Reauthorization of SNAP and Other Nutrition
Programs in the Next Farm Bill: Issues for the
113th Congress
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
December 10, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43332
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Summary
The 113th Congress is considering the next “farm bill” and the reauthorization of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other nutrition programs within that
legislation. The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) and a one-year extension have now expired. In the
first session of the 113th Congress, conference committee deliberations have begun based on the
Senate’s conference proposal (S. 954) and the House’s conference proposal (H.R. 2642, amended
to include Nutrition-only bill H.R. 3102). (Though the authorizations of appropriations for SNAP
and other programs are currently expired, operations continue due to funding provided through
appropriations.)
As conference proceeds, one of the challenges facing policymakers is the difference between the
SNAP provisions. Over the ten-year budget window (FY2014-FY2023), CBO estimates that the
Senate’s Nutrition Title would reduce spending by approximately $4 billion and that the House’s
Nutrition Title would reduce spending by approximately $39 billion. The House proposal would
reauthorize SNAP and related programs for three years, while the Senate would reauthorize the
programs for five years.
The vast majority of the budgetary differences are a result of the proposed changes in the House
bill to SNAP eligibility and benefit calculation rules, with some proposals expected to affect a
greater share of participants than others. The House proposes to eliminate broad-based categorical
eligibility, which would impact the eligibility of SNAP participants in 43 states. The House also
would make changes to SNAP’s work-related rules. The House bill includes provisions that
would expand reporting, research, and evaluation; expand the time limit for able-bodied adults
without dependents; and create a state option that would change the rules and incentives for a
mandatory work program. The House also proposes to give states the option to administer drug
testing as part of their eligibility determination processes, and both the House and Senate propose
to disqualify certain ex-offenders from receiving SNAP benefits. Both the Senate and House
would change benefit calculation by amending how Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) payments are treated in the calculation of SNAP benefits; the House version
of this change is estimated to affect a greater share of participants. This change to benefit
calculation is expected to reduce benefits in approximately 17 states.
Since SNAP provides benefits redeemable for SNAP-eligible foods at SNAP-eligible retailers,
much of SNAP law pertains to retailer authorization and benefit issuance and redemption. The
House and Senate proposals include many policy changes in this area, including requiring stores
to stock more fresh foods, requiring retailers to pay for their electronic benefit transfer (EBT)
machines, and additional funding for combatting trafficking (the sale of SNAP benefits).
Both House and Senate bills would increase the funding available for the Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP), the program that provides USDA foods and federal support to
emergency feeding organizations (e.g., food banks and food pantries). Taking into account CBO’s
estimates of inflation, the Senate would increase funding by $54 million over 10 years, and the
House would increase funding by $333 million over 10 years.
The conference proposals include many other changes to SNAP and related programs’ policy.
These changes include amendments to the nutrition programs operated by tribes and territories,
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and the distribution of USDA foods to
schools.
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
113th Congress Legislative Timeline of the Reauthorization of SNAP and Related
Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 3
June 10, 2013: Senate Passes Farm Bill (S. 954), Including Nutrition Title ....................... 3
June 20, 2013: House Defeats Farm Bill (H.R. 1947), Including Nutrition Title ............... 3
July 11, 2013: House Passes Farm Bill (H.R. 2642), Excluding Nutrition Title ................. 3
July 18, 2013: Senate Moves to Go to Conference ............................................................. 3
September 19, 2013: House Passes Nutrition-Only Bill (H.R. 3102) ................................. 4
September 28, 2013: House Formulates Conference Proposal (H.R. 2642 + H.R.
3102), Including Nutrition Title ....................................................................................... 4
Pending Conference Committee Deliberations ................................................................... 4
CBO Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 4
Nutrition Programs and Farm Bill Expiration, Extension ............................................................... 6
Recent Examples of the Continuity of SNAP Operations ......................................................... 7
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Selected Issues in Current and
Proposed Law ............................................................................................................................... 8
SNAP Authorization and Appropriations .................................................................................. 8
Conference Proposals: House Reauthorizes for Three Years, Senate for Five Years .......... 9
SNAP Eligibility: Categorical Eligibility .................................................................................. 9
Conference Proposals: Only House Makes Changes to Categorical Eligibility ................ 10
SNAP Eligibility: Work and Work-Related Rules ................................................................... 10
In All States: Overview of Work-Related Requirements in SNAP ................................... 11
Varies By State: SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) Required Participation,
Services Available .......................................................................................................... 12
“ABAWD” Time Limit ..................................................................................................... 12
SNAP E&T Financing ....................................................................................................... 14
Conference Proposals ........................................................................................................ 15
SNAP Eligibility: Other Disqualifications .............................................................................. 16
College Students, Lottery Winners .................................................................................... 16
Drug Testing ...................................................................................................................... 17
Felony Convictions ........................................................................................................... 17
SNAP Benefit Calculation ....................................................................................................... 18
Standard Utility Allowances and the Treatment of LIHEAP Benefits .............................. 18
SNAP-Authorized Retailers and Benefit Redemption Issues .................................................. 19
Retailer Authorization and Equipment .............................................................................. 20
Methods of Redemption .................................................................................................... 21
Specific Retailers............................................................................................................... 22
Trafficking ......................................................................................................................... 23
Other SNAP Funding, Policies ................................................................................................ 24
SNAP Performance Bonuses for State Agencies ............................................................... 24
Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program ............................................ 24
Programs in Lieu of SNAP ............................................................................................................ 25
FDPIR ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Programs in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands .................................................................................................................... 26
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Commodity Distribution Programs ................................................................................................ 27
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) .............................................................. 27
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) .................................................................. 28
Commodity Foods in School Meals ........................................................................................ 28
An Overview of Related House and Senate Proposals ...................................................... 29
Other Farm Bill Nutrition Program Proposals in the Conference Proposals ................................. 29
Tables
Table 1. Estimated Spending Increases and Reductions for Nutrition Provisions in the
113th Congress Farm Bills ............................................................................................................. 5
Table A-1. Detailed Table of CBO Cost Estimates Compared to Baseline .................................... 31
Table A-2. SNAP Authorization and Appropriations ..................................................................... 32
Table A-3. SNAP Eligibility: Categorical Eligibility ..................................................................... 32
Table A-4. SNAP Eligibility: Work and Work-related Rules ......................................................... 33
Table A-5. SNAP Eligibility: Other Disqualifications ................................................................... 34
Table A-6. SNAP Benefit Calculation ........................................................................................... 36
Table A-7. SNAP-Authorized Retailers and Benefit Redemption Issues ...................................... 37
Table A-8. Other SNAP Funding, Policies .................................................................................... 40
Table A-9. Programs in Lieu of SNAP .......................................................................................... 43
Table A-10. Commodity Distribution Programs ............................................................................ 44
Table A-11. Other Farm Bill Nutrition Program Proposals ........................................................... 46
Appendixes
Appendix. Detailed CBO Cost Estimates and All-Sections Summary .......................................... 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 50
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Introduction
The 112th Congress began formulating, and the 113th Congress has continued to formulate, the
next “farm bill” and the reauthorization of nutrition programs within that legislation. The “farm
bill” is an omnibus bill which reauthorizes dozens of agriculture and agriculture-related statutes
and their programs approximately every five years. Since 1973, the farm bill has included the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly, Food Stamp Program) and has
come to include certain other nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS).1
Many programs reauthorized by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (or “2008 farm
bill”; P.L. 110-246) expired after the end of FY2012 (September 30, 2012). The American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240, enacted on January 2, 2013) included an extension of
the 2008 farm bill through September 30, 2013, and programs currently are operating under a
continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46) that expires on January 15, 2014.
As of the date of this report, over a year after the 2008 bill’s expiration, a 40-member conference
committee is working to reconcile House and Senate proposed changes to agricultural and food
assistance policies. Debate continues on differences between the two bills in many areas,
including SNAP and related nutrition programs.
This report discusses the Nutrition Title (Title IV) of the pending farm bills and elaborates on the
most controversial issues and differences between Senate and House proposals. Policies that are
not necessarily controversial but are complex are also included in this report.
As Congress formulates the next farm bill, policymakers have been grappling with the following
questions:
• Should the reauthorization of SNAP continue to be a part of the omnibus farm
bill?
• Should provisions be enacted that would reduce spending for SNAP and if so, by
how much?
• Should the recent expiration of a temporary SNAP benefit increase be
considered in deliberations on SNAP spending levels under the farm bill?2
• Should spending reductions be achieved by changes in households’ eligibility and
benefit amounts? Specifically, Congress has considered amendments to
• categorical eligibility rules;
• treatment of LIHEAP payments in SNAP benefit calculation.
1 Funding for the Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program is included in the SNAP account, but the
program is administered by the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
2 After October 31, 2013, benefits decreased across the board. This change was the result of legislation passed in the
111th Congress, and not the result of any 2013 farm bill decisions. For the background, please see CRS Report R43257,
Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
1
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
• Should certain populations—e.g., students, ex-offenders, lottery winners—be
disqualified from receiving food assistance?
• How might changes to retailer and benefit redemption policy have an impact on
program integrity and participants’ consumption of healthy foods?
• Should more SNAP participants be required to work? Should more SNAP
participants be time-limited off assistance?
• Should SNAP and the farm bill nutrition programs further promote the purchase
of fruits and vegetables, including from local sources?
• Should the farm bill include provisions to increase the funding and capacity of
emergency feeding organizations (e.g., food banks and food pantries)?
This report is intended to summarize key SNAP and other provisions in the 113th Congress’s
Senate and House conference proposals. For more general background on nutrition programs,
more detail on certain SNAP issues, or reports that discuss the entire farm bill (not only nutrition
programs), please reference other CRS products listed in the text box below.
CRS Resources on Nutrition Assistance Programs and the 2013 Farm Bill
Nutrition Programs Background
CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Kirsten J.
Colello.
CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg.
Focus on SNAP Issues in 2013 Farm Bill / Reauthorization
CRS Report R42054, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility, by Gene Falk and
Randy Alison Aussenberg.
CRS Report R42591, The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by
Randy Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl.
CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by Maggie
McCarty et al.
All Titles of 2013 Farm Bill
CRS Report R43076, The 2013 Farm Bill: A Comparison of the Senate-Passed (S. 954) and House-Passed (H.R. 2642, H.R.
3102) Bills with Current Law, coordinated by Ralph M. Chite.
CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill, by Jim Monke, Randy Alison Aussenberg, and
Megan Stubbs.
This report begins with a chronology of the 2013 farm bill conference proposals. Next, it presents
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates of the Senate and House nutrition
provisions. Then, it summarizes the Nutrition-specific issues and questions that arise with regard
to the expiration and extension of the farm bill. Finally, the report summarizes current law and
Senate and House proposals related to SNAP (specifically, length of authorization, eligibility
rules (including work-related), benefit calculation, retailers and benefit redemption); Programs in
Lieu of SNAP (that some territories and tribes operate); Commodity Distribution Programs
(TEFAP, CSFP, and USDA Commodities in School Meals); as well as certain other nutrition-
related programs.
Congressional Research Service
2
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
The Appendix provides a detailed CBO estimate comparison table as well as a side-by-side table
of every provision in the Nutrition Title conference proposals.
113th Congress Legislative Timeline of the
Reauthorization of SNAP and Related Programs3
Throughout this report, the portion of the farm bill conference proposals that includes SNAP and
the other nutrition programs is referred to interchangeably as “Title IV” and the “Nutrition Title.”
June 10, 2013: Senate Passes Farm Bill (S. 954), Including Nutrition Title
On May 14, 2013, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry marked up the
Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 and reported an original bill, S. 954, to the
Senate. On May 20, 2013, the Senate proceeded to floor action on this bill. During floor
consideration, two Nutrition Title amendments were added. Floor action on S. 954 concluded on
June 10, 2013, when the full Senate approved the measure by a vote of 66-27.
June 20, 2013: House Defeats Farm Bill (H.R. 1947), Including Nutrition Title
On May 15, 2013, the House Agriculture Committee completed markup of its version of the farm
bill (H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) and
approved the amended measure by a 36-10 vote.4 The House Rules Committee considered the bill
on June 17 and June 18, 2013, followed by House floor consideration which began the week of
June 18. During floor consideration, over a dozen Nutrition Title amendments were added. On
June 20, the House considered H.R. 1947, and the amended bill was defeated (195-234).
July 11, 2013: House Passes Farm Bill (H.R. 2642), Excluding Nutrition Title
Three weeks after H.R. 1947 failed, the full House debated a variation of the defeated bill that
dropped all of the nutrition title but included all of the earlier adopted floor amendments to the
other titles. This revised bill (H.R. 2642) was approved by the House by a 216-208 vote on July
11.
July 18, 2013: Senate Moves to Go to Conference
In order to initiate conference committee negotiations with the House, the Senate on July 18
substituted the text of H.R. 2642 with the text of S. 954.
3 This timeline does not include the 112th Congress actions that contributed to 113th Congress actions. See CRS Report
R42829, Domestic Food Assistance in 112th Congress 2012 Farm Bill Proposals: S. 3240 and H.R. 6083, by Randy
Alison Aussenberg.
4 The bill was subsequently referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which amended the bill to ensure that two
proposed dairy programs are subject to standard rulemaking procedures.
Congressional Research Service
3
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
September 19, 2013: House Passes Nutrition-Only Bill (H.R. 3102)
After House passage of H.R. 2642, Republican leadership
Q: Has SNAP (formerly Food Stamps)
convened and formulated a nutrition-only proposal.5 This
always been reauthorized as part of
nutrition proposal, though based mostly on the earlier version
the omnibus “farm bill”?
that was voted out of committee, had several key differences,
A: 1973’s farm bill was the first to
namely a reauthorization for three years as well as new and
include “food stamps.” Each farm bill
revised policies related to work rules for SNAP participants.
since has included SNAP/food stamps.
On September 19, the House passed a stand-alone nutrition
bill (H.R. 3102) by a vote of 217-210.
September 28, 2013: House Formulates Conference Proposal (H.R. 2642 + H.R.
3102), Including Nutrition Title
The House adopted a resolution (H.Res. 361) on September 28 that combined the texts of H.R.
2642 and H.R. 3102 into one bill (H.R. 2642) for purposes of resolving differences with the
Senate. H.R. 3102 was inserted into H.R. 2642 as “Title IV. Nutrition,” with section numbers
changed accordingly.
Pending Conference Committee Deliberations
The Senate appointed conferees on October 1, 2013; the House appointed conferees on October
13, 2013. As of the date of this report, conference on the two versions of the next farm bill is
pending; October 30, 2013, was the first meeting of the 40-member conference committee.
CBO Cost Estimates
The House and Senate Nutrition Titles vary significantly in proposed policy changes and the
resulting estimated spending levels. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that over
10 years (FY2014-2023), the Senate nutrition provisions would reduce spending by
approximately $4 billion and the House nutrition provisions would reduce spending by
approximately $39 billion. Most of this difference is due to the House bill’s proposed changes to
SNAP eligibility rules.
SNAP is an open-ended, appropriated mandatory program. This means that the statute does not
specify a particular amount to be appropriated. Instead, the amount required to be spent is
determined by various provisions of the law, most notably those pertaining to eligibility rules and
benefit calculations, coupled with economic conditions. The Administration estimates the amount
needed to be spent each year, and these estimated amounts are then appropriated. Thus, in order
to change spending levels for SNAP (either increase or decrease), Congress generally must
amend the statutory provisions that affect the program’s costs, primarily eligibility, and benefit
calculation rules.
5 See media coverage, e.g., David Rogers, “House GOP Takes Another Cut at Food Stamp Bill,” Politico, August 1,
2013, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/food-stamps-bill-house-gop-95084.html.
Congressional Research Service
4
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
During deliberations on the farm bill, CBO prepared estimates of the impact of proposed changes
on program spending levels. Table 1 compares CBO cost-estimates (either increases or decreases
in spending from current law baselines) for provisions in the Senate and House Nutrition Titles
that are currently pending before the conference committee, as well as the Nutrition Title included
in the bill that was ultimately defeated on the House floor. (Note that these estimates could
change with a revised CBO baseline or changes in program participation.)
As the table shows, CBO estimates that the Senate bill’s Nutrition Title—which contains SNAP
and non-SNAP provisions—would result in a net reduction in spending of $4.0 billion over 10
years. The SNAP provisions alone are estimated to reduce spending by slightly more than $4.0
billion over 10 years; certain non-SNAP provisions are estimated to result in spending increases.
CBO estimates that the House bill’s Nutrition Title—which also includes SNAP and non-SNAP
provisions—would result in a net reduction in spending of approximately $39 billion over 10
years. The SNAP provisions alone are estimated to reduce spending by $39.5 billion, while
certain non-SNAP provisions would result in spending increases.
Subsequent sections discuss the changes in policy, including some changes that CBO did not find
to have a budgetary impact.
Table 1. Estimated Spending Increases and Reductions for Nutrition Provisions in
the 113th Congress Farm Bills
10-year Estimates FY2014-2023
Senate
House
Conference
H.R. 1947, House-
Conference
Proposala
Defeatedb
Proposalc
SNAP Retailers
-$79 million
-$79 million
-$79 million
SNAP Categorical Eligibility
Not applicable
-$11.6 billion
-$11.6 billion
LIHEAP Treatment in SNAP Benefit
Calculation
-$4.1 billion
-$8.7 billion
-$8.7 billion
Repeal of SNAP Performance Bonuses
Not applicable
-$480 million
-$480 million
SNAP Nutrition Education
Not applicable
-$274 million
-$308 million
Repeal of State Work Program Waiver
Authority
Not applicable
Not applicable
-$19 billion
Misc. Decreases for SNAP and Other
Nutrition Programsd
Not applicable
Not applicable
-$151 million
Misc. Increases and Interactions for
SNAP and Other Nutrition Programsd
+$245 million
+$570 millione
+$1.3 billione
NUTRITION TOTAL
-$3.94 billion
-$20.5 billion
- $39.0 billion
Cost Estimate as a Percentage of
CBO’s May 2013 Baseline SNAP
-0.5%
-2.7%
-5.1%
Spendingf
Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates as specified in the notes below.
a. CBO estimate of S. 954 after Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
cbofiles/attachments/s954_StabenowLtr.pdf (May 17, 2013). This cost estimate does not include estimates
of amendments that were added during floor consideration.
Congressional Research Service
5
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
b. CBO estimate of H.R. 1947 after the House Agriculture Committee’s markup, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/cbofiles/attachments/hr1947_LucasLtr.pdf (May 23, 2013).This CBO cost estimate does not include
estimates of the amendments that were added during floor consideration.
c. CBO estimate of H.R. 3102, http://cbo.gov/publication/44583 (September 16, 2013). CBO did not include an
estimate of the impact on SNAP participation for all provisions; they “expect that most of those additional
effects would be small.” CBO only completed participation estimates for categorical eligibility and state
work program waiver authority provisions.
d. These rows condense multiple policies that CBO estimated will change Nutrition spending. The more
detailed list is included in Table A-1.
e. These numbers include CBO’s estimates of an interaction between the above listed policy changes.
f.
Calculations based on CBO’s May 2013 baseline estimates of spending under SNAP current law,
http://cbo.gov/publication/44211.
For a more detailed look at the CBO cost estimates, see Appendix Table A-1, which breaks down
the cost estimates of the Senate and House Conference Proposals into further detail.
Nutrition Programs and Farm Bill Expiration,
Extension
The 2008 farm bill’s nutrition authorizations expired after September 30, 2012, and were
extended another year by P.L. 112-240. They expired again after September 30, 2013, yet
operations for the most part have been able to continue under a short-term continuing resolution,
P.L. 113-46, that expires on January 15, 2014. Expiration and extension concerns are touched
upon in this section of this report as well as CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the
2008 Farm Bill.
Two key factors are important when considering the impact of
How does the expiration of the
farm bill expiration on SNAP and most of the other nutrition
2008 farm bill (or expiration of an
programs: (1) SNAP and the programs in the SNAP account
extension of the 2008 law) affect the
are appropriated mandatory programs, which means that they
nutrition programs?
require funds to be appropriated in order to provide benefits
and otherwise operate the program, and (2) SNAP and nearly all of the other related programs are
not authorized in the “farm bill” itself. Instead they are authorized by free-standing statute, which
a farm bill amends. This means that if the underlying statute expires or if nutrition reauthorization
is not included in the farm bill, (1) congressional action to appropriate funding can continue for
SNAP and many of the related programs, and (2) the programs continue to exist, with all of their
laws still “on the books.” The authorizing law for SNAP is the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.6
The other farm bill nutrition programs (e.g., TEFAP and CSFP) are also authorized by
freestanding statutes.7
6 Codified at 7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.
7 TEFAP is authorized by The Food and Nutrition Act, Section 27 and The Emergency Food Assistance Act, Section
204(a) (codified at 7 U.S.C. 2036 and 7508(a)). CSFP is authorized by Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of
1973, Section 4(a) (7 U.S.C. 612c note). Authorizing statutes for the USDA Food and Nutrition Service programs are
included in CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and
Kirsten J. Colello.
Congressional Research Service
6
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
However, this is not the case for the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP),
since farm bill legislation contains both its authority and funding (a transfer from the Commodity
Credit Corporation). Therefore, authority and funding for this program expired after September
30, 2012, and was continued for one year by P.L. 112-240.8 As of the date of this report, the
SFMNP is expired and not providing grants. A number of relatively minor programs also require
either (a) an extension of the authority and specific appropriations language or (b) specific
appropriations (rather than a continuing resolution) to operate, largely because these programs
were not funded in FY2013 appropriations.9
Recent Examples of the Continuity of SNAP Operations
If the Food and Nutrition Act section that authorizes SNAP appropriations (which is typically
reauthorized in an omnibus “farm bill”) were to expire, the SNAP program can still continue if
Congress provides an appropriation. Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 illustrate this.
• FY2013: When the farm bill expired after September 30, 2012, all aspects of the SNAP
account (this includes benefits, SNAP Employment & Training, and the Nutrition
Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program) continued to operate under the terms
of the continuing resolution, P.L. 112-175. The authorizing law was subsequently
extended in P.L. 112-240 and full-year appropriations were provided in P.L. 113-6.
• FY2014: The extension in P.L. 112-240 expired after September 30, 2013. In this
instance, Congress did not provide appropriations through a continuing resolution or a
new appropriations bill until P.L. 113-46 was enacted on October 17, 2013. During the
October 2013 government shutdown, SNAP operations continued even though the farm
bill had expired and agriculture appropriations had not yet been continued. This
continuity of operations was possible due to USDA’s reliance on authority and funds
provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), cited in
the Food and Nutrition Service’s contingency plan.10 Note: This ARRA authority ended
after October 31, 2013, and, under current law, it would not now be available if there
were a lapse in SNAP appropriations.11
8 Due to the seasonal nature of the SFMNP, expiration of the farm bill during the fall and/or winter months may not
significantly affect this program.
9 These authorities include Hunger-Free Communities grants; SNAP pilot projects to evaluate health and nutrition
promotion; FDPIR’s “Traditionally and Locally Grown Food Fund”; Nutrition Information and Awareness Pilot
Program; several authorities relating to USDA’s purchase and national processing of commodity foods.
10 Food and Nutrition Service, contingency plan, dated October 1, 2013, http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-fns-
shutdown-plan.pdf, p. 2.
11 See CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Gene Falk.
Congressional Research Service
7
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP): Selected Issues in Current and Proposed
Law12
Of the programs in Title IV, SNAP accounts for the largest amount of federal funding and also
serves the largest number of households. In fact, the vast majority of the spending authorized by
the 2008 farm bill and extensions was for SNAP and related nutrition programs—nearly 79%
based on current CBO baseline projections.13 SNAP is an open-ended appropriated entitlement
and program benefits are 100% federally funded.
In FY2012, SNAP benefits were provided to (a monthly average of) 46.6 million individuals at a
cost of $78.4 billion (95% of which was the cost of the benefits themselves). SNAP participation
ebbs and flows in relation to the nation’s economy.14 Over the period of the 2008 farm bill
(FY2008-FY2012), SNAP participation and spending rose sharply, a trend widely understood to
be both a result of the recession and recovery as well as the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009’s SNAP response to the recession.15 Effective November 1, the
ARRA’s SNAP benefit boost has ended; for this and other economic reasons, CBO forecasts
reductions in SNAP participation and spending.16
This statistical backdrop has affected the congressional debate over reauthorization of SNAP. This
section of the report highlights several issues in the Senate and House proposals: length of
program authorization, eligibility (categorical, work-related, certain disqualifications), benefit
calculation, retailers, and other policies. These are only a portion of the provisions which would
affect SNAP. For a summary of every SNAP provision in the conference proposals, please see
Table A-2 through Table A-11 in the Appendix.
SNAP Authorization and Appropriations
Section 18(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act (codified at 7 U.S.C. 2027(a)) authorized
appropriations for SNAP through September 30, 2012, and P.L. 112-240 extended this
authorization through September 30, 2013. Authorization of appropriations has expired; however,
12 In addition to the policies discussed in this section, the Senate’s changes to the Hunger-Free Community Grants and
the House’s changes to Community Food Projects, both discussed in “Other Farm Bill Nutrition Program Proposals”
also have implications for SNAP.
13 Please see CRS Report R42484, Budget Issues Shaping a Farm Bill in 2013, by Jim Monke, for a fuller discussion of
this.
14 See Kenneth Hanson and Victor Oliveira, How Economic Conditions Affect Participation in USDA Nutrition
Assistance Programs, USDA Economic Research Service, September 2012, http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/914042/
eib100.pdf.
15 Ibid. See also SNAP participation and spending data on USDA-FNS website as well as http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/
SNAPsummary.htm and CRS Report R43257, Background on the Scheduled Reduction to Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Gene Falk.
16 See CBO’s May 2013 baseline for SNAP at http://cbo.gov/publication/44211.
Congressional Research Service
8
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Congress appropriated funds as part of the FY2014 continuing resolution (P.L. 113-46). In most
farm bills in the past, SNAP was authorized for five years.17
Conference Proposals: House Reauthorizes for Three Years, Senate for
Five Years
The House-passed nutrition bill (H.R. 3102, now Title IV of H.R. 2642) would reauthorize the
nutrition programs for three years (FY2014-FY2016), while the Senate’s would reauthorize the
programs for five years (FY2014-FY2018). Throughout the farm bill formulation, some
policymakers expressed interest in separating the nutrition programs from the omnibus farm bill.
The House-passed proposal to shorten the authorization compared to other farm bill programs is a
step in that direction. Table A-2 summarizes these differences.
SNAP Eligibility: Categorical Eligibility
Federal law provides the basic eligibility rules for SNAP, including limits for income and assets.
There are two basic pathways to gain financial eligibility for SNAP: (1) having income and assets
below specified levels set out in federal SNAP law;18 and (2) being “categorically,” or
automatically, eligible based on eligibility and receipt of benefits from other specified low-
income assistance programs. A categorically eligible household still undergoes benefit
calculation, so being categorically eligible does not mean that the household will necessarily
receive benefits.
Under traditional categorical eligibility, a SNAP applicant household is eligible for SNAP when
every member receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or state-funded general assistance cash benefits. Under
current law, states must—at minimum—administer traditional categorical eligibility. As of
November 2012, five states make this minimum choice.
However, states also have the option to adopt so called “broad-based” categorical eligibility.
Under this option, in addition to the programs listed under “Traditional,” households that receive
any TANF-funded benefit may be deemed eligible for SNAP benefits, if certain income conditions
are met. A TANF-funded benefit can, and often does, include a nominal service like an
educational brochure. Per USDA regulation, the TANF-funded benefit (cash or non-cash) that
conveys categorical eligibility must be for households at or below 200% of the federal poverty
17 The 1996 Farm Bill only authorized food stamps for one year presumably because of the forthcoming welfare reform
bill, P.L. 104-193, which would reauthorize the program through FY2002.
18 These rules are described in CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on
Eligibility and Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg, and are summarized in this footnote. Under the regular federal
rules, SNAP provides eligibility to households based on low income and limited assets. Households must have net
income (income after specified deductions) below 100% of the federal poverty guidelines. In addition, federal rules
provide that households without an elderly or disabled member must have gross income (income before deductions)
below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines (see Table A-1 of CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits). Additionally, the regular eligibility rules provide
that a household must have liquid assets below a specified level. Under federal rules in FY2012, a household’s liquid
assets must be below $2,000, and below $3,250 in the case of households with an elderly or disabled member. The
value of the home is excluded from this “assets test,” as are certain other forms of assets (e.g., retirement and
educational savings). Further, a portion of the value of a household’s vehicles is not counted toward the asset limit (up
to $4,650 of the fair market value of a household’s vehicles).
Congressional Research Service
9
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
line.19 As of November 2012, 43 states had chosen to implement broad-based categorical
eligibility in addition to traditional. Since few of the non-cash TANF-funded benefits require a
test of assets, this option often means that applicants’ assets are not checked.20
For further explanation of SNAP eligibility, categorical eligibility, and the details of states’
choices on this topic, please see CRS Report R42054, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility, by Gene Falk and Randy Alison Aussenberg.
Conference Proposals: Only House Makes Changes to Categorical Eligibility
The Senate proposal would make no changes to categorical eligibility. Related amendments were
defeated during committee markup and on the Senate floor.
Section 4005 of the House proposal would repeal “broad-based categorical eligibility,” and limit
categorical eligibility to SNAP applicants that receive TANF cash assistance, SSI, or state-funded
general assistance cash benefits. As shown in Table 1, CBO estimates that this change would
reduce spending by approximately $11.6 billion over 10 years. CBO estimates that about 1.8
million people per year, on average, would lose benefits if they were subject to SNAP’s income
and asset tests.
CBO’s estimate reflects reduced participation in SNAP as well as fewer children being eligible
for free school meals.21 Households can be directly certified for free lunch and breakfast through
the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program due to household
participation in SNAP, but once ineligible for SNAP, CBO assumed some households would
qualify for reduced-price meals instead. These provisions are summarized in Table A-3.
SNAP Eligibility: Work and Work-Related Rules
Current SNAP law has rules on employment or work-related activities for able-bodied, non-
elderly adult participants. Some rules apply in all states that operate SNAP.22 However, because
each state designs its own SNAP Employment and Training Program (E&T), certain requirements
can vary by state.
In addition to the nationwide and state-specific work eligibility rules, SNAP law creates a time
limit for able-bodied adults without dependents (“ABAWDs”) who are not working a minimum
of 20 hours per week. If these individuals do not work the required number hours, they can
receive no more than three months of benefits over a 36-month period. A state does have limited
flexibilities with regard to enforcing this time limit, and so an ABAWD’s eligibility is further
affected by whether (1) the individual lives in an area that has waived the time limit due to local
19 This 200% gross income limit applies only to TANF benefits and services directed at the block grant’s goals of
reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and promoting the formation and maintenance of two-parent families; these
benefits are not necessarily need-tested, whereas the benefits associated with the block grant’s other goals are.
20 As of the date of this report, five states (Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Texas) add an asset limit to
their broad-based categorical eligibility.
21 In 2012, in their FY2013-FY2022 cost estimate for the 112th Congress’s H.R. 6083, CBO estimated that about
280,000 school-age children in those households would no longer be automatically eligible for free school meals
through their receipt of SNAP benefits.
22 References to “states that operate SNAP” include all 50 states, District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Congressional Research Service
10
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
labor market conditions or (2) whether the state agency chooses to use its available exemptions to
serve the individual beyond the time limit.
In the formulation of the next farm bill, policymakers have debated whether to require more
SNAP participants to be working in addition to or instead of receiving food assistance.
Policymakers have also debated the potential paths to such an outcome, and the challenges of
accomplishing the outcome during a still fragile economic recovery. Because the House proposal
would make a number of changes to different aspects of current SNAP work rules and funding,
this section of the report summarizes current law work rules in all states, work rules that vary by
state, and the time limit for ABAWDs, before turning to summaries of the conference proposals
(“Conference Proposals”).
In All States: Overview of Work-Related Requirements in SNAP
To gain or retain eligibility, most able-bodied adults (with or without dependents) must
• register for work (typically with the SNAP state agency or a state employment
service office);
• accept a suitable job if offered one;
• fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by administering
SNAP agencies; [see “Varies By State: SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) ”
in next section]
• provide the administering public assistance agency with sufficient information to
allow a determination with respect to their job availability; and
• not voluntarily quit a job without good cause or reduce work effort below 30
hours a week.
Individuals are disqualified from SNAP for failure to comply with work requirements for periods
of time that differ based upon whether the violation is the first, second, or third. Minimum
periods of disqualification, which may be increased by the state SNAP agency, range from one to
six months. In addition, states have the option to disqualify the entire household for up to 180
days, if the household head fails to comply with work requirements.
The law exempts certain individuals from the above requirements.23 In FY2011, nearly 64% of
SNAP participants were not expected to work because of age or disability. Specifically, 45% of
participants were children; 9% were elderly; and 10% were disabled.24
23 Exempt from the all-states work requirements are: SNAP participants who are physically or mentally unfit for work;
under age 16 or over age 59; between ages 16 and 18 if they are not a head of household or are attending school or a
training program; persons working at least 30 hours a week or earning the minimum wage equivalent; persons caring
for dependents who are disabled or under age 6; those caring for children between ages 6 and 12 if adequate child care
is not available (this second exemption is limited to allowing these persons to refuse a job offer if care is not available);
individuals already subject to and complying with another assistance program’s work, training, or job search
requirements (for example, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] or unemployment compensation);
eligible postsecondary students; and residents of substance abuse treatment programs.
24 Based on CRS tabulations of the FY2011 SNAP quality control data files.
Congressional Research Service
11
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Varies By State: SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) Required
Participation, Services Available
As noted above, those not exempted must register for work and accept suitable job offers; in
addition, state SNAP agencies may require work registrants to fulfill some type of work, job
search, or training obligation.
SNAP agencies must operate an Employment and Training (E&T) program of their own design
for work registrants. SNAP agencies may require all work registrants to participate in one or more
components of their program, or limit participation by further exempting additional categories
and individuals for whom participation is judged impracticable or not cost effective. States may
also make E&T activities open only to those who volunteer to participate.
Program components can include any or all of the following: supervised job search or training for
job search; workfare (work-for-benefits); work experience or training programs; education
programs to improve basic skills; or any other employment or training activity approved by
USDA-FNS.25
Recipients who participate in an E&T activity beyond work registration cannot be required to
work more than the minimum wage equivalent of their household’s benefit. Total hours of
required participation (including both work and any other required activity) cannot exceed 120
hours a month. SNAP agencies also must reimburse participants’ costs directly related to
participation (e.g., transportation and child care). The federal government shares in half the cost
of this support, and state agencies may limit support to local market rates for necessary dependent
care.26
For FY2012, states reported that there were approximately 6.8 million new work registrants. A
total of 13.5 million SNAP recipients were subject to E&T participation. In FY2012, 760,000 of
work registrants participated in E&T activities.27
“ABAWD” Time Limit28
In addition to SNAP’s work registration and Employment and Training program requirements,
there is a special time limit for able-bodied adults, aged 18 to 49 who are without dependents
(ABAWDs). This requirement—often referred to as the “ABAWD Rule”—was added by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-
193).
25 Further resources on the SNAP Employment and Training program: USDA-FNS SNAP website and related
resources: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/Support/employment-training.htm. See also Section 6(d) of the
Food and Nutrition Act.
26 E&T program financing is discussed in USDA-FNS’s Annual Budget Justification. See, for example,
http://www.obpa.usda.gov/30fns2014notes.pdf, p. 30-106.
27 Ibid.
28 For further data on and description of the ABAWD population, time limit, and related waivers, CRS has released a
congressional memorandum. Congressional clients may request a copy from Randy Alison Aussenberg at
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov or Gene Falk at gfalk@crs.loc.gov.
Congressional Research Service
12
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
SNAP law limits benefits to ABAWDs to three months out of a 36-month period, unless the
participant:
• works at least 20 hours per week;
• participates in an employment and training program for at least 20 hours per
week; or
• participates in a state’s “workfare” program.29
States have the option, but are not required, to offer ABAWDs a slot in an employment and
training program or a workfare program. Some states “pledge” to serve all ABAWDs in such
programs, others do not. States that “pledge” to serve all ABAWDs in these programs receive
extra federal funding for that purpose. If a state does not offer an ABAWD a slot in an
employment and training or workfare program, benefits can be terminated for those without at
least a half-time job once the 3-month limit is reached, unless the individual is covered by an
exemption or a “waiver” of the ABAWD requirement.
Those who lose benefits under this rule are able to reenter the program if, during a 30-day period,
they work 80 hours or more or participate in a work/training activity. ABAWDs who become
employed, but then again lose their jobs can, under some circumstances, earn an additional 3
months of eligibility, bringing their maximum months of SNAP receipt without working at least
20 hours per week or being in an approved work or training program to six months in a 36-month
period.
PRWORA’s 1996 addition of the ABAWD time limit also included the availability of waivers for
a state (or smaller geographic area within a state) based on the area’s job availability data. The
statute provides that the ABAWD rule can be waived (1) for areas with an unemployment rate of
over 10% or (2) if an area “does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide employment for
the individuals.”30 The USDA-FNS regulation (7 C.F.R. 273.24) specifies the criteria that can
qualify a state or portion of a state for a waiver of the ABAWD rule.31 Also, in a state or part of a
state that does not have a waiver, states are also able to exempt a portion of ABAWDs (up to
15%) from the time limit. The number of exemptions allowed is based upon a formula set in
law.32
29 Hours of workfare required will vary by state, but participants’ monthly allotment divided by hours worked must be
greater than or equal to minimum wage. 7 U.S.C. 2029(a)(1).
30 Authority for these waivers is located in Section 6(o)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, codified at 7 U.S.C.
2015(o)(4).
31 For a waiver based on 10% unemployment, states may request a waiver with evidence that an area has “a recent 12
month average unemployment rate over 10 percent; recent three month average unemployment rate over 10 percent; or
an historical seasonal unemployment rate over 10 percent.” (7 C.F.R. 273.24(f)(2)(i)) For a waiver based on a “lack of
sufficient jobs,” 7 C.F.R. 273.24(f)(2)(ii) permits a state to submit any of the following as evidence: (1) if an area “is
designated as a Labor Surplus Area (LSA) by the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration
(ETA),” (2) “is determined by the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance Services as qualifying for extended
unemployment benefits,” (3) “has a low and declining employment-to-population ratio,” (4) “has a lack of jobs in
declining occupations or industries,” (4) “is described in an academic study or other publications as an area where there
are lack of jobs,” or (5) “has a 24-month average unemployment rate 20 percent above the national average for the
same 24-month period.”
32 The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) added these 15% ABAWD exemptions for states (Section 6(o)(6) of
the Food and Nutrition Act, codified at 7 U.S.C. 2015(o)(4)). This provision is implemented through regulation 7
C.F.R. 273.24(g), and further details on the exemptions can be found on the USDA-FNS website:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) suspended the ABAWD rule from April
2009 through September 2010. During fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, over 40 states had a
statewide waiver from the ABAWD time limit, due to the extended unemployment insurance
grounds for evidence of “lack of sufficient jobs.” 33
SNAP E&T Financing
Since the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), SNAP E&T has been financed using several streams of
mandatory federal funding.34 The federal government funds SNAP E&T in four ways:
1. $90 million in annual mandatory funds that are allocated and reallocated to states
based on a formula,
2. $20 million in annual mandatory funding allocated to states that pledge to
provide E&T services to all able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs),
3. open-ended matching funds for states’ administrative costs for E&T, and
4. open-ended matching funds for states’ reimbursement of E&T participants’
dependent care and transportation costs.
Program requirements, activities, and uptake of these funds vary by state.
Since December 2005, certain appropriations laws have reduced the mandatory $90 million in
E&T funding through changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPs). With the exception of
FY2009, which contained no E&T rescission, certain appropriations laws for FY2006 through
FY2013 annually rescinded between $10.5 million and $15 million from the $90 million
funding.35
(...continued)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/PRWORA/abawds/ABAWDsPage.htm.
33 Under this extended unemployment benefits waiver authority, the vast majority of states have had statewide waivers
of the time limit in FY2011-FY2013. See, e.g., Policy Memorandum from Lizbeth Silbermann, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) - Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents Waivers for Fiscal Year 2013, USDA Food and
Nutrition Service, March 21, 2012, http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/pdf/
ABAWD_2013_Trigger_Notice_Memo.pdf.
34 See 7 U.S.C. 2025(h).
35 FY2006: P.L. 109-148 (Department of Defense Supplemental Appropriations), rescinded $11.2 million; FY2007:
P.L. 110-5 (providing annual appropriations for FY2007), rescinded $11.2 million; FY2008: P.L. 110-161 (providing
annual appropriations for FY2008), rescinded $10.5 million; FY2009: No rescission; FY2010: P.L. 111-80 (providing
annual appropriations for FY2010), rescinded $11 million; FY2011: P.L. 112-10 (Continuing Resolution for FY2011),
rescinded $15 million; FY2012: P.L. 112-55 (Annual Appropriations for FY2012), rescinded $11 million; FY2013:
P.L. 112-240’s farm bill extension continued the FY2012 appropriations change, and reduced the $90 million funding
to $79 million.
Congressional Research Service
14
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Conference Proposals
Senate Proposal
The Senate’s proposal makes no change to work-related policies. By continuing to fund the SNAP
E&T funding at $90 million, the proposal incurs a cost from CBO, since the rescissions described
above have reduced this amount in prior years. See detailed CBO cost estimates at Table A-1.
House Proposal—Four Approaches to Changing Work Rules
Much of the media, advocacy group and popular attention on the current farm bill debate has
been focused on the House bill’s proposals to change the work-related requirements associated
with SNAP. Aside from amending the $90 million in mandatory funding to $79 million, the
House’s conference proposal takes four approaches to work rules:
1. Section 4021 would require additional monitoring of and reporting on SNAP
E&T programs. This provision would require USDA to monitor states’ E&T
programs and assess their effectiveness in achieving employment and training
outcomes for participants. Each state would be required to prepare and submit a
report annually, and USDA would conduct a study and report to Congress.
2. Section 4023 would provide $10 million in mandatory funding each year in
FY2014, 2015, and 2016 for an evaluation of pilot projects in order to
identify best practices in SNAP E&T programs. The provision includes
specific parameters for pilot programs (e.g., programs should reach a diversity of
SNAP participants and geographic areas), evaluation (e.g., independent,
measuring the impact of pilots as compared to outcomes in the absence of pilot),
and a report to Congress.
3. Section 4009 would repeal the authority for states and portions of states to
apply for labor-market-based waivers of the ABAWD time limit. No longer
would a state be able to argue to USDA that, due to job availability in a region or
statewide, it may be waived from enforcing the time limit (three months of
benefits in a 36-month period, if not engaged in work or related activities for 20
hours per week) for able-bodied adults without children. This provision would
retain the 15% exemption but would change the way in which it would be
calculated.
4. Section 4039 would create a new pilot / state option, where states would
require a minimum of 20 hours of work for able-bodied individuals. States
would have the option to require work for a larger portion of their population
than under current law, and also would have the option to mete more severe
punishment. Participation would be in the same activities as are creditable toward
a state meeting its work participation standard in TANF. Currently, the number of
hours the state can require a participant to work is limited to minimum wage
(hours divided by monthly allotment), but the pilot would require a 20-hour
requirement without such protections. The proposal would also require an
evaluation to determine if the change reduced federal spending. To the extent that
an evaluation shows that such a pilot resulted in reduced federal spending, states
would be able to share half of those savings. This provision makes multiple
changes to existing E&T funding; it would repeal the $20 million for ABAWD
Congressional Research Service
15
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
pledge states, cap the federal matching funds at $277 million per year, and make
the matching funding only available for the states that opt into the 20-hour
requirement.
All work-related provisions are also briefly summarized and compared to current law in the
Appendix, Table A-4.
SNAP Eligibility: Other Disqualifications
In addition to work-related disqualifications, like the ABAWD time limit, Section 6 of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (codified at 7 U.S.C. 2015) provides causes for temporary or
permanent disqualification from the SNAP program. The House and Senate conference proposals
would add some additional disqualifications and amend some existing disqualifications. In
addition to the discussion below, these disqualification provisions are summarized in Table A-5.
College Students, Lottery Winners
Under current law, for the most part, college students (attending higher education courses half-
time or more) between ages 18 and 49 are ineligible for SNAP. A student enrolled in an institution
of higher education more than half-time is only eligible for SNAP benefits if the individual meets
at least one of the following criteria: (1) under 18 years old or age 50 or older; (2) disabled; (3)
employed at least 20 hours per week or participating in a work-study program during the school
year; (4) a parent (in some circumstances);36 (5) receiving TANF cash assistance benefits; or (6)
enrolled in school because of participation in certain programs.37
Also under current law, there is no provision that specifically addresses lottery or gambling
winners; however, the SNAP program’s means tests would appear to limit the increase in income
or wealth that would be associated with significant winnings. In several high-profile instances
recently, SNAP participants won large sums in the lottery, and the state agency learned of their
windfall from media reports.
House and Senate Proposals: Identical Changes for College Students’ and
Lottery Winners’ Disqualification
Both conference proposals would make identical changes regarding post-secondary students and
gambling winnings:
• Regarding post-secondary students, the bills would add the requirement that
those students enrolled in post-secondary institutions as a requirement of
participation in “SNAP Employment and Training,” must be enrolled in certain
36 An otherwise ineligible student is eligible for SNAP if the student is (1) a single parent enrolled in school full-time
caring for a dependent under the age of 12 years old, (2) a parent caring for a dependent under age 6, or (3) a parent
caring for a child between the ages of 5 and 12 years old for whom child care is not available to enable the parent to
both attend class and work 20 or more hours per week.
37 A program under title I of the Workforce Investment Act, a SNAP Employment and Training program, a program
under section 236 of the Trade Act of 1974, a work incentive program under title IV of the Social Security Act, or
“another program for the purpose of employment and training operated by a state or local government, as determined to
be appropriate by the Secretary.” 7 U.S.C. 2015(e).
Congressional Research Service
16
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
employment-oriented training to qualify for SNAP; specifically, this would
include certain career and technical education, remedial courses, basic adult
education, literacy, or English as a second language.
• The bills would create more specific rules that would make households that
receive “substantial lottery or gambling winnings” (as determined by USDA)
ineligible for SNAP until the household meets the SNAP resources (assets) and
income eligibility limits. State SNAP agencies would be required to establish
agreements with the state gaming agency in order to make determinations of
winnings.38
Drug Testing
Under current law, SNAP applicants and participants can only be subjected to testing for
controlled substances under certain state options. For example, a state may require a SNAP
applicant to pass a drug test, if such a test is part of the state’s modification to the drug felony
disqualification (see next section).39
House Proposal: State Option to Offer Drug Testing Requirement40
The House would propose to allow states to enact legislation authorizing drug testing for SNAP
applicants. Such state policies would be implemented at full cost to the state.
Felony Convictions
Under current law, the only criminal convictions that can impact eligibility for SNAP benefits are
drug felony offenses (with some states opting out of or modifying the drug felony
disqualification).
House and Senate Proposals: Disqualification of Specified Ex-Offenders40
Both the House and Senate conference proposals include provisions that would broaden the ex-
offender applicants that would be disqualified for SNAP. Both Section 4020 of the Senate and
Section 4037 of House proposal would bar from receiving benefits individuals convicted of
specified federal crimes (including murder, rape, certain crimes against children), and state
offenses determined by the Attorney General to be substantially similar. 41 The amendment would
38 The Senate Committee’s report from last Congress’s bill S. 3240 (S.Rept. 112-203) cited a May 2011 lottery
winner’s participation in SNAP, describing that, while the bill intends to prohibit such cases in the future, the
Committee “does not intend to increase the administrative burden on states by instituting extensive oversight of private
or charitable gaming activities, such as those that occur at senior centers, churches, private homes or other non-
commercial gaming. Further, it is not the intent of the Committee that the Secretary be required to impose statutory
requirements that may otherwise be waived under State option in this Act. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
evaluate the criteria for substantial winnings in a manner that does not produce an outcome that increases poverty.”
39 According to USDA-FNS’s most recent state options report (August 2012), only Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin
have a modified drug felon disqualification policy that requires drug testing for such felons.
40 Drug-testing and crime-related restrictions in SNAP are discussed in CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-
Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, by Maggie McCarty et al., pp. 10-15.
41 For further discussion of these ex-offender disqualification proposals, including crimes specified, CRS has released a
congressional memorandum. Congressional clients may request a copy from Randy Alison Aussenberg at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
still allow the disqualified ex-offender’s household members to apply for and potentially receive
benefits, but the household’s benefit amount would likely be smaller than if the ex-offender was
included. The amendments would require the state agency that administers SNAP benefits to
collect, in writing, information on SNAP applicants’ convictions.
The Senate and House proposals are identical in their language, except that the House includes an
additional provision to assure that the policy would affect only those with convictions after the
date of the provision’s enactment.42
SNAP Benefit Calculation
Becoming eligible for SNAP is only one part of the application process. Once deemed eligible, a
household’s benefits are calculated based on the household’s size, income, and SNAP-deductible
expenses. A household’s net income is determined by subtracting from the household’s gross
income certain specified expenses and figures. In addition to a standard deduction (available to all
households), there are deductions to account for the specific circumstances of a household.
Examples of SNAP deductions are the excess shelter deduction (a figure intended to account for
variations in the cost of living) and—for households that include the elderly and disabled—an
excess medical expenses deduction (a figure intended to account for variations in a household’s
health costs). Once eligible, 30% of the household’s net income is subtracted from USDA’s
monthly maximum benefit (for household size) to determine the monthly benefit.
The conference proposals, for the most part, would maintain current federal law on SNAP benefit
calculation; however, both bills would change the way the excess shelter deduction is calculated
(specifically, the treatment of energy assistance payments). This is discussed in more detail in the
next section.
The House conference proposal also included a specification for the excess medical expenses
deduction. This provision is not discussed below, but is included in a summary table of the SNAP
benefit calculation provisions, Table A-6.
Standard Utility Allowances and the Treatment of LIHEAP Benefits43
Under current law, 7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C), a SNAP household can use a Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP, the federal program that provides assistance with paying
utility bills) payment to document that the household has incurred heating and cooling costs.
Further, a LIHEAP payment in any amount will serve this purpose.
(...continued)
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov or Richard M. Thompson II at rthompson@crs.loc.gov.
42 In addition to their cost estimate of the Senate-reported bill, CBO composed an official cost estimate for the Senate
floor amendment which added the ex-offender provision to the bill before it passed the Senate. See CBO website,
http://cbo.gov/publication/44905. They estimate that the provision would reduce spending by as little as $21 million or
as much as $185 million over 10 years (FY2014-2023), depending upon whether the provision is interpreted to apply to
convictions that occurred before the change to SNAP eligibility law.
43 For further details and analysis of this policy, please see CRS Report R42591, The Next Farm Bill: Changing the
Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Libby Perl.
Congressional Research Service
18
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
The documentation of LIHEAP receipt triggers a standard utility allowance (SUA), a state-
specific figure based on average utility costs that enters into the SNAP benefit calculation
equation. Unless the household is already receiving the maximum SNAP benefit, a household’s
monthly benefit can increase if the SUA calculation results in an excess shelter deduction.
While virtually all SNAP states consider LIHEAP in their calculation, according to a June 2012
survey by USDA-FNS, approximately 16 states have leveraged nominal (as little as 10 cents)
LIHEAP payments into an increase in households’ SNAP benefits that is larger than the initial
LIHEAP payment. 44
Senate Proposal: Payments Must Be Greater Than $10 to Impact SNAP
The Senate proposal would change the treatment of LIHEAP benefits. Under this proposal, only
LIHEAP payments above $10 per year would confer this potential benefit calculation advantage.
Payments of $10 or less would no longer entitle a household to earn a “standard utility
allowance” (SUA) during the benefit calculation process. If a household received $10 or less in
LIHEAP assistance, households would have to present alternate documentation of utility costs in
order to have utilities factored into calculating their excess shelter deduction. As shown in Table
1, CBO estimated that this policy would save about $4.1 billion over 10 years.
House Proposal: Payments Must Be Greater Than $20 to Impact SNAP
The House proposal, while nearly identical in its language, would be more restrictive than the
Senate proposal, as it would require states to provide a greater level of LIHEAP assistance
(greater than $20 per year) to trigger the related increase in SNAP benefits. In addition to
estimating that this change would reduce spending by $8.7 billion over 10 years, CBO also
estimates that 850,000 SNAP-recipient households would have their benefits reduced by an
average of $90 per household per month. 45
SNAP-Authorized Retailers and Benefit Redemption Issues
Unlike some other federal income maintenance programs, SNAP does not provide households
with cash benefits. Instead, participating households are provided benefits on an electronic benefit
transfer (EBT) card which participants may only redeem for SNAP-eligible foods at authorized
retailers.46 The conference proposals would change (1) the process of authorizing retailers
44 This practice is sometimes referred to as “Heat and Eat.” Based on a June 2012 survey by USDA-FNS, there are 16
“heat and eat” states and one state that does not transmit nominal payments but would be affected by proposals aimed
at “heat and eat” states. The 16 so-called “heat and eat” states are California (which passed a law requiring
implementation by October 2013 and implemented it on January 1, 2013), Connecticut, Delaware (although no nominal
payment was issued in FY2012), District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana (issues a $50
payment every five years to those living in subsidized housing with rent included), New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. A 17th state, New Hampshire, does not distribute
nominal LIHEAP payments but does allow an application for LIHEAP to qualify the household for the Standard Utility
Allowance (which can result in a higher SNAP benefit).
45 CBO has not published an estimate of how many would be affected by the Senate’s proposal in this area, but in 2012,
CBO estimated that an annual average of 500,000 households each year (FY2013-FY20221) would have had their
SNAP benefits reduced by an average of $90 per month. http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/
s3240.pdf, p. 8.
46 CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits, by
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
(“Retailer Authorization and Equipment”), (2) using technology for EBT transactions (“Methods
of Redemption”), and (3) specific types of retailers that may accept SNAP (“Specific Retailers”).
The bills also include resources and policies intended to further prevent the illegal use of benefits
(“Trafficking”). The conference proposals include additional retailer and benefit redemption
policies, discussed in the sections to follow. Aside from those discussed below, Table A-7
includes a summary of all of the related provisions.
Retailer Authorization and Equipment
Definition of Retail Food Store
SNAP benefits can be accepted only by authorized retailers. Among other application
requirements, USDA authorization of a retailer is based on the retailer’s inventory and sales. The
Food and Nutrition Act defines a retail food store, and includes within that definition an
establishment that either (1) offers, on a continuous basis, a variety of foods in each of four staple
food categories,47 including perishable foods in at least two of the categories, or (2) has over 50%
of its sales in staple foods. While the authority exists to consider the nature and extent of the food
business conducted, there is currently no statutory policy tying a retailer’s sales of non-food items
(e.g., alcohol and tobacco) to its authorization.48
Electronic Benefit Transfer Equipment and Manual Vouchers
Currently, an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) point-of-sale machine can be provided by the state
agency to the retailer at no cost to the retailer. At their own cost, many retailers choose to
purchase credit card machines that also accept EBT. (Typically, retailers that accept credit and
debit cards pay for a machine that accepts these cards as well as EBT cards.) Although SNAP has
transitioned to being fully EBT, and paper coupons (“food stamps”) are no longer offered, the
authority still exists to accept manual SNAP vouchers. Some small retailers use these rather than
acquire an EBT machine. Currently there are no statutory requirements regarding unique terminal
identification numbers for EBT machines.49
Senate and House Proposals on Retailer Authorization and Equipment
Both proposals would make nearly identical changes to retailer authorization and equipment.
Both bills would amend SNAP’s definition of retail food store. The bills would require SNAP
retailers that are authorized, based on their inventory of staple foods, to carry perishable foods in
at least three (rather than two) of the staple food categories. Also, both bills would give USDA the
authority “to consider whether the applicant is located in an area with significantly limited access
(...continued)
Randy Alison Aussenberg, pp. 15-18, provide a primer on the issuance and redemption of benefits.
47 From 7 U.S.C. 2012(r): “(1) ... ‘staple foods’ means foods in the following categories: (A) Meat, poultry, or fish. (B)
Bread or cereals. (C) Vegetables or fruits. (D) Dairy products. (2) ‘‘Staple foods’’ do not include accessory food items,
such as coffee, tea, cocoa, carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, candy, condiments, and spices.”
48 7 U.S.C. 2012(p)(1), 2018.
49 7 U.S.C. 2016(f), 2018(h)(3).
Congressional Research Service
20
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
to food” in its authorization of stores. The Senate proposal would also allow USDA to consider
the store’s “depth of stock, variety of staple food items, and the sale of [ineligible items as listed
in the Food and Nutrition Act]”; the House proposal does not include this authorization. Both bills
would add and strengthen requirements about the adequacy of the store’s EBT service.
The bills also would change the policy around EBT equipment and the related topic of manual
vouchers. The bills would shift the costs of EBT machinery to retailers. Both bills would bar
states from issuing manual SNAP vouchers or allowing retailers to accept manual vouchers unless
USDA makes a determination that circumstances or categories of retailers warrant use of manual
vouchers. Both bills would require EBT service providers to provide for and maintain “unique
terminal identification number information”; this is intended to assist USDA in tracking and
preventing fraudulent transactions. The House proposal alone would include further details for
the “unique termination identification number information” provision, requiring USDA to
“consider existing commercial practices for other point-of-sale debit transactions” and prohibiting
USDA from issuing a regulation earlier than two years from the bill’s enactment.
Methods of Redemption
Typically, government funding provides only wired EBT machines. There are currently no
explicit provisions in the authorizing statute regarding redemption of SNAP benefits via wireless
EBT machinery or online SNAP transactions. Advocates have asked for technological
accommodations for farmers’ markets and other direct-to-consumer venues.50 From FY2012
appropriated resources, USDA used $4 million to expand EBT point of sale devices at farmers’
markets.51
Currently, using a SNAP EBT card to make an online purchase is neither allowed nor
technologically feasible. A number of regulations would need to be rewritten or waived to allow
redemption via the internet.
Senate and House Proposals: Methods of Redemption
The Senate proposal contains demonstration projects for mobile and online redemption, whereas
the House proposal only contains the mobile demonstration project.
The Senate bill would require, depending on results of an authorized demonstration project,
USDA to authorize retailers that conduct EBT transactions using mobile technologies (defined as
“electronic means other than wired point of sale devices”) if retailers met certain requirements.
Similar to the mobile technologies provision, the bill includes a similar statutory authorization for
USDA to authorize retailers to accept benefits over the internet, contingent upon results of a
demonstration project and a report to Congress.
For the House proposal, the mobile technologies provision is similar to the Senate bill except the
language appears to limit the authority to a USDA pilot/demonstration on mobile technologies
50 See, for example, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, A Sustainable Agriculture Agenda for the 2012 Food
& Farm Bill, p. 76, March 2012, http://sustainableagriculture.net/wpcontent/uploads/2008/08/
2012_3_21NSACFarmBillPlatform.pdf.
51 P.L. 112-55. 7 U.S.C. 2016(h).
Congressional Research Service
21
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
and does not give USDA authority to continue such redemptions after the end of the pilot. The
House provision does not set a date for the mobile technologies report to Congress. The House
conference proposal does not include any provisions authorizing retailers to accept benefits
online.
Specific Retailers
Shares in a Community Supported Agriculture52 (CSA) establishment are not a SNAP-eligible
purchase. In a CSA, a farmer or community garden grows food for a group of local residents—
members, shareholders, or subscribers—who pledge support to a farm at the beginning of each
year by agreeing to cover a portion of the farm’s expected costs and risks. In return, the members
receive shares of the farm’s production during the growing season.
Currently, nonprofit grocery delivery services for the elderly and disabled are not defined as a
“retail food store” that can accept SNAP benefits. Such establishments must negotiate waivers
with USDA in order to accept SNAP benefits. Under various authorities and waivers other
retailers may conduct deliveries to SNAP participants, but fees may not be paid with SNAP
benefits.
For the most part, SNAP benefits are not redeemable at restaurants, as the benefits are not
redeemable for hot, prepared foods. However, states may choose to operate restaurant meals
programs,53 allowing homeless, disabled, or elderly households to redeem SNAP benefits at
restaurants that offer concessional prices. States contract with restaurants, and USDA authorizes
them as SNAP retailers. FY2010 redemption data indicate that approximately $20 million (or
0.03% of SNAP benefits) were redeemed at “meal delivery/private restaurants.”54
Senate and House Proposals: CSAs and Certain Grocery Delivery Services to
Accept SNAP, Changes to Restaurant Meal Program
Both conference proposals would make SNAP benefits redeemable for shares of Community-
Supported Agriculture (CSA).
In addition to the above changes, both proposals would add to the definition of a retail food store
public and private nonprofit food purchasing and delivery services that serve the elderly and
disabled, emphasizing that delivery fees are not to be paid with SNAP. These proposals would
require USDA regulations to include certain protections and limitations.
Also, both proposals would create added responsibilities for state agencies, private
establishments, and USDA before restaurants would be able to participate in a restaurant meals
program. For restaurants that have contracted with the state to accept SNAP benefits before this
52 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is discussed in the CRS Report R42155, The Role of Local Food Systems
in U.S. Farm Policy, by Renée Johnson, Randy Alison Aussenberg, and Tadlock Cowan.
53 Please find further discussion of states that operate such a program at CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg, p. 16. 7 U.S.C.
2012(k)(3),(4),(9); 2012(p).
54 http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/pdfs/2010-annual-report.pdf (see p. 12).
Congressional Research Service
22
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
provision is enacted, the restaurant would be able to continue to accept SNAP without meeting
the additional requirements for no more than 180 days.
Trafficking
Trafficking is the sale of SNAP benefits for cash or for ineligible items. Trafficking is illegal and
enforced by USDA-FNS using a number of methods. The Food and Nutrition Act includes
penalties for retailers and participants engaged in trafficking; penalties include fines and
imprisonment. An analysis of trafficking during the 2009-2011 period estimated that the
trafficking rate is 1.3%, up from 1.0% in 2006-2008 study.55
Current law authorizes civil penalties and SNAP disqualification penalties for retailers that
engage in SNAP trafficking (the sale of SNAP benefits for money or ineligible items).56 USDA
enforces those penalties through a variety of activities and funds from the SNAP account.
Approximately $8 million each year was obligated for retailer integrity and trafficking in
FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012.
Some have argued that increasing the monitoring and penalties around lost-EBT-card replacement
could eliminate a source of potential trafficking, and FNS has recently proposed a rule in this
regard.57 Currently, the only mention of replacement cards in the authorizing statute is where the
law states that state agencies may collect a fee for replacement of an EBT card by reducing the
monthly allotment of the participating household.58
Senate and House: Both Include New Trafficking Funding, Replacement
Card Measures
The Senate proposal would provide USDA $5 million in FY2014 in additional mandatory funding
to track and prevent SNAP trafficking; it also would authorize $12 million subject to
appropriations for each year from FY2014-FY2018. The House proposal is similar to the Senate’s
except that the House would provide USDA $5 million annually for three years.
Both proposals would add additional statutory measures regarding “the purposeful loss of cards.”
USDA would be able to require a state agency to decline a request for a replacement card unless
the household provides an explanation for the loss of the card. The provisions specify that USDA
must include protections for vulnerable individuals (homeless, disabled, victims of crimes) and
must assure that certain procedures occur and that procedures are consistent with participants’
existing due process protections.
55 Richard Mantovani, Eric Sean Williams, and Jacqueline Pflieger. The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program: 2009–2011. Prepared by ICF International for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service, August 2013., http://www.fns.usda.gov/extent-trafficking-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-
program-2009-2011-august-2013.
56 7 U.S.C. 2021(b)(3).
57 Kevin Concannon, A New Step Forward in Fighting Fraud, USDA Blog, May 24, 2012, http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/
05/24/a-new-step-forward-in-fighting-food-stamp-fraud/. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance: Trafficking Controls and Fraud Investigations,” 77 Federal Register 104, May 30,
2012.
58 7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(8).
Congressional Research Service
23
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Other SNAP Funding, Policies
Policymakers have shown interest in reducing federal spending through the next farm bill,
including in the Nutrition Title. For some policymakers, there is interest in doing that without
affecting benefits, but that can be difficult. Each year, roughly 95% of SNAP spending is on the
benefits themselves,59 and around 5% is on non-benefit costs, such as the federal match to state’s
administrative costs, the related Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant program,
SNAP Employment and Training funds, and the awards for high-performing states. This section
summarizes two areas discussed in the conference proposals, and a complete summary of the
other SNAP provisions is in Table A-8.
SNAP Performance Bonuses for State Agencies
State agencies are currently eligible for, in total, $48 million per year in performance awards.
These grant awards are provided to states for performance accomplishments in payment accuracy,
program access index (a proxy measure for the share of eligible people who participate in SNAP),
application timeliness, and best negative (improper denial) error rate.60 The 2002 farm bill (P.L.
107-171) established this system of performance awards and expanded the performance system to
include measures other than payment accuracy rates (i.e., error rates). From FY2003 through
FY2011, 52 of the 53 state agencies received bonus awards at least once.61 There is currently no
requirement that these performance awards be reinvested in SNAP.
As part of SNAP’s quality control system, states are also subject to fiscal penalties for poor
performance. Although the system has changed a number of times, under the 2002 farm bill
revision, sanctions are only assessed against states with above-threshold rates of error for two
consecutive years.
Conference Proposals: Senate Requires Reinvestment, House Repeals Bonuses
The Senate proposal would require states to reinvest bonus payments into the state’s SNAP
program. The House proposal would repeal the authority to issue performance awards and the
related $48 million per year in mandatory funding.
Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program
Formerly SNAP Nutrition Education, this program—as created by the 2010 child nutrition
reauthorization (P.L. 111-296) - provides formula grant funding for states to provide programs for
SNAP (and other domestic food assistance program) participants as well as other low-income
households. With these funds, “[s]tate agencies may implement a nutrition education and obesity
59 See SNAP annual spending data on USDA-FNS website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.
60 For an illustration of the award amounts and performance indicators included, please see a summary of USDA-FNS’s
performance bonuses for FY2010: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2010_CHART_AWARDS.pdf.
61 Based on USDA-FNS information provided at http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/program-
improvement.htm.
Congressional Research Service
24
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
prevention program for eligible individuals that promotes healthy food choices consistent with the
most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”62
Conference Proposals: Senate Makes no Funding Changes, House Reduces
Funding
Both conference proposals identically amended the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention
Grants so that funds may also be used for programs that promote physical activity.
The House conference proposal would reduce funding in FY2014 and then adjust for inflation in
subsequent years; CBO estimates that the proposal would reduce funding for the program by
$146 million over five years and $308 million over ten years.
Programs in Lieu of SNAP
“Programs in Lieu of SNAP” refers to the related programs operated by entities that do not
operate SNAP. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands do not
participate in the SNAP program. Instead, they receive nutrition assistance block grants, under
which they administer a nutrition assistance program with service delivery unique to each
territory. 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.
Funding for territorial nutrition programs and FDPIR is included within the account for SNAP.
By authorizing the appropriations in Section 18(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act (see “SNAP
Authorization and Appropriations”), both House and Senate proposals would continue operations
for the programs in general. Table A-9 summarizes the proposals for these programs.
FDPIR
The FDPIR provides an alternative to SNAP for participating Indian Reservations by delivering a
household food package, which includes specific foods, as opposed to SNAP’s electronic benefit
transfer benefits that are redeemable at authorized retailers. Funding for FDPIR is included within
the SNAP account. The Food and Nutrition Act includes an authority to fund a local foods pilot
program to incorporate local and traditional foods in the FDPIR program. That particular
authority expired September 30, 2012, and then was extended until September 30, 2013 by P.L.
112-240.
Senate-Passed and House-Reported Bills
Both conference proposals would continue to authorize FDPIR and would reauthorize the local
foods pilot program. Further, both bills would reauthorize the local foods pilot program through
the end of FY2017. The Senate conference proposal also includes a set-aside from existing
62 7 U.S.C. 2036a(b).
Congressional Research Service
25
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
funding which would allow Tribes to substitute local, tribal foods for up to 5% of the USDA
commodities received through FDPIR.
Both proposals include the authorization of a USDA study that would look at the feasibility of
Tribes, as opposed to states, operating nutrition assistance programs, in addition to FDPIR.
Programs in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands
Guam and the Virgin Islands participate in SNAP, but the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI), Puerto Rico, and American Samoa do not. In the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008, American Samoa and Puerto Rico are given mandatory funds for nutrition assistance
block grants. CNMI receives a block grant that is negotiated with USDA. Generally speaking, the
block grants offer flexibility to the administering territory, but also mean that they have limited
funding. While SNAP is an open-ended entitlement, the nutrition assistance block grants to the
territories grow at the rate of inflation (measured by the Thrifty Food Plan).
The 2008 farm bill authorized and funded a study of the feasibility of including Puerto Rico in
SNAP; the study was completed and published in June 2010.63 In the case of Puerto Rico’s
administration of its block grant, the territory currently has sufficient flexibility to provide some
food assistance benefits in the form of SNAP. One of the feasibility study’s findings on “Projected
Administration Changes” was:
Like SNAP, NAP [Puerto Rico’s food assistance program] distributes benefits on an EBT
debit card. However, unlike SNAP, up to 25 percent of the monthly benefit may be redeemed
for cash. Although the cash is designated for eligible food items, it is widely acknowledged
that participants use at least some of their allotted cash for non-food essentials, such as
medicine and hygiene products. It is difficult to determine what the full impact of a
completely non-cash allotment would be on Puerto Rico retailers and participants. Because
the current cash allotment is the sole or primary source of cash income for many participants,
it is clear that families would need to find other ways to pay for essential non-food items.64
House Proposed Changes
The House proposal would amend Puerto Rico’s block grant so that Puerto Rico would no longer
be permitted to use its block grant funding to provide benefits in the form of cash. Puerto Rico
would have to provide benefits only in EBT form.
For the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the House proposal would authorize and
provide $1 million in both FY2014 and FY2015 for a feasibility study of CNMI’s capacity to
administer a SNAP pilot. The bill also would authorize and provide administrative and technical
assistance funds to support the pilot depending upon the feasibility study’s findings ($13.5
million in FY2016, $8.5 million in each of FY2017 and FY2018).
63 Please see Anne Peterson, Bryan Johnson, and Benjamin E. Moulton, et al., Implementing Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program in Puerto Rico: A Feasibility Study, Insight Policy Research, Inc. for USDA Food and Nutrition
Service, June 2010, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ORA/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramDesign/PuertoRico.pdf.
64 Ibid, at p. iii.
Congressional Research Service
26
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
The Senate does not propose any changes to these territories’ programs.
Commodity Distribution Programs
USDA commodity foods are foods purchased by the USDA for distribution to USDA nutrition
programs. 65 They are not necessarily specific types of food; the catalog of commodity foods is a
wide variety of fruit, vegetable, livestock, dairy—fresh, frozen, and processed foods. The USDA
Food and Nutrition Service programs that include USDA commodity foods are The Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), National
School Lunch Program (NSLP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), and Child and Adult
Care Food Program (CACFP). Many of these programs distribute “entitlement commodities” (an
amount of USDA foods to which grantees are entitled by law) as well as “bonus commodities”
(USDA food purchases based on requests from the agricultural producer community).66 All of the
conference proposal provisions that pertain to commodity distribution are summarized in Table
A-10.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
TEFAP, the main USDA-FNS program that supports emergency feeding organizations, currently
receives federal government resources in several ways. Congress provides mandatory funding for
the purchase of “entitlement commodity” foods that are distributed to emergency feeding
organizations (e.g., food banks and food pantries) in addition to discretionary funding for
organizations’ administrative costs. TEFAP also receives bonus commodity donations from
USDA when the Department exercises its purchasing authority in response to requests from the
agricultural industry for surplus removal or price support.
Under current law, TEFAP’s mandatory funding for “entitlement commodities” for FY2012 and
subsequent years is $250 million, plus an adjustment for food-price inflation. This mandatory
entitlement funding is only available to be spent over a one-year period. In addition, the law
authorizes to be appropriated up to $100 million for TEFAP administrative and distribution costs.
TEFAP continues to operate under the current CR.
Conference Proposals: Both Increase Funding, House Provides Greater Increases
Both proposals would increase mandatory funding for TEFAP, but in differing amounts and with
different approaches.
The Senate bill would increase the mandatory funding for “entitlement commodities” by $54
million over 10 years. The funding increases would be only in the first four years (FY2014-
FY2017).
65 “Commodity” or “commodities” in the context of food assistance is broader and distinct from the term used to
describe corn, wheat, soybeans, etc. in the context of commodity support programs, such as described in CRS Report
RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Jim Monke.
66 For more on the procurement of USDA foods, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA’s
Section 32 Program, by Jim Monke. For more information on FNS’s distribution of commodities, please see USDA-
FNS website, Food Distribution Programs and Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/default.htm.
Congressional Research Service
27
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
The House proposal would increase entitlement commodity funding by $209 million over five
years and $333 million over 10 years (according to CBO).67 The House proposal also includes a
provision that would require USDA to devise a plan for increasing purchases and modifying the
labeling of Kosher and Halal foods at emergency feeding organizations.
Both proposals also would require funding for TEFAP to be available for two-year periods and
would reauthorize a discretionary program, TEFAP infrastructure grants.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
House and Senate Conference Proposals
Both proposals would reauthorize the CSFP, a food distribution program that provides USDA
commodity foods to low-income women, infants, children, and seniors.
Both proposals would also make an eligibility change, limiting the program to only low-income
seniors. This change has not been regarded as controversial as the vast majority of CSFP
participants are already seniors (97% in FY2011), with women, infants, and children usually
opting to participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC).
Commodity Foods in School Meals
In addition to USDA commodity foods purchased and distributed for TEFAP and CSFP, child-
serving institutions that participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Summer Food
Service Program (SFSP), and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) also receive
assistance in the form of USDA commodity foods (in addition to per-meal cash reimbursements).
While typically, changes to the programs’ authorizing statutes (Russell National School Lunch
Act and Child Nutrition Act) are reported by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the policies pertaining to
USDA commodity food procurement are overseen by the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Agriculture.
In FY2012, approximately 10% of the federal assistance for school meal programs was in the
form of donations of USDA commodity purchased foods. This includes “entitlement
commodities,” the food amounts to which a school is entitled based on the number of meals
served; as well as “bonus commodities,” which are based on USDA purchases under its
agricultural surplus and price support authorities. Schools redeem National School Lunch
Program commodity “entitlement” food assistance (the amount of which is based on a per-meal
rate68) from USDA’s offerings. Some stakeholders have been interested in assuring that
entitlement commodity assistance can instead be used for local purchases instead of USDA foods.
67 Because the House proposal changes the mandatory funding numbers prior to the adjustment for inflation, these
estimates include CBO’s assumptions of inflation over the 10-year budget window.
68 42 U.S.C. 1754.
Congressional Research Service
28
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
The conference proposals contain various policies that would impact the USDA foods served in
school meal programs (National School Lunch Program and National School Breakfast Program).
Some are discussed below, but the complete list is summarized in Table A-10.
An Overview of Related House and Senate Proposals
Processing of USDA Commodities. Both conference proposals would extend the authority for
USDA to enter into reprocessing agreements with private companies in order to process
commodity foods. The proposals also include a new provision that would allow USDA to contract
with a processor and retain title to those foods while processing.
USDA purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables. Both conference proposals would continue the
requirement that $50 million of USDA’s additional acquisitions of fruits and vegetables be fresh
fruit and vegetables. The House proposal also would create a pilot grant program that would
allow five states to use this funding for their own local sourcing of produce.
Pulse crop pilot program. The Senate proposal would create a pilot project to purchase pulse
crops (dry beans, dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas) and pulse crop products for schools. Up to $10
million in discretionary appropriations would be authorized.
Other farm-to-school provisions. The Senate bill would require USDA to conduct
demonstration projects that would facilitate schools’ purchase of locally grown and raised
agricultural products. The House bill would allow USDA to permit school districts that receive
small amounts of USDA commodity foods to instead receive cash for their own local purchasing.
Other Farm Bill Nutrition Program Proposals in the
Conference Proposals
The conference proposals’ Nutrition Titles contain numerous other programs and proposals.
Below are a few highlights, including the reauthorization of programs included in the 2008 farm
bill (e.g., Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Community Food Projects, and Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Program), and a proposal unique to the Senate conference proposal ($100 million
in mandatory funding over 10 years for SNAP bonus incentives). While only a select overview is
included in the list below, all remaining provisions are summarized in Table A-11.
Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program: House Changes. Both House and Senate
proposals would reauthorize the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, which provides
formula grants to participating states69 to run programs for seniors to redeem vouchers at area
farmers’ markets. Both bills would keep funding at $20.6 million in mandatory funding per year,
but the House proposes some further amendments to the program. The House proposal would
expand eligibility from “low-income seniors” to “low-income seniors and low-income families
who are determined to be at nutritional risk.” An amendment provided that 50% of the funding
would be for seniors.
69 In FY2012, SFMNP operated in 42 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and 7 Indian Tribal Organizations.
Congressional Research Service
29
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable (“Snack”) Program: House Changes. The Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program is permanently authorized and funded by the 2008 farm bill, so there is no
need for legislative action to continue operations. However, the House proposal would make
changes to the program’s authorization; namely it strikes “fresh” from the program’s title and
authorization and would allow the inclusion of frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables.
Community Food Projects: House Changes. Since the 1996 farm bill (P.L. 104-127), the Food
and Nutrition Act (formerly, Food Stamp Act) has permanently authorized a grant program for
eligible nonprofit organizations, in order to improve community access to food. Infrastructure
projects are an eligible use of these funds. Grants require 50% in matching funds. The 2008 farm
bill (and subsequent extensions) provided $5 million annually in mandatory funding for this
purpose.70 The Senate proposal would continue to provide the $5 million, but the House would
increase funding to $15 million per year, and carve out $5 million of those funds for projects that
would incentivize low-income households’ fruit and vegetable purchases.
Hunger-free Community “Incentive Grants”: Only in Senate Proposal. One of the policies
that distinguishes the Senate’s proposal from the House’s is an inclusion of mandatory funding for
bonus incentive projects. The Senate proposal includes $100 million in mandatory funding over
five years for hunger-free community incentive grants. These competitive grants would be for
projects that incentivize SNAP participants to buy fruits and vegetables. Currently, such bonus
incentive projects are funded by non-federal funds.71
Healthy Food Financing Initiative: Streamlined Program Included in Both Proposals.
Although the Administration already provides support to the development of fresh food retailers
in underserved communities using a range of existing authorities, the House and Senate
conference proposals both include a new authorization for a consolidated Healthy Food Financing
Initiative housed at the USDA. USDA would approve a community development financial
institution as “national fund manager.” An annual amount of $125 million would be authorized to
be appropriated.
70 7 U.S.C. 2034.
71 SNAP redemption at farmers’ markets and bonus incentive projects are discussed further in CRS Report R42505,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits, by Randy Alison
Aussenberg, p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
30
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Appendix. Detailed CBO Cost Estimates and All-
Sections Summary
Detailed CBO Cost Estimates
Table A-1. Detailed Table of CBO Cost Estimates Compared to Baseline
Estimated Over 10 Years (FY2014-FY2023)
Senate
House
Conference
H.R. 1947, House-
Conference
Proposala
Defeatedb
Proposalc
SNAP Retailer Equipment
-$79 million
-$79 million
-$79 million
SNAP Categorical Eligibility
Not applicable
-$11.6 billion
-$11.6 billion
SNAP Treatment of LIHEAP in Benefit
-$4.1 billion
-$8.7 billion
-$8.7 billion
Calculation
Repeal of SNAP Performance Bonuses
Not applicable
-$480 million
-$480 million
Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention
Grant Program (SNAP Nutrition Education)
$0
-$274 million
-$308 million
Repeal of labor-market-based ABAWD
waivers
Not applicable
Not applicable
-$19.0 billion
Testing applicants for the unlawful use of
controlled substances
Not applicable
Not availabled
-$35 million
Eligibility Disqualifications for Certain
Convicted Felons
Not availabled
Not availabled
-$21 million
Expungement of Unused SNAP Benefits
Not applicable
Not availabled
-$95 million
SNAP Retailer Trafficking
+$5 million
+$50 million
+$50 million
SNAP Employment & Training (E&T)
Program
+$26 million
$0
$0
Employment and Training Pilot Projects
Not applicable
+$30 million
+$30 million
Pilot Projects to Promote Work
Not applicable
Not availabled
+$4 million
Hunger-free Communities Grants and Bonus
Incentives
+$100 million
Not applicable
Not applicable
The Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP)
+$54 million
+$217 million
+$333 million
Community Food Projects
$0
+$100 million
+$100 million
Food Distribution Program on Indian
+$60 million
Not applicable
Not applicable
Reservations
CNMI Pilot
Not applicable
+$33 million
+$33 million
Interactions Between SNAP Eligibility and
Not applicable
+$82 millione
+$715 millione
Benefit Calculation Proposals
Total Estimated Savings from Title
-$4.0 billion
-$20.5 billion
-$39.0 billion
IV (Over 10 years)
Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates as specified in the notes below.
Congressional Research Service
31
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
a. CBO estimate of S. 954 after Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
cbofiles/attachments/s954_StabenowLtr.pdf (May 17, 2013). Does not include estimates of amendments that
were added during floor consideration.
b. CBO estimate of H.R. 1947 after the House Agriculture Committee’s markup, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/cbofiles/attachments/hr1947_LucasLtr.pdf (May 23, 2013). Does not include estimates of the
amendments that were added during floor consideration.
c. CBO estimate of H.R. 3102, as passed by the House, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/
HR3102.pdf (September 16, 2013). CBO did not include an estimate of the impact on SNAP participation
for all provisions; they “expect that most of those additional effects would be small.” CBO only completed
participation estimates for categorical eligibility and state work program waiver authority provisions.
d. This provision was added to either S. 954 or H.R. 1947 during floor consideration; therefore it was not
included in the May 2013 CBO cost estimates.
e. These numbers include CBO’s estimates of an interaction between the above listed policy changes.
Comparisons of Current Law with the Nutrition Titles of the 2013
Farm Bill Conference Proposals, All Sections
Table A-2. SNAP Authorization and Appropriations
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(H.R. 2642, including text of
Current Law/Policy
(S. 954)
H.R. 3102)
Appropriations. Authorizes
Reauthorizes appropriations for
Reauthorizes appropriations for
appropriations for SNAP and related
SNAP and related programs through
SNAP and related programs through
programs through FY2013. [7 U.S.C. FY2018. [Sec. 4014]
FY2016. [Sec. 4024]
2027(a), P.L. 112-240]
Table A-3. SNAP Eligibility: Categorical Eligibility
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill
(H.R. 2642, Including Text of
Current Law/Policy
(S. 954)
H.R. 3102)
Broad-based Categorical
No comparable provision.
Ends “broad-based categorical
Eligibility. States may opt to
eligibility," and limits categorical
implement broad-based categorical
eligibility to SNAP applicants that
eligibility. Under broad-based
receive Temporary Assistance for
categorical eligibility, a SNAP
Needy Families (TANF) cash
applicant that receives Temporary
assistance, Supplemental Security
Assistance for Needy Families
Income (SSI), and state-funded
(TANF) cash assistance,
general assistance cash benefits.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
[Sec. 4005]
state-funded general assistance cash
benefits, or any TANF-funded
benefit, may be deemed eligible for
SNAP benefits. By regulation, the
TANF-funded benefit must be for
households at or below 200% of the
federal poverty line. [7 U.S.C.
2014(a), 7 C.F.R. 273.2(j)]
Congressional Research Service
32
Table A-4. SNAP Eligibility: Work and Work-related Rules
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Employment and Training (E&T). The federal
Provides $90 million in mandatory funds in FY2014,
Reduces the $90 million to $79 million for each year of
government funds SNAP E&T in 4 ways: (1) $90 million
FY2015, FY2016, and FY2017. Reduces mandatory
authorization. Establishes additional monitoring,
in mandatory funds that are allocated and reallocated to funding to $80 million for FY2018 and each fiscal year
performance measures, and reporting requirements for
states based on a formula, (2) $20 million in mandatory
thereafter. [Sec. 4013]
SNAP E&T. [Sec. 4020, 4021] See also Sec. 4022
funding allocated to states that pledge to provide E&T
below.
to all able-bodied adults without dependents
(ABAWDs), (3) open-ended matching funds for states’
Repeals the $20 million in mandatory funds for states
administrative costs for E&T, and (4) open-ended
that pledge to serve al ABAWDs. Caps matching funds
matching funds for states' reimbursement of E&T
at $277 million annual y and makes eligible for the
participants' dependent care and transportation costs.
matching funds only those states that opt into running
Program requirements, uptake of these funds, and
the Section 4039 pilot [Sec. 4039 (discussed further
activities designed vary by state. [7 U.S.C. 2025(h), et
below)]
al]
Authorizes pilot projects to identify best practices for
E&T programs “to raise the number of work registrants
who obtain unsubsidized employment, increase their
earned income, and reduce their reliance on public
assistance.” Provides $10 million in mandatory funding
for each of FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016. USDA is to
report to Congress on the pilot projects by the end of
FY2017. [Sec. 4023]
Work-related requirements. Able-bodied, non-
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to authorize all interested and eligible
elderly SNAP applicants that are not working are
states to participate in a work-related requirement
required to register for work opportunities. States have
pilot. This pilot would require states to require all
the option to require SNAP participants to participate
participants except for children, elderly, disabled, or
in an E&T activity.
parents with children under 1 year old to work or take
ABAWDs that do not meet specified work
part in job training for a minimum of 20 hours a week.
requirements are limited to receive 3 months of SNAP
Participating pilot states must evaluate their pilots and
benefits in a 36-month period. States are permitted to
can claim half of any SNAP savings that the evaluations
exempt a portion of the population from this time limit,
estimate. Participating states may not utilize ABAWD
based on the number of ABAWDs who received
waivers or exemptions and are limited to spending
benefits prior to the enactment of the 1996 welfare
federal funding at FY2012 levels. Includes certain
reform law. A state may—based on data on the
expansions of states’ disqualification authority. Provides
availability of jobs—request or apply for a waiver from
$1 million each year for FY2014-2017 for program
this provision for the entire state or parts of the state.
evaluations. [Sec. 4039]
[7 U.S.C. 2015(o)]
Repeals the authority to grant waivers for a geographic
CRS-33
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
area based on the area’s availability of jobs. Changes the
calculation of the number of ABAWDs that states may
exempt from the time limit rules. [Sec. 4009]
National Directory of New Hires. States have the
No comparable provision.
Requires all states to data-match with the National
option to use a national child support enforcement-
Directory of New Hires. [Sec. 4040]
related database, the National Directory of New Hires,
to verify and track employment and income data for
SNAP purposes. [Section 453(j)(10) of the Social
Security Act., 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10)]
Table A-5. SNAP Eligibility: Other Disqualifications
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Student Eligibility. In most cases, col ege students
Adds the requirement that those students enrol ed in
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4008]
ages 18-49 (attending higher education courses half-
post-secondary institutions as a requirement of
time or more) are ineligible for SNAP. A student
participation in “SNAP Employment and Training,” must
enrolled in an institution of higher education more than
be enrol ed in certain employment-oriented training to
half-time is eligible for SNAP benefits only if the
qualify for SNAP; specifically, this includes certain
individual meets one or more of the fol owing
career and technical education, remedial courses, basic
qualifications: (1) under 18 years old, or age 50 or
adult education, literacy, or English as a second
older; (2) disabled; (3) employed at least 20 hours/week language. [Sec. 4004]
or participates in a work-study program during the
school year; (4) a parent (in some circumstances); (5)
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) cash assistance benefits; OR (6) enrol ed in
school because of participation in certain programs.
One program enrollment exception is a “SNAP
Employment and Training” program. [7 U.S.C.
2015(e)]
CRS-34
Lottery and Gambling Winnings. No comparable
Creates explicit ineligibility for households that receive
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4010]
provision. Authorizing statute establishes income and
“substantial lottery or gambling winnings” (as
asset thresholds for SNAP eligibility, including that
determined by USDA) until the household meets the
lump-sum, non-recurring payments are to be counted
SNAP resources (assets) and income eligibility limits.
as resources (assets) not income. [7 U.S.C. 2014]
State SNAP agencies are to establish agreements with
the state gaming agency in order to make
determinations of winnings. [Sec. 4005]
Eligibility Disqualifications for Ex-offenders.
Bars individuals convicted of specified federal crimes
Similar to Senate bill but also specifies that restrictions
Under SNAP current law, added by the 1996 welfare
(including murder, rape, certain crimes against
will only apply to individuals with convictions after the
reform law, states have the option to disqualify
children), and state offenses determined by the
date of enactment. [Sec. 4037]
individuals with drug-related convictions, opt out of the
Attorney General to be substantial y similar, from
ban entirely, or modify the ban. As of August 2012, 12
receiving SNAP. Still al ows the disqualified ex-
states or territories implemented a lifetime drug-related offender’s household members to apply for and
felon disqualification. [Section 115 of P.L. 104-193]
potentially receive benefits. Requires the state agency
P.L. 104-193 also disqualified “fleeing felons.”
to collect, in writing, information on SNAP applicants’
convictions. [Sec. 4020]
Applicant drug-testing. For the most part, USDA
No comparable provision.
Allows states to enact legislation authorizing drug
and SNAP law does not allow states to use drug testing
testing for SNAP applicants. Such state policies are to
in determining eligibility for SNAP. There are
be implemented at ful cost to the state. [Sec. 4036]
exceptions related to the drug-related felon
disqualification state option and TANF comparable
disqualification policies. [7 U.S.C. 2014(b); Section
115 of P.L. 104-193]
CRS-35
Table A-6. SNAP Benefit Calculation
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Standard Utility Allowances. A SNAP household
Only LIHEAP payments above $10 would confer this
Only LIHEAP payments above $20 would confer this
can use a Low Income Home Energy Assistance
potential advantage. Payments of $10 or less would no
potential advantage. Payments of $20 or less would no
Program (LIHEAP) payment (regardless of the amount
longer entitle a household to earn a “standard utility
longer entitle a household to earn a “standard utility
of that payment) to document that the household has
al owance" (SUA) during the benefit calculation process. allowance" (SUA) during the benefit calculation process.
incurred heating and cooling costs. This documentation
If a household received below $10 in LIHEAP
If a household received below $20 in LIHEAP
triggers a standard utility allowance (SUA), a figure that
assistance, households would have to present alternate
assistance, households would have to present alternate
enters into the SNAP benefit calculation equation.
documentation of utility costs in order to have utilities
documentation of utility costs in order to have utilities
Unless the household is already receiving the maximum
factored into calculating their excess shelter deduction.
factored into calculating their excess shelter deduction.
SNAP benefit, a household’s monthly benefit can
[Sec. 4003]
[Sec. 4007]
increase if the SUA calculation results in an excess
shelter deduction. [7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(6)(C)]
Excess Medical Expense Deduction. Households
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to promulgate regulations to ensure
that include an elderly or disabled member may have
that medical marijuana is not treated as a medical
excess medical expenses, as defined and calculated by
expense in the calculation of the excess medical
statute, deducted from the household’s gross income. It
expenses deduction. [Sec. 4006]
has been reported that some agencies are including
medical marijuana expenses in this calculation. FNS
issued a policy memorandum on July 10, 2012 clarifying
that this is against SNAP law. [7 U.S.C. 2014(e)(5)]
CRS-36
Table A-7. SNAP-Authorized Retailers and Benefit Redemption Issues
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Governmental or nonprofit grocery delivery
Adds to the definition of retail food store any “public
Adds “governmental and non-profit food purchasing
services. Nonprofit grocery delivery services for the
or private nonprofit food purchasing and delivery
and delivery service[s]” that serve the elderly and
elderly and disabled are not defined as a “retail food
service” that serves the elderly and disabled.
disabled to the definition of a retail food store,
store” that can accept SNAP benefits. Such
Substantial y similar policy to H.R. 3102. [Sec. 4001]
emphasizing that delivery fees are not to be paid with
establishments must negotiate waivers with USDA in
SNAP. Requires USDA regulations to include certain
order to accept SNAP benefits. Under various
protections and limitations. [Sec. 4003]
authorities and waivers other retailers may conduct
deliveries to SNAP participants, but fees may not be
paid with SNAP benefits. [7 U.S.C. 2012(k), (p)]
Retail Food Store Definition. SNAP benefits can be
Amends retail food store definition so that perishable
Amends retail food store definition so that perishable
accepted only by authorized retailers. Among other
foods must be provided in at least three of the staple
foods must be provided in at least three of the staple
application requirements, USDA authorization of a
food categories. [Sec. 4006(a)]
food categories (identical to Senate bill). [Sec. 4002(a)]
retailer is based on the retailer’s inventory and sales.
SNAP law defines a retail food store, and includes
Gives USDA the authority to consider whether the
Like Senate bill, gives USDA the authority to consider
within that definition an establishment that either (1)
applicant store “is located in an area with significantly
whether the applicant store “is located in an area with
offers, on a continuous basis, a variety of foods in each
limited access to food” as well as the store’s “depth of
significantly limited access to food” and adds and
of 4 staple food categories [defined in 7 U.S.C.
stock, variety of staple food items, and the sale of
strengthens requirements about the adequacy of the
2012(r)(1)], including perishable foods in at least two
[ineligible items listed in Food and Nutrition Act].” The
store’s EBT service. Does not include USDA authority
of the categories, or (2) has over 50% of its sales in
bill also adds and strengthens requirements about the
to consider the store’s “depth of stock, variety of staple
staple foods. Authority exists to consider the nature
adequacy of the store’s EBT service. [Sec. 4006(c),
food items, and the sale of [ineligible items listed in
and extent of the food business conducted. [7 U.S.C.
(d)]
Food and Nutrition Act].” [Sec. 4002 (c), (d)]
2012(p)(1), 2018]
Electronic Benefit Transfer, Manual Vouchers.
Shifts the costs of EBT machinery to retailer (with
Similar to the Senate bill except in the “unique terminal
An electronic benefit transfer (EBT) point-of-sale
exemptions for certain retailers, such as farmers’
identification number information” provision, (i)
machine can be provided by the state agency to the
markets). Bars states from issuing manual SNAP
includes further specifications for USDA’s rulemaking
retailer at no cost to the retailer (many retailers
vouchers or al owing retailers to accept manual
including “the Secretary shall consider existing
choose to purchase credit card machines that also
vouchers unless USDA makes such a determination that commercial practices for other point-of-sale debit
accept EBT). Although SNAP has transitioned to being
circumstances or categories of retailers warrant use of
transactions” and that proposed regulations must be
fully EBT, and paper coupons (“food stamps”) are no
manual vouchers. Requires EBT service providers to
issued “not earlier than 2 years after the date of
longer offered, authority exists to accept manual SNAP
provide for and maintain “unique terminal identification
enactment,” (ii) requires retailers to maintain “unique
vouchers. Some small retailers use these rather than
number information.” [Sec. 4006(b)]
business identification” in addition to “terminal
acquiring an EBT machine. No statutory requirements
identification number” Also, specifies that the
regarding unique terminal identification numbers for
exemption to cost-sharing may apply to, not only
EBT machines. [7 U.S.C. 2016(f), 2018(h)(3)]
farmers’ markets, but other “direct-to-consumer”
markets. [Sec. 4002(b)]
CRS-37
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Replacement of Cards. Permits state agencies to
Adds additional measures regarding “purposeful loss of
Nearly identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4011]
col ect a fee for replacement of an EBT card by
cards.” USDA may require a state agency to decline a
reducing the monthly allotment of the participating
request for a replacement card unless the household
household. [7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(8)]
provides an explanation for the loss of the card. The
USDA requirements must include protections for
vulnerable individuals (homeless, disabled, victims of
crimes). USDA is to assure certain procedures occur
and that procedures are consistent with participants’
existing due process protections. [Sec. 4007]
Technology Modernization. No explicit provisions
Requires, depending on results of a demonstration
Mobile technologies provision is similar to the Senate
regarding non-wired EBT machinery for redemption or
project, that USDA authorize retailers with EBT mobile
bill except the language appears to limit the authority to
online SNAP transactions are included in the
technologies, if retailers meet certain requirements.
a USDA pilot/demonstration on mobile technologies
authorizing statute. From FY2012 appropriations,
Authorizes and requires the demonstration project and
and does not create the authority to continue the
USDA is using $4 million to expand EBT point of sale
report to be completed by July 1, 2015, and USDA to
redemptions after the end of pilot. The House
devices at farmers markets. A number of regulations
authorize wireless retailers beginning January 1, 2016,
provision does not set a date for the mobile
would need to be rewritten or waived to allow
unless USDA reports to congressional committees of
technologies report to Congress. [Sec. 4012] With
redemption via the internet. [7 U.S.C. 2016(h), P.L.
jurisdiction that it determines authorization should not
respect to authorizing retailers to accept benefits
112-55]
be implemented. Mobile technologies are defined as
online, the House bill has no provision comparable to
“electronic means other than wired point of sale
the Senate bill.
devices.” A similar statutory provision is included for
USDA to authorize retailers to accept benefits online,
contingent upon results of a demonstration project and
a report to Congress. [Sec. 4008]
No comparable provision.
Community-Supported Agriculture. Makes SNAP
Nearly identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4013]
benefits redeemable for shares of Community-
Supported Agriculture (CSA). In a CSA, a farmer or
community garden grows food for a group of local
residents—members, shareholders, or subscribers—
who pledge support to a farm at the beginning of each
year by agreeing to cover the farm’s expected costs and
risks. In return, the members receive shares of the
farm's production during the growing season. [Sec.
4009]
CRS-38
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Restaurant Meals Program. States may choose to
Creates added responsibilities for state agencies,
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4014]
operate a restaurant meals program, allowing homeless, private establishments, and USDA before restaurants
disabled, or elderly households to redeem SNAP
may participate in a restaurant meals program. For
benefits at restaurants that offer concessional prices.
restaurants that have contracted with the state to
States contract with restaurants, and USDA authorizes
accept SNAP benefits before this provision is enacted,
them as SNAP retailers. [7 U.S.C. 2012(k)(3),(4),(9)]
the restaurant may continue to accept SNAP without
meeting the additional requirements for no more than
180 days. [Sec. 4010]
Trafficking. Authorizes civil penalties and SNAP
Provides USDA $5 mil ion in FY2014 in dedicated
Similar to the Senate bill except that the House bill
disqualification penalties for retailers that engage in
mandatory funding to track and prevent SNAP
provides USDA (not less than) $5 million in FY2014
SNAP trafficking (the sale of SNAP benefits for money
trafficking. Also authorizes $12 million subject to
(and each fiscal year thereafter) in dedicated mandatory
or ineligible items). USDA enforces those penalties
appropriations for each year FY2014-FY2018.
funding to track and prevent SNAP trafficking.
through a variety of activities and funds from the SNAP
[Sec. 4018]
[Sec. 4029]
account. USDA obligated approximately $8 million of
SNAP’s appropriated funding for retailer integrity and
trafficking in FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012. [7 U.S.C.
2021(b)(3)]
Bottle Deposits and Trafficking. Under current
No comparable provision.
Amends SNAP law, so that benefits cannot be used to
law, if SNAP is used to buy a bottle of non-alcoholic
pay for container deposits. Recipients would have to
beverage, SNAP benefits will pay for a bottle deposit in
supplement their SNAP purchases of such bottles with
a state where such deposits are in effect, and then the
their own cash to pay for bottle deposits. [Sec. 4001]
SNAP participant may return the bottle for the cash
deposit in return. The 2008 farm bill added a provision
barring SNAP recipients from intentional y destroying
food (e.g., pouring out liquid) in order to claim the
bottle deposit. [7 U.S.C. 2016(p)]. USDA has included
this practice into the definition of trafficking [7 C.F.R.
271.2].
Expunging benefits. States must expunge from
No comparable provision.
Requires unused benefits to be expunged after 60 days.
participants’ EBT cards benefits that have not been
[Sec. 4038]
accessed after a 12-month period. [7 U.S.C.
2016(h)(12)]
CRS-39
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Retailer Trafficking Investigation and
No comparable provision.
Al ows pilot project opportunities for states to run
Enforcement. States enforce beneficiary trafficking
retailer fraud investigation. Additional federal funding is
and other fraudulent activities, while the federal
not provided. Requires that at least one pilot program
government has jurisdiction over SNAP retailer
be conducted in a large urban area that administers its
trafficking and other fraud. [7 U.S.C. 2021, 7 C.F.R.
own SNAP program. [Sec. 4017]
278.7]
Table A-8. Other SNAP Funding, Policies
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Verification of Immigration Status. Under current
No comparable provision.
Requires all SNAP agencies to verify immigration status
law and regulation, states must verify noncitizens’
using the SAVE system. [Sec. 4015]
immigration status, but do not have to use the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program. [7 U.S.C.
2020(p); 42 U.S.C. 1320b–7]
Quality Control. SNAP’s Quality Control (QC)
Strikes the Secretary’s authority to waive QC penalties.
Sets $25 as the threshold level for reporting SNAP
system measures the accuracy of the eligibility and
Makes no changes to the error threshold. [Sec. 4011]
errors in the quality control system for FY2013. In
benefits calculation in SNAP. Consistently low
subsequent years, adjusts for inflation based on the
performing states are subject to financial penalties. The
growth of the cost of the thrifty food plan. [Sec. 4031]
statute gives the Secretary authority to waive penalties.
[7 U.S.C. 2025(c))] The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 temporarily changed the
definition of the quality control error threshold by
raising it from $25 to $50 (meaning that SNAP errors
lower than $50 would not “count" as errors in the
quality control system). USDA made the $50 threshold
permanent in regulation in November 2011. [7 U.S.C.
2025(c); P.L. 111-5; 7 CFR 275.12(f)(2)]
CRS-40
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Performance Bonus Awards. State agencies are
Requires states to reinvest bonus payments into the
Repeals the SNAP performance bonus awards. [Sec.
currently eligible for, in total, $48 million per year in
state’s SNAP program. [Sec. 4012]
4019]
performance awards. These grant awards are provided
to states for performance accomplishments in payment
accuracy, program access, application timeliness, and
best negative (improper denial) error rate. There is
currently no requirement that these performance
awards be reinvested in SNAP. [7 U.S.C. 2025(d)]
Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention
Adds promoting physical activity as an allowable use of
Adds the same provision as the Senate bill.
Grant Program. Formerly SNAP Nutrition Education
the funding. [Sec. 4017]
or “SNAP-Ed,” this program provides formula grant
Also reduces funding for FY2014 and then adjusts for
funding for states to provide programs for SNAP (and
inflation in subsequent years; CBO estimated these
other domestic food assistance program) participants as
changes will reduce funding for the program by $146
well as other low-income households. With these
million over five years and $308 million over ten years.
funds, “[s]tate agencies may implement a nutrition
[Sec. 4028]
education and obesity prevention program for eligible
individuals that promotes healthy food choices
consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for
Americans.” [7 U.S.C. 2036a(b)]
Validating Participation. States are required to
No comparable provision.
Requires states to submit annual reports demonstrating
match Social Security data to assure that deceased
that the agency has not provided benefits to deceased
individuals are not receiving SNAP benefits. Households
individuals or to households simultaneously receiving
are prohibited from receiving benefits in multiple states
benefits in another state or to an individual that was
simultaneously. There is a database of individuals that
disqualified from receiving benefits. Penalty for
have been disqualified from SNAP. [7 U.S.C. 2015(j),
noncompliance is a 50% reduction in federal share of
2020(r)]
administrative costs. [Sec. 4033]
CRS-41
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Outreach. While federal matching funds are provided
No comparable provision.
Specifies that the federal administrative cost-sharing is
for states’ SNAP administrative costs, those matching
not available for state “recruitment activities designed
funds are not available for certain recruitment activities
to persuade an individual to apply for program benefits
(defined in regulation). USDA may use appropriated
or that promote the program via television, radio, or
funds for SNAP outreach activities including
billboard advertisements.” Restricts appropriated funds
advertisements. Since 2004, the USDA has partnered
from being used for recruitment activities designed to
with Mexico to provide information about the nutrition
persuade an individual to apply, certain media
assistance programs for eligible new Americans at
advertisements (advertisement restriction does not
Mexican consulates in the United States. [7 U.S.C.
apply to disaster assistance); and agreements with
2025(a), 7 U.S.C. 2027(a), 7 CFR 272.5]
foreign governments designed to promote the program.
Bans entities from compensating individuals for
conducting SNAP outreach, if compensation is based on
the number of individuals recruited for program. [Sec.
4018] Seeks to terminate the existing nutrition
assistance agreement between USDA and the Mexican
government. [Sec. 4034]
Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act gives USDA
No comparable provision.
Mandates cooperation of “states, state agencies, local
SNAP (and other programs authorized by the act)
agencies, institutions, facilities such as data consortiums,
research and evaluation authorities but does not
and contractors” participating in Food and Nutrition
explicitly require cooperation of related institutions. [7
Act programs in USDA evaluations and studies. [Sec.
U.S.C. 2026]
4022] [See also Section 4021 (discussed above)]
Data Exchange Standardization. In recent years,
No comparable provision.
Adds these data exchange standards for SNAP to the
authorizing laws of the Temporary Assistance for
Food and Nutrition Act. [Sec. 4016]
Needy Families and Unemployment Insurance have
been amended to include data exchange standards.
[P.L. 112-96, Secs. 2105, 4003]
CRS-42
Table A-9. Programs in Lieu of SNAP
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Food Distribution Program on Indian
Requires USDA to study the feasibility of a
Extends FDPIR’s appropriations authority for
Reservations (FDPIR). Authorizing statute for FDPIR demonstration project for Tribes to administer
“Traditionally and Locally-grown Food Fund” through
contains discretionary authority for a “Traditionally and
nutrition assistance programs in lieu of states. Extends
FY2016. [Sec. 4004] Like Senate bill, requires USDA to
Local y-grown Food Fund.” These funds are for USDA
FDPIR’s appropriations authority for “Traditionally and
study the feasibility of a demonstration project for
purchase of traditional and local y-grown foods to be
Local y-grown Food Fund” through FY2018. Al ows
Tribes to administer nutrition assistance programs in
distributed to FDPIR households. Authority to
Tribes to substitute local, tribal foods for up to 5% of
lieu of states. [Sec. 4041]
appropriate $5 million annual y to this fund for FY2008-
their FDPIR entitlement commodities. [Sec. 4003][See
FY2013. [7 U.S.C. 2013(b)(6); 7 U.S.C. 612c note(a)-
also Section 4101]
(b), P.L. 93-86]]
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
No comparable provision.
Authorizes and provides $1 million in FY2013 and
Islands. While Guam and the Virgin Islands participate
FY2014 for a study to gauge CNMI’s capacity to
in SNAP, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the
administer a SNAP pilot. Authorizes and provides
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
administrative and technical assistance funds to support
(CNMI) do not. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and
pilot based on study results ($13.5 million in FY2015,
CNMI, instead receive a nutrition assistance block grant
$8.5 million in each of FY2016 and FY2017. [Sec. 4032]
in lieu of SNAP. [7 U.S.C. 2028; P.L. 96-597]
Puerto Rico. As part of Puerto Rico’s administration
No comparable provision.
Bars Puerto Rico from using the NAP federal funds to
of Nutrition Assistance Program block grant funds (see
distribute cash benefits. [Sec. 4025]
above), program recipients receive 25% of their benefits
as cash. Current law does not bar this flexibility.
CRS-43
Table A-10. Commodity Distribution Programs
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
For FY2009, mandates $250 million in TEFAP
Increases funding by $54 million over 10 years.
Increases funding by $209 million over 5 years and
commodity purchases. For FY2010-FY2013, mandates
Entitlement commodity funding increases are in the first $333 million over 10 years (according to CBO). Makes
$250 million is to be adjusted for food-price inflation
4 years of the budget window: +$22 million for FY2014, annual commodity entitlement funding available for a 2-
each year. This funding is available only in the year that
+$18 million for FY2015, +$10 mil ion for FY2016, +$4
year period. [Sec. 4027(a)] Requires USDA to devise a
it is provided. [7 U.S.C. 7511a(d), P.L. 112-240]
mil ion for FY2017. Inflation adjustment between years
plan for increasing the purchasing of and modifying the
remains in place. Makes annual commodity entitlement
labeling of Kosher and Halal foods for food banks. [Sec.
funding available for a 2-year period. [Sec. 4016]
4054]
Authorizes appropriations ($15 mil ion a year through
Extends discretionary authority through FY2018. [Sec.
Extends discretionary authority through FY2016. [Sec.
FY2013) for TEFAP “infrastructure grants.” Grants are
4016]
4027(b)]
to be made to emergency feeding organizations
(emphasizing those serving mostly rural communities)
for projects that improve storage, distribution, and
other capacity building. [7 U.S.C. 7511a(d), P.L. 112-
240]
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
Authority to purchase and distribute CSFP and FDPIR
Reauthorizes through FY2018. [Sec. 4101]
Reauthorizes through FY2016. [Sec. 4042]
foods expires at the end of FY2013. [7 U.S.C. 612c
note(a)-(b), P.L. 93-86, P.L. 112-240]
Income-eligible pregnant and post-partum women,
Only income-eligible elderly would be eligible for CSFP.
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4043]
infants, children, and the elderly (defined as 60 years or
Enrol ed women, infants, and children (who are
older) are eligible to participate in CSFP. [7 U.S.C.
disqualified by this new provision) would be al owed to
612c note(g), P.L. 93-86] (According to FY2011
participate until their certification period expires. [Sec.
USDA-FNS data, 97% of CSFP participants were
4102]
elderly.)
CRS-44
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Food Distribution for Child Nutrition Programs
Authority for USDA to enter into reprocessing
Reauthorizes through FY2018. [Sec. 4103] Explicitly
Identical to Senate bill, except reauthorizes through
agreements with private companies in order to process
authorizes USDA to contract with a processor and
FY2016. [Sec. 4044, 4045]
commodity foods for donation and distribution to
retain title to those foods during processing. [Sec.
nutrition programs expires at the end of FY2013. [7
4104]
U.S.C. 1431e(2)(A), P.L. 112-240] USDA, through a
pilot project, is currently contracting with processors
to provide processed foods to schools.
In addition to the minimum ($200 million-a-year)
Establishes that the $50 million fresh fruit and vegetable Establishes that the $50 million fresh fruit and vegetable
acquisitions required by the 2002 farm bill, USDA is
acquisition requirement remains in effect through
acquisition requirement remains in effect through
required to purchase additional fruits, vegetables, and
FY2018. [Sec. 4201]
FY2016. Includes a pilot grant program that would
tree nuts for use in domestic nutrition assistance
allow 5 states to use this fresh fruit and vegetable
programs using Section 32 funds. The added purchases
funding for their own local sourcing of produce.
required are: $190 million (FY2008), $193 million
[Sec. 4049]
(FY2009), $199 million (FY2010), $203 million
(FY2011), and $206 million (FY2012 and each year
thereafter). Of this money for additional purchases, at
least $50 million annually is required for USDA fresh
fruit and vegetable acquisitions for schools. (The
Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program (“DoD Fresh”) is one of the ways this is
accomplished). [7 U.S.C. 612c-4]
No comparable provision.
Creates a pilot project to purchase pulse crops (dry
No comparable provision.
beans, dry peas, lentils, and chick peas) and pulse crop
products for schools. This pilot is analogous to the
whole grain pilot and also includes an evaluation
component [42 U.S.C. 1755a; Sec. 14222(d) of P.L.
110-246]. Authorizes up to $10 million in discretionary
appropriations. [Sec. 4206]
CRS-45
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
Including Text of H.R. 3102)
Farm-to-School Programs. Section 9(d) of the
Requires USDA to conduct demonstration projects “to
Allows USDA to permit school food authorities with
Russel National School Lunch Act encourages schools
facilitate the purchase of unprocessed and minimally
low annual commodity entitlement values to substitute
to use available school lunch funds for local food
processed locally grown and locally raised agricultural
local foods entirely or partially instead of USDA
purchases and to incorporate a local preference [42
products” for schools that participate in the National
provided foods. Gives USDA discretion to establish
U.S.C. 1758(d)]. Schools redeem National School
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. [Sec.
cost-neutral farm-to-school demonstration projects.
Lunch Program commodity entitlement food assistance
4208]
[Sec. 4050] (See also [Sec. 4049] discussed above)
based on USDA’s purchases and offerings [42 U.S.C.
1754]. P.L. 111-296 authorized and provided $4 million
for farm-to-school projects [42 U.S.C. 1769(g)].
Table A-11. Other Farm Bill Nutrition Program Proposals
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
including text of H.R. 3102)
Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
Authorizes and provides $20.6 million annually for the
Reauthorizes and continues to provide CCC mandatory Provides CCC mandatory funding of $20.6 million
Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program through
funding of $20.6 million annually through FY2018. [Sec.
annual y through FY2016. Expands eligibility from “low-
FY2012. [7 U.S.C. 612c-4(b)]
4202]
income seniors” to “low-income seniors and low-
income families who are determined to be at nutritional
risk.” Requires that at least 50% of the funds be
reserved for seniors. Also adds an authorization to
appropriate “such sums as are necessary” to the
mandatory funding of $20.6 million per year. [Sec.
4046]
CRS-46
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
including text of H.R. 3102)
Community Food Projects
Permanently authorizes a grant program for eligible
Amends the definition of Community Food Project, to
Does not make any changes to organizations and
nonprofit organizations, in order to improve
include many of the entities and areas of expertise that
purposes eligible for funds. Increases funding for
community access to food. Grants require 50% in
may have been eligible for Hunger-free Community
community food projects to a total of $15 million
matching funds. Provides $5 million annually in
Grants [see Section 4204 below]. Deletes Healthy
annual y and carves out $5 million of these funds for
mandatory funding for this purpose. 2008 farm bill
Urban Food Enterprise Development Center and
projects that would incentivize low-income households’
added an authority and $1 million in mandatory funding
Innovative Programs for Addressing Common
fruit and vegetable purchases. [Sec. 4026]
for FY2009-2011 for a Healthy Urban Food Enterprise
Community Problems provisions. Adds the requirement
Development Center. 2002 farm bill added a $200,000
that USDA report to Congress on these Community
set-aside for Innovative Programs for Addressing
Food Project grants by September 30, 2014. Funding
Common Community Problems. [7 U.S.C. 2034]
remains at $5 million in annual mandatory funds. [Sec.
4015]
Other Nutrition and Food Security Programs
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (program that
No comparable provision.
Changes the name of the program to “Fruit and
provides fruit and vegetable snacks to school children
Vegetable Program.” Would allow purchase and
throughout the day) purchases are limited to fresh
provision of frozen, canned, dried fruits and vegetables.
fruits and vegetables. [42 U.S.C. 1769a]
[Sec. 4048]
Hunger-free Community Grants. Authorized to be Extends and amends the hunger-free community grants
No comparable provision.
appropriated such sums as are necessary through
to “incentive grants” for projects that incentivize SNAP
FY2012 for matching grants (1) to food program service participants to buy fruits and vegetables. Limits federal
providers and nonprofits for col aborative efforts to
cost share to 50%. Provides $100 million in mandatory
assess community hunger problems and to achieve
funding over 5 years. Discretionary authority of $5
“hunger-free communities” and (2) to emergency
million per year. [Sec. 4204]
feeding organizations for infrastructure development.
Any available funding is to be divided equally between
these 2 grant initiatives, and the federal matching
percentage is limited to 80%. [P.L. 110-246, Sec.
4405] The 2008 farm bill also authorized pilot projects
designed to improve the health status of participants,
including a mandatory provision of $20 million for
"point of purchase incentive" projects. (USDA has since
implemented the Healthy Incentives Pilot in Hampden
County, Massachusetts) [7 U.S.C. 2026(k)]
CRS-47
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
including text of H.R. 3102)
2002 farm bill authorized and 2008 farm bill extended
Repeals this section. [Sec. 4203]
Identical to the Senate bill. [Sec. 4047]
discretionary authority for a “Nutrition Information
Awareness Pilot Program.” [7 U.S.C. 1755a]
Currently, the Administration administers a Healthy
Authorizes up to $125 million to be appropriated for a
Identical to Senate bil [Sec. 4052].
Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) by requesting
“Healthy Food Financing Initiative” to remain available
appropriations for several existing statutory authorities
until expended. USDA is authorized to approve a
in order to provide grants and tax credits to support
community development financial institution as
development of food retailers in underserved
“national fund manager” that would administer these
communities. Congress provided no funding for USDA
funds by supporting food retail projects that would
for this initiative, but did provide $22 million for the
“expand or preserve access to staple foods” (as defined
U.S. Department of the Treasury to administer the
within this section) and accept SNAP benefits. [Sec.
New Market Tax Credits for retail food outlets. [P.L.
4205]
112-55]
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are jointly
Requires that the Guidelines include specifications for
No comparable provision.
published by USDA and the Department of Health and
pregnant women and children under the age of 2 years,
Human Services. The Guidelines provide advice for
by no later than the 2020 edition. [Sec. 4207]
people 2 years and older about how good dietary habits
can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic
diseases. Every five years, the two departments charter
a committee to review the peer-reviewed, published
science on diet and health and develop a report of its
recommendations for the next edition of the
Guidelines. [7 U.S.C. 5341(a)]
In recent years, USDA has promulgated regulations for
No comparable provision.
Requires USDA to conduct “a review of the economic
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
and public health benefits of white potatoes on low-
Women, Infants and Children (WIC), National School
income families who are determined to be at nutrition
Lunch Program (NSLP), and School Breakfast Program
risk.” [Sec. 4051]
(SBP) that affect consumption of white potatoes by
program participants. Regulations for NSLP and SBP
implement the most recent child nutrition
reauthorization (P.L. 111-296). [42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(3);
7 C.F.R. parts 210, 225, 246]
CRS-48
House-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (H.R. 2642,
Current Law/Policy
Senate-Passed 2013 Farm Bill (S. 954)
including text of H.R. 3102)
No comparable provision in current law. In 1994,
Requires USDA to establish a multiagency task force to
No comparable provision.
USDA convened a tri-agency “Commodity
provide guidance to the commodity distribution
Improvement Council” to discuss the balance of
programs. Task force must be composed of at least 4
nutrition content of products with support for
members, representing FNS’s Food Distribution
domestic agriculture. The Council was composed of the Division, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Farm
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Service Agency (FSA), and Food Safety and Inspection
Services; Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Service (FSIS). Task force is to report to Congress not
Agriculture Services; and, the Assistant Secretary for
later than one year after convening. The section does
Marketing and Regulatory Programs. The council
not include appropriations language. [Sec. 4209]
published a report in 1995.
No comparable provision.
Creates a Food and Agriculture Service Learning
No comparable provision.
Program with statutory purposes that include:
increasing capacity for food, garden, and nutrition
education; complementing the work of the federal
farm-to-school grants; coordinating with the related
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
work. USDA is to evaluate the program regularly and
report the results to congressional committees of
jurisdiction. $25 million is authorized to be
appropriated and is to remain available until expended.
20% of funds set aside for NIFA for particular purposes.
Funding is to “supplement not supplant” current efforts.
[Sec. 4210]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Service of traditional foods in public facilities. Requires
USDA to allow the donation and provision of
traditional tribal foods, if the food service provider
meets certain conditions. [Sec. 4035]
No comparable provision.
No comparable provision.
Review of sole-source contracts. Requires USDA to
study and issue a report to Congress on the effect of
“sole-source contracts” in the nutrition programs.
[Sec. 4053]
CRS-49
Reauthorization of SNAP in the 113th Congress
Author Contact Information
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Congressional Research Service
50