related pay for families with military
members when calculating benefits (and, to a limited degree, income
eligibility).40
! Adopts the Administration’s proposal to bar eligibility to those
disqualified from the FDPIR.
38 Note: Income disregard provisions primarily affect benefit calculations. However, they
can affect a household’s income eligibility. Most households are subject to both a “gross”
income test (their total income, before disregards, must be below 130% of the federal
poverty income guidelines) and a “net” income test (their income, after disregards, must be
below the poverty guidelines themselves). In the large majority of situations, meeting the
gross income test is the more important requirement. But boosting or establishing an
income disregard also decreases a household’s net income and makes their income eligibility
more likely.
39 Current limits are $200 a month for children under age 2 and $175 a month for all other
dependents. This proposal was put forward by the Administration, among others.
40 This proposal was put forward by the Administration, among others.

---

CRS-43
Asset Eligibility Standards
! Increases the degree to which liquid assets are disregarded when
judging eligibility by indexing the dollar limits on assets an eligible
household may hold.41
! Adds to the list of assets that are to be disregarded (1) all retirement
savings/plans and (2) tax-recognized education savings.42 These
changes account for about 13% of the new spending in the nutrition
title.
Program Administration and Nutrition Education
! Substantially limits states’ authority to “privatize” program
administration (to delegate food stamp administrative responsibilities
to non-government employees or entities) by restricting most
communications with households and participation in determinations
relating to compliance with substantive or procedural program
requirements (or most other determinations) to government “merit
system” employees. Denies federal matching funds where these
limits are not observed.
! Adopts the Administration’s proposals with regard to “widespread
systemic errors” in states’ administration of food stamps — allows
the Agriculture Department to effectively waive requirements to
collect overissued benefits from recipients in the case of a major
systemic administrative failure and to require states to repay
overissued benefits in such cases.
! Adopts the Administration’s proposals with regard to retailer
penalties — gives more authority to impose fines in lieu of
disqualification for minor violations and new authority to fine
retailers in addition to disqualification for major violations; allows
the Agriculture Department to seize retailers’ food stamp receipts in
“certain egregious trafficking cases.”
! Liberalizes benefit “accrual” rules limiting how long recipients can
leave their electronic benefit accounts inactive before their benefits
are recovered.
! Places into law specific rules governing the use of “telephonic
signatures” for food stamp applications.
! Puts into law existing policy allowing approval of faith-based
organizations operating residential substance abuse treatment
programs as eligible to receive food stamp benefits on behalf of their
residents.
! Places into law provisions comparable to existing policies supporting
nutrition education for the food-stamp-eligible population. Calls on
the Agriculture Department to encourage and support the most
effective interventions (including public health approaches as well
41 Asset limits are now set at $2,000, or $3,000 for households with an elderly or disabled
member.
42 This proposal was put forward by the Administration, among others.

---

CRS-44
as traditional education). States that food stamp program nutrition
education activities should be coordinated with other federally
funded food assistance and should leverage public/private
partnerships.
Other Programs and Provisions
General Provisions
! Extends all expiring authorities (e.g., appropriations authorizations,
mandatory spending directives, Puerto Rico’s indexed nutrition
assistance grant) through FY2012.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
! Increases mandatory funding for TEFAP commodities from $140
million to $250 million in FY2008, indexed for food price inflation
in later years. This change accounts for about 14% of the new
spending in the nutrition title.
! Boosts the authorized appropriations level for funding of TEFAP
distribution costs from $60 million to $100 million a year.
Fruits and Vegetables
! Increases mandatory funding for the program offering fresh fruits
and vegetables in schools, from up to $15 million in mandatory and
discretionary money available in FY2006 and FY2007, to $70
million a year. This increase represents 7% of the new spending in
the nutrition title.
! Expands availability of the school fresh fruit and vegetable program
to all states (from the current 14 states). At least 35 elementary and
secondary schools in each state would participate, and additional
schools would participate in accordance with the state’s proportion
of the student population.
! Allows the Agriculture Department to reserve up to 1% of the school
fresh fruit and vegetable program funding for administrative costs,
and allows states to reserve up to 5% for administrative expenses.
! Increases the set aside of mandatory funding to purchase fresh fruits
and vegetables for child nutrition providers (e.g., schools) through
the DoD Fresh Program, from $50 million a year to $75 million a
year (beginning with FY2010).
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
! Increases income eligibility standards for elderly applicants to the
CSFP (from 130% to 185% of the federal poverty income
guidelines).

---

CRS-45
Community Food Projects
! Authorizes funding for community food projects at $30 million a
year, up from the existing set-aside of $5 million a year.
! Expands the purposes for which community food project grants can
be used to include initiatives related to (1) transportation and
processing of local foods; (2) retail access to healthy food in
underserved markets; (3) integration of urban- and metro-area food
production into food projects; and (4) technical assistance for youth,
socially disadvantaged individuals, and groups with limited
resources.
! Increases the limit on the federal share of project grants from 50% to
75%.
! Raises the limit on the number of years for which grants may be
awarded from three to five years.
! Increases the set-aside for a special grant for “innovative programs”
from $200,000 to $500,000.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
! Authorizes funding ($5 million a year) for a fund to purchase
traditional and locally grown food for the FDPIR, at least 50% of
which must be produced by Native American farmers, ranchers, and
producers.
! Requires a report reviewing the procedures for determining FDPIR
food packages and the adequacy of the food packages and describing
any plans to revise the packages to conform with the most recent
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
! Authorizes additional appropriations to expand the SFMNP — $20
million for FY2008 rising, in stages, to $75 million for FY2012.
! Adopts the Administration’s proposals to disregard SFMNP benefits
under welfare and sales tax laws.
Geographic Preference and Buy American Rules
! Generally overrides current rules that limit the extent to which
schools and the DoD Fresh program can specify a geographic
preference (e.g., for locally produced food items) when procuring
food for meals served by child nutrition providers.
! Encourages the Agriculture Department to undertake training,
guidance, and enforcement to implement existing Buy American
requirements for child nutrition programs.

---

Puerto Rico
! Directs a comprehensive study of extending the regular Food Stamp
program to Puerto Rico (in lieu of its nutrition assistance block
grant).
Obesity Initiative
! Authorizes appropriations ($10 million a year) for a competitive
grant initiative to address obesity among low-income Americans,
similar to that advanced by the Administration.
Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowship Program
! Revamps current provisions of law governing the Emerson-Leland
Hunger Fellowship program.43
! Authorizes $3 million a year for the program.
Nutrition Monitoring
! Requires continuation of joint national nutrition monitoring activities
— established under the 1990 Nutrition Monitoring and Related
Research Act — by the Departments of Agriculture and Health and
Human Services.
Sense of Congress: Juvenile Obesity
! Provides that it is the sense of Congress that food items in school
meal programs should be selected so as to reduce the incidence of
juvenile obesity and maximize nutritional value.
House Bill Issues. The provisions of the House bill’s nutrition title are
controversial in several respects — primarily their cost and how they are paid for,
what they do not include, the policy the bill sets forth with regard to state
“privatization” of program administration, and the bill’s override of rules against
“geographic preference.” With the exception of the privatization section (4015) and
the geographic preference provision (section 4304), the nutrition title policies
themselves have engendered little opposition.
In terms of new spending, the nutrition title is, with the conservation title, one
of the two costliest titles in the House farm bill ($4.2 billion over five years, $11.5
billion over 10 years); it represents almost half the new net budget authority created
in the bill for the first five years. This cost is largely financed with changes in tax
law. Without revenues from the tax law revisions, the spending items in the nutrition
title would not have been possible (under “pay-as-you-go” principles), and, during
House floor consideration, the tax law changes where challenged.
43 Current provisions have not been implemented. Instead, the Hunger Fellowship program
continues to receive annual appropriations ($2.5 million in FY2006 and proposed for
FY2008) from Congress, without any specific legislative guidance as to their use.

---

CRS-47
The House bill does not include a major cost-saving proposal made by the
Administration — limiting categorical eligibility for food stamps — and the
Administration continues to support it as a needed policy change. The discussions
of food stamp Issues and Proposals and Administrative Initiatives earlier in this
report deal with the debate over this recommended revision. Others are concerned
that further limits on noncitizen participation were not included, that more support
for fruit and vegetable initiatives is not part of the bill, and that the issue of food
choices made with food stamp purchases was not directly addressed. Although
recognizing budget constraints, advocates are disappointed that more expansive
changes put forward in numerous bills were not included (e.g., loosened limits on
participation by legally resident noncitizens and able-bodied adults without
dependents, various initiatives to ease access to food stamp benefits, increased
support for the FDPIR).
The House bill places very substantial new restrictions on states wishing to
privatize major parts of their administration of food stamps. The discussion of state
administration in the food stamp Issues and Proposals section earlier in this report
lays out the controversy over this issue.
Finally, the House bill overrides current policies limiting the degree to which
procurement for child nutrition programs can include a geographic (e.g., local)
preference. Supporters point to the opportunity to link farmers and school meal
providers in offering nutritious foods (like fruits and vegetables). However, this
proposal is strongly opposed by the Administration on the grounds that it will
increase costs, allow states to enact state preference laws, and put pressure on local
procurement officials to buy locally or in-state when that might not be the best policy
choice.

---