Food Stamps and Nutrition Programs in the 2002 Farm Bill







Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Among the titles dealing with farm-support and other agriculture-related issues, Title IV of the
2002 farm bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act; P.L. 107-171) reauthorized
appropriations for and substantially revised the Food Stamp program. It also included provisions
affecting several other domestic food aid programs/activities operated under the aegis of the
Department of Agriculture that have typically been included in farm bills: nutrition assistance
block grants to Puerto Rico and American Samoa, the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations (FDPIR), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), Community Food Projects, and rules governing foods used
in domestic feeding programs such as the School Lunch program. Beyond this traditional array of
food assistance programs, the 2002 bill encompassed provisions for a new Seniors Farmers’
Market program, a new Fruit and Vegetables pilot program, a set-aside to purchase fresh fruit and
vegetables for schools, a Congressional Hunger Fellows program, the purchase of locally
produced food, and changed eligibility rules for free and reduced-price school meals and the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program).
As a historical source and in the expectation that the issues raised in and the results of actions
taken during consideration of the 2002 farm bill may come up again in the next scheduled farm
bill (2007), this report presents in some detail what happened with regard to nutrition programs in

2002.


The nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill (Title IV): substantially expanded food stamp eligibility
for legally resident noncitizens (the single largest change), liberalized food stamp benefits and
eligibility rules, provided new options for states to vary from regular Food Stamp program rules,
greatly changed the system for penalizing states with high rates of erroneous benefit and
eligibility determinations, increased funding for TEFAP and CSFP, and, as noted above,
introduced several new programs. It was estimated to cost $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion over
FY2002-FY2007. However, a number of issues were raised but not addressed: Administration
requests to loosen the food stamp asset test as it relates to vehicles and to limit state options to
make public assistance recipients automatically eligible for food stamps, a provision to increase
benefits for those with very high shelter costs, recommendations to open up work requirements
for able-bodied adults without dependents, a change to allow states to conform their method of
reviewing households’ food stamp eligibility to the method used for other public assistance
programs, and a proposal to allow food stamps to be used for dietary supplements.
Overall, the basic themes of the nutrition title of the 2002 farm bill were expanded eligibility for
legal noncitizens, more leeway for states to establish their own version of food stamp rules, and
support for expanded availability of fresh fruit and vegetables.
This report will not be updated.






Backgr ound ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Nutrition Programs and Activities Covered by the Farm Bill...................................................1
Overview of Nutrition Programs in the 2002 Farm Bill..................................................................2
Nutrition Programs in the Funding Context of the Farm Bill...................................................3
Nutrition Program Issues in the Farm Bill................................................................................3
Food Stamps........................................................................................................................3
T EFAP................................................................................................................................. 4
The CSFP............................................................................................................................5
Fruit and Vegetable Initiatives............................................................................................5
Major House-Senate Differences in the Farm Bill....................................................................5
Nutrition Program Costs in the Farm Bill.................................................................................5
Cost Estimates.....................................................................................................................6
Experience Since the 2002 Farm Bill.................................................................................6
Outline of the Enacted Nutrition Program Provisions...............................................................6
Reauthor i zation ................................................................................................................... 6
Food Stamp Eligibility for Noncitizens..............................................................................6
Increased Food Stamp Benefits and Liberalized Food Stamp Financial Eligibility
Rules .......................................................................................................................... ...... 7
Significant New State Options in Administering the Food Stamp Program.......................7
Changes to Quality-Control-Based Penalties and Bonus Payments...................................8
Changes to Employment and Training Provisions..............................................................8
Puerto Rico and American Samoa......................................................................................8
Program Access Grants.......................................................................................................8
T EFAP................................................................................................................................. 8
CSFP ........................................................................................................................... ........ 8
School Meal and WIC Eligibility........................................................................................9
Community Food Projects..................................................................................................9
Purchase of Locally Produced Foods..................................................................................9
Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program......................................................................9
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program......................................................................................9
Congressional Hunger Fellows...........................................................................................9
Outline of Significant Issues Not Addressed in the Farm Bill..................................................9
Administration Proposals..................................................................................................10
Shelter Costs.....................................................................................................................10
Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents.........................................................................10
Eligibility Reviews............................................................................................................10
Dietary Supplements.........................................................................................................10
Table 1. Title IV (Nutrition) Provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill (Including Cost Estimates)..........11





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






Federal nutrition program policies, as well as farm support and other agriculture-related
programs, are governed by a variety of separate laws. Although these laws may be and often are
considered and amended in free-standing legislation, many of them, including those setting rules
for food stamps and several other nutrition programs, are evaluated periodically, revised, and
renewed through an omnibus, multi-year farm bill. The most recent farm bill, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-171), the first since 1996, reauthorized
appropriations for and substantially revised the Food Stamp program and a number of other
domestic food aid programs. Much of the Agriculture Department’s mandatory spending is and
was for food stamps and other programs in its nutrition title (Title IV). In 2007, Congress is
scheduled to take up the next farm bill because many of the provisions and authorizations for
appropriations expire at the end of FY2007. Proposed changes affecting food stamps and other
nutrition programs covered by the farm bill will likely, as in 2002, play a major role in any
congressional consideration.
As a historical source and in the expectation that some of the same nutrition program issues and
provisions of law addressed in 2002 will again come up—and that the effects of the changes
made in 2002 will be explored in designing any 2007 farm bill—this report lays out in some 1
detail what happened in 2002.
Farm bills typically cover the following nutrition/domestic food assistance programs and
activities, all within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate 2
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry:
• the Food Stamp program, operated under the Food Stamp Act;
• inflation-indexed nutrition assistance block grant programs, included in the Food
Stamp Act, for Puerto Rico and American Samoa—that are operated in lieu of the 3
regular Food Stamp program;
• the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)—offered, under
the Food Stamp Act, in lieu of the regular Food Stamp program to those tribal
organizations that choose it;
• The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), governed by provisions of
the Food Stamp Act and the Emergency Food Assistance Act;

1 Another report—CRS Report RL31195, The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status, by Geoffrey S. Becker and Jasper
Womachprovides abbreviated coverage of the entire 2002 law.
2 Other domestic nutrition programs, like the School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (the WIC program), and Older Americans Act nutrition programs
are reauthorized separately.
3 It is unclear whether farm bills can cover a similar nutrition assistance block grant for the Northern Mariana Islands.
This grant is authorized by a 1980 law (P.L. 96-597), which, as part of a larger act dealing with the relationship
between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States, allowed the Agriculture Department to extend programs it
operates to the Northern Mariana Islands. No farm bill since 1980 has dealt with this grant program. The authority
granted in the 1980 act was implemented in July 1982.





• the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), authorized under Sections
4 and 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 and Section
1114(a)(2) of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (i.e., the 1973 and 1981 farm
bills);
• Community Food Projects, established under the Food Stamp Act; and
• rules governing the provision of federally acquired food commodities to domestic
feeding programs (e.g., school meal programs).
In addition, the 2002 farm bill included new programs and provisions in areas not included in past
farm bills:
• It put into law a Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program.
• It established a Fruit and Vegetable pilot program for schools and authorized a
program to increase domestic consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables.
• It set aside funding to be used to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables for schools.
• It authorized Congressional Hunger Fellowships.4
• It included provisions to encourage schools to purchase locally produced foods.
• It changed eligibility rules affecting military families applying for free or
reduced-price school meals and benefits under the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program).
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry exercises jurisdiction over all the
programs/activities noted above. On the other hand, the House Committee on Agriculture has
more limited jurisdiction. It shares jurisdiction over provisions affecting school meal programs
(the provision of commodities) with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and
has no jurisdiction over the WIC program (which is covered by the Education and the Workforce
Committee). As a result, farm bills covering shared jurisdictional areas have involved
participation by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.


The 2002 farm bill—the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (P.L. 107-171;
H.Rept. 107-424)—was enacted on May 13, 2002. Earlier, the House approved its version (H.R.

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


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


and the House and Senate agreed to the conference report on the renamed Farm Security and 5
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (H.Rept. 107-424) on May 2, 2002, and May 8, 2002 respectively.
With the exception of an expansion of the Fruit and Vegetable pilot project established by the

4 These fellowships were already funded under annual Agriculture Department appropriations acts.
5 A full chronology is presented in Appendix B of CRS Report RL31195, The 2002 Farm Bill: Overview and Status, by
Geoffrey S. Becker and Jasper Womach.





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

2002 farm bill have been made since.


At each stage, major provisions affecting food stamps and other nutrition programs were
included. This contrasted with the previous farm bill of 1996. In 1996, virtually all of the changes
in law affecting food stamps (the largest of the food assistance programs) and other nutrition
programs were made in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). The farm bill of that year
included only appropriations authority extensions and minor revisions affecting nutrition
programs.
Inclusion of food stamps and other nutrition programs in farm bills has historically been viewed
as a way of garnering support for farm legislation from non-farm sectors. However, the balance of
any new spending (or spending cuts) between domestic food assistance provisions and other parts
of each farm bill has been a subject of negotiation and contention. In the case of the 2002 bill, this
was particularly true.
In May 2001, Congress agreed to a budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 83) that allowed for substantial
added funding for programs covered by the upcoming farm bill. The availability of this “new”
money and how it would be divided up among the various farm bill components dominated much
of the farm bill debate that began in earnest in July 2001. For example, the Senate version of the
farm bill provided more new funding for nutrition programs than the House bill (see the last
portion of the table at the conclusion of this report). And the fact that the ability to tap the new
funding would end in the spring of 2002, pushed the Agriculture Committees to take up the farm
bill earlier than would normally be the case. In the end, the nutrition title of the enacted farm bill
claimed between 5% and 6% of the total estimated new spending in the enacted bill, depending
on which Congressional Budget Office projection was used (also see later discussion of nutrition
program spending under the farm bill).
In addition to the debate over how much new spending would go into nutrition programs,
significant substantive debate arose with regard to food stamps, TEFAP, the CSFP, and support
for initiatives to increase the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in meal programs like the
School Lunch program.
Three developments were basic to the farm bill food stamp debate: the relatively low level of
program participation at the time; frustration with federal food stamp eligibility, benefit, and
administrative policies; and the concerns of some over ineligibility of many legally resident
noncitizens (as provided for in the 1996 welfare reform law).
Although food stamp enrollment was increasing, in 2001-2002 it was well below its peak in the
spring of 1994 and only a bit over 10% higher than the all-time low. More than half of the decline
over the 5 years since the last major food stamp amendments was estimated to have come from a
sharp drop in the rate at which those who were eligible actually participated.





State officials, program advocates, and supporters of the 1996 welfare reform law (with its goal of
moving families from welfare to work), maintained that various aspects of food stamp eligibility,
benefit, and administrative rules thwarted participation and effective administration—denying
needed support to working poor families and others in need, and interfering with efforts to
coordinate assistance. They pointed to overly complex policies that burden administrators and
applicants/recipients, food stamp rules that differ too much from those applied by states in other
welfare programs, and inadequate benefits not worth the “hassle” of applying and maintaining
eligibility. Finally, they contended that the program’s “quality control” system for measuring state
performance penalized too many states too harshly for erroneous benefit/eligibility
determinations—thereby pressuring states to “over-administer” the program and limiting
participation.
Food stamp advocates, states, and welfare reform supporters all expressed their dissatisfaction
with this state of affairs, but there was not a single, unified reform agenda, and most alternatives
for change imposed significant new costs. States called for simplified federal food stamp rules,
much greater state control over policies, lifting federal limits on work and training activities, and
revamped and more standardized benefit and eligibility rules to help administrators and
applicants/recipients. They also wanted major revision of the quality control system and a more
open federal policy as to waiving food stamp rules. Program advocates emphasized the
inadequacy of benefits and the need to grant eligibility to legally resident noncitizens. Although
they supported reform of the quality control system and selective changes to make
eligibility/benefit determinations easier for applicants/recipients, they resisted vesting too much
decision-making with states and tampering with what they saw as a nationally uniform food
stamp “safety net.” Welfare reform supporters also agreed with quality control reforms, but
stressed the need to ensure that the food stamp program fulfills a major role in supporting the
working poor as its first priority.
Within cost constraints, the farm bill’s food stamp provisions responded to many of these
criticisms, by easing/lifting administrative requirements, allowing states to achieve greater
conformity between rules used by food stamps and other welfare programs, reforming the food
stamp quality control system, increasing benefits, and opening up eligibility for noncitizens.
To a large extent, the Administration’s food stamp reform package also recognized the concerns
voiced by states, advocates, and welfare reformers. It included: (1) a modest benefit increase for
larger households (similar to the final law); (2) standardizing or giving states control over several
important federal rules; (3) liberalizing eligibility rules by excluding the value of one vehicle per
adult; (4) making eligible all low-income noncitizens who have resided in the U.S. legally for 5
years (similar to the final farm bill); (5) restructuring and reducing spending for employment and
training programs for food stamp recipients (similar to the final bill); (6) ending automatic
eligibility for some welfare beneficiaries; and (7) significantly reforming the food stamp quality
control system to penalize fewer states and give bonuses to states performing well (although in a
different way than the final farm bill). Advocates and state representatives welcomed the
Administration’s proposals, with reservations about the extent of the quality control reforms and
restrictions on food stamp eligibility for welfare recipients.
While federal food donations under TEFAP had increased in recent years and private-sector
donations to emergency feeding organizations were on the rise, many contended that federal help
was not keeping pace with growing demand. Perhaps more important, they argued that the costs





of storing and distributing food given out by state/local providers, (whether privately or federally
donated) were seriously underfunded. Both these criticisms were addressed in the final farm bill.
CSFP operators were concerned over limits on how much of the program’s funding could be used
for administrative and related costs. The enacted farm bill increased money for these costs.
Both agriculture and nutrition program advocates argued for specific initiatives to expand the
availability of fresh fruit and vegetables. The farm bill took tentative steps to do this (e.g., a pilot
project for schools, which was later expanded by the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act, P.L. 108-265).
In addition to disagreement over how much new spending to allocate to the nutrition title of the
farm bill, the House and Senate differed over substantive issues with regard to the Food Stamp
program. The House bill included significant structural changes intended to increase benefits to
families with children and ease burdens on administrators and applicants/recipients, all of which
were largely included in the final bill. The Senate bill included amendments that—much like the
House bill—raised benefits to larger households, allowed states to conform some rules to those
for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and Medicaid and grant
transitional food stamps to those leaving the TANF program, eased quality control penalties, and
instituted new bonus payments to states for high performance. However, it went well beyond the
House measure, primarily by:
• Expanding eligibility for noncitizens (more extensively than proposed by the
Admi nistra ti on);
• Setting up state options to: establish when eligibility will be redetermined, reduce
recipient reporting requirements, simplify benefit calculations, and conform asset
eligibility rules with TANF and Medicaid standards;
• Increasing benefits for recipients with very high shelter costs;
• Liberalizing and simplifying work requirements for able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWDs);
• Ending limits on spending of work/training funds and changing the federal share
of this spending; and,
• Permitting use of food stamp benefits to buy dietary supplements.
During the consideration of the 2002 farm bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued
two cost estimates for the farm bill’s nutrition title—one based on its April 2001 spending
“baseline” and another based on its March 2002 “baseline.” However, Congressional decision-
makers on the farm bill’s provisions used only the first (April 2001) version, although the





estimate based on the second (March 2002) version was noticeably higher. Details of the varying
cost estimates for the nutrition title are included at the end of this report’s table laying out specific
provisions of the nutrition title (Title IV).
Under the April 2001 baseline estimate, the total new cost of the Title IV nutrition provisions—
over the 6 years until the next scheduled farm bill—was $2.66 billion (new budget authority) and
$3.17 billion (outlays). Food stamp revisions represented 82% of new budget authority and 85%
of new outlays. On the other hand, the March 2002 baseline estimate envisioned new 6-year costs
brought on by Title IV at $2.79 billion (new budget authority) and $3.18 billion (outlays), with
food stamps still consuming the lion’s share.
No direct measure of the actual cost of the 2002 farm bill’s nutrition title (as opposed to costs
incurred due to other variables like unforeseen participation changes related to economic
conditions or increased participation rates) is available. However, through FY2005, total actual
costs—including “baseline” spending and new spending caused by the farm bill—for the
domestic food assistance programs covered by Title IV were 12% higher than projected by the
March 2002 baseline (including new spending). If current CBO estimates for FY2006 and
FY2007 are added in and compared to the March 2002 estimates for those years, the gap widens
to 20%.
The nutrition title of the final 2002 farm bill made substantial changes to almost every covered
domestic food assistance program, although not every proposal on the table was addressed. It also
included some new initiatives. The specific provisions of the enacted law and the House and
Senate versions are laid out in the table following this outline (in the order of their appearance in
the bill), and the specific items discussed are noted by item number, as delineated in the table.
(Discussed in Table 1—items A23, B1 and B2, and D2.) Title IV reauthorized all expiring
authorizations of appropriations and other authorities through FY2007.
(Discussed in Table 1—item A26.) Most important, Title IV expanded eligibility for legally
resident noncitizens (compared to the limits imposed by the 1996 welfare reform law) by making
eligible (1) legal permanent residents under age 18, regardless of their date of entry to the United
States or length of residence, (2) legal permanent residents receiving federal disability benefits, 6
without regard to their date of entry or length of residence, and (3) individuals who have resided

6 The effect of this change for the disabled is substantially mitigated by the fact that the primary federal disability
payment to those likely to be financially eligible for food stamps is made under the Supplemental Security Income
(continued...)





in the United States legally for a period of 5 years (e.g., as legal permanent residents,
refugees/asylees, but not as temporary residents). These changes accounted for the majority of the
costs incurred under the provisions of Title IV.
(Discussed in Table 1—items A3 and A7(a).) Title IV increased food stamp benefits, particularly
for larger households, by increasing and inflation-indexing the amount of income that is
disregarded when calculating their benefit (the “standard deduction”) and varying it by household 7
size. Title IV also increased the food stamp eligibility limit on liquid assets held by eligible 8
households with disabled members from the standard $2,000 to $3,000.
Five provisions of Title IV provided states with new options to vary from regular food stamp
rules.
• Disregarded Income. (Discussed in Table 1—item A2.) Title IV allowed states,
when determining food stamp eligibility and benefits, to disregard (exclude) any
type of income the state does not consider under its Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance program or its Medicaid program.
• Tracking Household Expenses. (Discussed in Table 1—item A6.) Title IV
permitted states to disregard changes in household expenses (such as shelter
costs) until the household’s next eligibility redetermination. Household expenses
affect benefits by lowering (or raising) the amount of income counted in
calculating benefits.
• Disregarded Assets. (Discussed in Table 1—item A7(b).) Title IV allowed states,
when determining food stamp eligibility, to disregard (exclude) liquid assets that
they do not consider under their TANF or Medicaid programs.
• Reporting Changed Household Circumstances. (Discussed in Table 1—item
A9.) With some exceptions, Title IV gave states the option to require households
to report changes in their circumstances as infrequently as every 6 months.
• Transitional Benefits. (Discussed in Table 1—item A16.) Title IV allowed states
to give up to 5 months’ “transitional” food stamp benefits to those leaving the
TANF program. The transitional amount would effectively be the food stamp
benefit received prior to leaving the TANF program.

(...continued)
program, which has stricter noncitizen eligibility rules than food stamps.
7 This change is phased in and, as of FY2007, it is not fully in place.
8 Households with elderly members already were eligible for the higher limit under existing law.





(Discussed in Table 1—item A18.) The Food Stamp program’s quality control (QC) system
measures the degree to which states erroneously determine eligibility and benefits. Based on the
extent to which they exceed certain thresholds, they may be assessed financial penalties. On the
other hand, if they fall below certain thresholds, they may receive “bonus” payments.
Title IV substantially changed the food stamp QC system of penalties and bonus payments. It
raised the threshold above which states are assessed penalties and effectively penalized only those
states with persistently (over 3 years) high rates of erroneous determinations. It also changed the
system of bonus payments to a requirement for performance bonuses totaling $48 million a year
to states meeting federal standards for high/most-improved performance.
(Discussed in Table 1—item A20.) In addition to continuing the requirements for unmatched
federal funding for employment and training programs for food stamp recipients (at $90 million a
year) and unlimited state-match (50%) funding, Title IV provided up to $20 million a year in
unmatched federal funding for employment/training services to able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWDs), eliminated a state “maintenance of effort” requirement, and eliminated
limits on funding for participant support costs (e.g., child care).
(Discussed in Table 1—item A24.) Title IV consolidated the nutrition assistance block grants for
Puerto Rico and American Samoa and increased the new consolidated grant to an amount slightly
above what it would have been under regular inflation indexing. Inflation indexing for future
years was retained, and Puerto Rico’s share of the new grant was set at 99.6%.
(Discussed in Table 1—item A19.) In a new initiative, Title IV required the Agriculture
Department to spend up to $5 million a year on grants to improve program access.
(Discussed in Table 1—item B1.) Title IV increased required funding for TEFAP commodities
from $100 million to $140 million a year and raised the authorized funding level for TEFAP
administration/distribution costs from $50 million to $60 million a year.
(Discussed in Table 1—item B2.) Title IV increased and indexed funding for CSFP
administrative costs.





(Discussed in Table 1—item C2.) Title IV required schools to disregard housing allowances paid
to military personnel living in “privatized housing” when determining eligibility for free and
reduced-price school meals. It also allowed states the option to implement this same disregard in
the WIC program.
(Discussed in Table 1—item D2.) Title IV increased the required funding for community food
projects from $2.5 million to $5 million a year.
(Discussed in Table 1—item D5.) Title IV authorized a program to encourage the purchase of
locally produced foods and required that schools in Puerto Rico purchase food produced in the
Commonwealth to the extent practicable (as was already the case for Hawaii).
(Discussed in Table 1—item D6). Title IV placed into law provisions, authorizing a pre-existing
Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition program and provided mandatory funding of $15 million a
year.
(Discussed in Table 1—item D7.) Title IV established a pilot program making free fruit and
vegetables available in schools. It was provided funding of $6 million for the 2002-2003 school
year. Later law, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265)
extended and expanded this project. In a related action, a separate part of the farm bill (Section
10603) provided $50 million a year in fresh fruit and vegetable purchases (through the
Department of Defense procurement system) for schools and institutions participating in child
nutrition programs.
(Discussed in Table 1—item D8.) Authorized a Congressional Hunger Fellows program (to be
funded from the proceeds of a trust fund and gifts). However, this program was, and continues to
be, funded through annual Agriculture Department appropriations at the level of $2.5 million a
year.
Several notable proposals for changes in the Food Stamp program were not covered in the
enacted 2002 farm bill.





Title IV did not include the Administration’s proposal to liberalize eligibility rules by excluding
the value of one vehicle per adult in judging households’ assets; however, it did include
provisions that have the effect of allowing states to do so if it conforms with the way they treat
vehicles in their TANF program. It also did not address the Administration’s proposal to limit the
granting of automatic (categorical) food stamp eligibility to recipients of TANF benefits.
(Discussed in Table 1—item A4.) Title IV did not have a provision (suggested in the Senate bill)
to raise benefits for those with very high shelter costs.
(Discussed in Table 1—item A10.) Title IV did not (as recommended in the Senate bill) ease
work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs).
(Discussed in Table 1—item A15.) Title IV did not include a change (put forth in the Senate bill)
to allow states to conform their method of reviewing households’ food stamp eligibility to the
method used for other public assistance programs.
(Discussed in Table 1—item A25.) Title IV did not encompass a proposal (in the Senate bill) to
permit the use of food stamp benefits to purchase dietary supplements providing vitamins or
minerals.
It is likely that several of the issues noted above that were not taken up in the 2002 farm bill will
reappear as proposals for the 2007 farm bill: the recommendation to restrict automatic
(categorical) eligibility to public assistance (particularly TANF) recipients, increasing benefits for
those with very high shelter costs, loosening rules for ABAWDs, and allowing the use of food
stamps for dietary supplements. In addition, two areas in which the 2002 farm bill took action
will probably come under scrutiny: the trend in quality control “error rates” since the
liberalization of the state penalty system in 2002 and the degree to which states have taken up the
new options they were given in 2002.




Table 1. Title IV (Nutrition) Provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill (Including Cost Estimates)
LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
A. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
A1. Child support

Child support payments are deducted from No provisions. Allowed states to exclude child support Adopted the Senate provisions allowing
the paying household’s income in payments from income, or continue to states to exclude or deduct child
determining its benefits (and, in some cases, deduct them. support payments.
its eligibility)—but only after all income has
been counted. [Note: Deducting child Lifted some administrative and reporting Adopted the Senate provisions requiring
support payments (rather than excluding requirements on program operators and simplified procedures that allow states
them from income before calculating any recipients by (1) requiring the Secretary to use information from state child
deductions) increases benefits. Excluding to establish simplified procedures for support enforcement agencies.
them raises benefits and increases the determining the amount of child support
iki/CRS-RL33690likelihood of the paying household being judged eligible based on its total counted payments that allow states to use information from their child support No provisions as to freezing the amount of any child support exclusion/
g/wincome.] enforcement agencies and (2) permitting deduction.
s.or states to freeze the amount of any child
leakThe Secretary may prescribe the methods to support exclusion/deduction until a
be used to determine the amount of the household’s eligibility is next
://wikideduction for child support payments. redetermined.
http [Section 5(e)(4) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 411] [Section 4101]
A2. Definition of income

When determining eligibility and benefits, a Allowed states to conform food stamp Same as the House measure, with minor Adopted the Senate provisions adding
household’s income excludes: (1) noncash income exclusions with those of other and technical differences. new income exclusions.
income, (2) loans, (3) most payments to assistance programs, and thereby lifted
vendors, education aid, expense some administrative and reporting
reimbursements and money received on requirements on program operators and
behalf of third parties, (4) non-recurring applicants/recipients, by adding new Added new income exclusions (all at state
lump-sum payments, (5) the cost of income exclusions: option):
producing self-employment income, (6)
federal energy assistance benefits, (7) certain (1) at state option, education assistance (1) education assistance that must be
payments related to supporting work efforts, that must be excluded under its Medicaid excluded under state Medicaid programs;
and (8) income excluded by other federal program; (2) “state complementary assistance
laws. (2) “state complementary assistance program” payments excluded under state
program” payments excluded under state Medicaid programs; and




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
Medicaid programs; and (3) any types of income a state does not
(3) at state option, any income a state consider when judging eligibility for (or
does not consider when judging eligibility the amount of) cash assistance under its
for cash assistance under its Temporary TANF program, or when judging
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) eligibility for its Medicaid program.
program or its Medicaid program.

Under the third new exclusionary rule, Under the third new exclusionary rule,
certain income could not be excluded: certain income could not be excluded:
earnings, various Social Security Act wages or salaries, various Social Security
payments, or other types of income the Act payments, regular payments from a
Secretary judges essential to equitable government source (e.g., unemployment
eligibility determinations. benefits), workers’ compensation, child
support payments, or other types of
income the Secretary judges essential to
equitable eligibility determinations.
iki/CRS-RL33690
g/w[Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 401] [Section 412] [Section 4102]
s.orA3. Standard deductions
leak
When determining food stamp benefits and Increased standard deduction amounts. Increased standard deduction amounts. Increased standard deduction amounts.
://wikieligibility, all households are allowed a Established multiple standard deductions Established multiple standard deductions Established multiple standard deductions
http“standard deduction” (not varied by household size) from counted income. In (varying by household size) equal to 9.7% of the federal poverty income guideline (varying by household size) equal to an increasing percentage of the inflation-(varying by household size) equal to 8.31% of the inflation-indexed poverty
2002, it was $134 a month for the 48 amounts used for income eligibility indexed poverty guideline amounts. For guideline amounts. Required that the
contiguous states and the District of determinations in FY2002. The new FY2002-FY2004, the new standard new standard deductions not be less
Columbia, $229 for Alaska, $189 for Hawaii, standard deductions would not increase deductions would equal 8% of each than the current amount for each
$269 for Guam, and $118 for the Virgin over time. Required that the new year’s poverty guideline amounts. This jurisdiction or greater than 8.31% of the
Islands. standard deductions not be less than the percentage would rise, in stages, to 10% poverty amount for 6-person
current amount for each jurisdiction or for FY2011 and following years. Required households.
greater than 9.7% of the FY2002 poverty that the new standard deductions not be
guideline amount for 6-person less than the current amount for each
households. jurisdiction or greater than the applicable
percentage (see above) of the poverty
amount for 6-person households.

[Note: Standard (and other) deductions [Note: Poverty guideline amounts vary [Note: The House measure initially [Note: The new law effectively took the
increase benefits by reducing the amount of by household size and are inflation-provided higher deduction levels. But the House proposal for a fixed percentage
income counted when calculating them. indexed annually. In both the House and Senate bill, over time, would bring of the poverty amounts (though
They also may affect eligibility because “net” Senate measures, the new standard somewhat higher deductions because it reduced from the House percentage)




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
household income (after deductions) is a deductions would vary by household size was keyed to each year’s inflation-and coupled it with the Senate proposal
factor in some income eligibility decisions and, thus, would be somewhat higher indexed poverty guideline amount (not to allow for inflation indexing based on
(e.g., for households with elderly or disabled than prior law.] fixed at the FY2002 level).] changes in the poverty guidelines.]
members).]

[Section 5(e)(1) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 402] [Section 171(c)] [Section 4103]
A4. Shelter costs

a. Households are entitled to an “excess a. No provisions. a. Raised benefits for those with very a. No provisions affecting the cap on
shelter expense deduction” for a portion of high shelter costs in relation to their excess shelter expense deductions.
their shelter expenses (if they are very high income. Increased the cap on the amount Prior law remains in effect.
in relation to their income). As with the that may be claimed as an excess shelter
standard deduction (see above), this expense deduction. For FY2003, the cap
deduction reduces the amount of income would rise to $390 a month for the 48
counted when calculating households’ states and the District of Columbia (with
iki/CRS-RL33690benefits (thereby increasing them) and can affect some eligibility determinations. commensurate increases for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands).
g/w For FY2004-FY2009, each amount would
s.orThe amount that may be claimed as an be adjusted annually for inflation.
leakexcess shelter expense deduction is Effective with FY2010, all caps would be
“capped” for households without an eliminated.
://wikielderly/disabled member. The cap is indexed
httpfor inflation, and, for FY2002, it was $354 a month for the 48 contiguous states and the
District of Columbia, $566 for Alaska, $477
for Hawaii, $416 for Guam, and $279 for the
Virgin Islands.

[Section 5(e)(7) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 169(c)]

b. By regulation, only payments directly b. No provisions. b. Reduced requirements on program b. No provisions as to payments to
related to shelter may be counted as shelter operators and recipients by mandating landlords. Prior law remains in effect.
costs when calculating the excess shelter that any required payment to a landlord
expense deduction. be treated as a shelter cost—without
regard to the specific charge it covers.

[Section 414]

c. States may establish (and must document c. No provisions. c. Reduced documentation requirements c. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
the development of) a shelter “allowance”— on states. Permitted states to allow homeless households.




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
not to exceed $143 a month. As with the homeless households not receiving free
standard deduction (see above), this shelter throughout the month to claim a
allowance may be used to reduce the flat deduction from income ($143 a
counted income of homeless households not month)—in lieu of any shelter expense
in free shelter throughout the month when deduction. Repealed the existing shelter
their income is calculated for benefit (and, in “allowance.”
some cases, eligibility) purposes.

[Section 5(e)(5) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 414] [Section 4105]

d.Standard utility allowances” (SUAs) are d. No provisions. d. Reduced administrative requirements d. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
used in figuring shelter costs for the excess on program operators and recipients. SUAs.
shelter expense deduction (see above). Allowed states choosing to make SUAs
States may make their use mandatory for all mandatory to do so for all households
households. However, SUAs may not be incurring heating or cooling expenses—
used for households that (1) live in certain without regard to the current metered
iki/CRS-RL33690centrally metered public housing or (2) public housing and expense pro-rating
g/wshare expenses with others (unless the rules.
s.orexpenses are pro-rated).
leak[Section 5(e)(7) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 415] [Section 4104]
://wikiA5. Calculating earned income
http By regulation, whenever income is received No provisions. Allowed states more leeway in how they No provisions as to conversion of
on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, it must be convert weekly/bi-weekly income to weekly/bi-weekly income to monthly
converted to a monthly amount—by monthly amounts—if they lowered the amounts. Prior rules remain in effect.
multiplying weekly income by 4.3 and bi-“earned income deduction” claimed by
weekly income by 2.15, or by using the all households with earnings to ensure
state’s public assistance conversion standard. cost-neutrality.

[Section 416]
A6. Establishing and tracking
deductions

By regulation, states must adjust households’ No provisions. Lifted significant administrative and Adopted the Senate provisions allowing
benefits for most changes in reporting requirements on program states to disregard many changes in
circumstances/expenses that affect the operators and recipients. Allowed states household circumstances/expenses until
amount of deductions (and thereby benefits) to disregard many changes in household the household’s next eligibility
they may receive. circumstances/expenses that affect the redetermination.




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
amount of any deductions they might
claim—until the household’s next
eligibility redetermination. This
effectively allowed states to “freeze”
most household deductions (and thus
benefits) between eligibility
redeterminations (“recertifications”).
States could, for example, ignore changes
in shelter, dependent-care, or medical
costs, household size, or child support
payments. However, states could not
ignore changes in earnings and must
recalculate any excess shelter expense
deduction when a household reports a
change in residence.

iki/CRS-RL33690[Section 417] [Section 4106]
g/wA7. Resources (assets)
s.or
leakEligible households are limited to those with No provisions. a. Added households with disabled a. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
total counted liquid resources (assets) of members to those covered by the higher households with disabled members.
://wiki$2,000 (or $3,000 for households with elderly $3,000 asset limit.
httpmembers). Resources that are excluded include items such as: a household’s home [Section 171(c)] [Section 4107]
and personal belongings/furnishings, life
insurance, income-producing property, some b. Allowed states to conform food b. Adopted the Senate provisions
retirement accounts, and (to a varying stamp resource rules with those of other permitting states to exclude resources
degree), the value of vehicles. major assistance programs, and thereby (assets) they do not consider under
lifted some administrative requirements their TANF or Medicaid programs.
on program operators and recipients.
Required regulations permitting states to
exclude any types of resources they do
not consider when judging eligibility for
cash aid under their TANF programs or
medical assistance under their Medicaid
programs. This authority would not
allow exclusion of cash, vehicles (states
already could use their TANF standard),
readily available amounts in financial
institutions, or resources the Secretary




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
judges essential to equitable eligibility
determinations.

[Section 5(g) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 418] [Section 4107]
A8. Issuance systems in disasters

States may grant emergency food stamp No provisions. Allowed the Secretary to issue food Adopted the Senate provisions as to
benefits in disasters. Benefits can be issued stamp disaster assistance in the form of disaster assistance.
through coupon allotments or electronic cash when other issuance systems are
benefit transfer (EBT) systems. impracticable.

[Section 5(h) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 419] [Section 4108]
A9. Reporting requirements for
households

iki/CRS-RL33690With some exceptions, most recipient No provisions. Lifted some administrative and reporting Adopted the Senate provisions allowing
g/whouseholds must report significant changes requirements on program operators and states to require household reporting as
s.orin their circumstances as they occur. Under recipients by allowing states to require infrequently as every 6 months.
leakregulatory waivers for a number of states, those with earnings may report every 6 households to report most changes in their circumstances as infrequently as
://wikimonths and certain others may report quarterly. every 6 months—in lieu of other reporting requirements. Households
http would have to report if their total
monthly income exceeds the food stamp
maximum for their household size. This
change effectively allowed states to
extend the rule allowed by waiver for
those with earnings to additional (or all)
households.

[Regulations & waivers under Section 5(c) of the [Section. 420] [Section 4109]
Food Stamp Act]
A10. Able-bodied adults without
dependents (ABAWDs)

ABAWDs are ineligible if, during the No provisions. Based work requirements for ABAWDs. No provisions. Prior law remains in
preceding 36 months, they received food effect.


stamps for 3 months without (1) working Changed the “3-months-out-of-36-
20+ hours a week, (2) participating in a months” rule to make ABAWDs


LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
work program 20+ hours a week, or (3) ineligible if, during the preceding 24
participating in a workfare program—the “3-months they received benefits for 6
months-out-of-36-months” rule. months without meeting 1 of the 3 work-
related requirements.
Qualifying “work programs” do not include Changed the definition of “work
job search or job search training. program” to include job search or job
search training.
ABAWDs denied eligibility under this “3-
months-out-of-36-months” rule can regain it Changed the rule for regaining eligibility
if they meet 1 of the 3 work-related to provide eligibility whenever an
requirements for a full month. ABAWD meets 1 of the 3 work-related
requirements.

[Section. 6(o) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section. 421]
A11. Benefit access through electronic
iki/CRS-RL33690benefit transfer (EBT) systems
g/w By regulation, states may take benefits No provisions. Required that benefits provided through No provisions. Prior rules remain in
s.orprovided through EBT systemsoff-line” EBT systems not be made inaccessible effect (as lengthened by new
leakafter 3 months of inactivity in the recipient’s until at least 6 months have elapsed since regulations).
EBT account. the recipient last accessed the EBT
://wiki benefit account.
http[Note: This period was scheduled to be
lengthened by regulation.] [Section 422]
A12. Cost of EBT systems

The cost of EBT systems must not, within No provisions. Deletes the existing EBT “cost-Adopted the Senate provisions deleting
certain limits, exceed those of the prior neutrality” requirement. the EBT cost-neutrality rule.
issuance system.

[Section 7(i)(2)(A) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 423] [Section 4110]
A13. Group living facilities

a. Where recipients live in substance abuse a. No provisions. a. In the case of recipients living in a. Allowed the Secretary to authorize
treatment centers, states may require them substance abuse treatment centers, small nationwide implementation of new
to designate the center as their “authorized group homes for the disabled, or shelters methods of calculating and issuing
representative” and provide their benefits to for battered women/children or the standardized benefits for recipients in
the center, but benefits/eligibility are homeless, permitted states to use new substance abuse centers, group homes




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
calculated normally. There are no similar methods of their own devising for for the disabled, or shelters—at the
special provisions for residents of small calculating and issuing “standardized” conclusion of pilot projects to test the
group homes for the disabled or shelters for benefits. feasibility of a range of new methods.
battered women/children or the homeless.
In all the above-noted group living facilities,
residents are treated as separate households
when determining eligibility and benefits.

[Section 8(e) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 424] [Section 4112]

b. Without a waiver, group living facilities b. No provision. b. Allowed the Secretary to authorize b. Adopted the Senate provisions
may not redeem food stamp benefits group living facilities to redeem food allowing group living facilities to redeem
through direct (on-site) use of EBT cards. stamp benefits through direct (on-site) food stamp benefits through direct use
Recipients’ EBT cards must be presented use of EBT cards. of EBT cards.
and used at approved retail food outlets.

iki/CRS-RL33690[Section 10 of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 425] [Section 4113]
g/wA14. Food stamp applications
s.or
leakStates have responsibility for developing No provisions. Required that states make food stamp Adopted the Senate provisions for
food stamp applications, within certain applications available on their internet applications on internet websites,
://wikifederal requirements. websites. effective 18 months after enactment.
http [Section 11(e)(2)(B) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 426] [Section 4114]
A15. Continuing eligibility

Eligible households are assigned No provisions. Replaced assigned certification periods No provisions. Prior law remains in
“certification periods” of up to 12 months and rules for recertification with new effect.


(or 24 months for the elderly or disabled). “eligibility review periods,” under which
At the end of a certification period, specific states would periodically review the
procedures must be followed to “recertify” eligibility status of recipient households
a household and continue issuing benefits. following procedures set by the state.

[Note: These provisions would lift
significant administrative requirements
on program operators and recipients by
allowing states to conform their method
of reviewing food stamp eligibility with
the method used for other major public


LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
assistance programs.]

[Sections 3(c) & 11(e) of Food Stamp Act] [Section 427]
A16. Transitional food stamp benefits
for those leaving TANF

Regulations permit states to opt for 3 Lifted significant administrative and Same as the House measure, except that Allowed states to give up to 5 months’
months’ “transitional food stamp benefits” reporting requirements on program (similar to pre-existing policy), transitional benefits to those leaving
for households leaving TANF for reasons operators and recipients by explicitly transitional benefits would be adjusted TANF. The transitional benefit is the
other than a sanction. Transitional benefits permitting states to provide expanded upward for the loss of TANF cash aid or amount received prior to leaving TANF,
generally are adjusted for any loss of income transitional food stamp benefits to any reported changes in household adjusted to account for TANF income
on leaving TANF and reported changes in households, leaving TANF for reasons circumstances that would increase food and (at state option) for information
circumstances that would increase benefits. other than a sanction. Food stamps were stamp benefits. Transitional benefits received through other aid programs.
to be automatically continued for 6 would not be available to those ceasing Transitional benefits would not be
months, at the level the household was to receive TANF benefits because of a available as in the Senate measure.
iki/CRS-RL33690receiving immediately prior to leaving TANF. sanction or to those in other state-established categories.
g/w
s.or[Section 403] [Section 429] [Section 4115]
leakA17. Notices to retailers
://wiki “Adverse action” notices must be delivered No provisions. Permitted notices to be delivered to Adopted the Senate provisions as to
httpto retailers by certified mail or personal retailers by any form of delivery that notices to retailers.
service. provides evidence of delivery.

[Section 14(a)(2) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 430] [Section 4117]
A18. Quality control (QC) system &
bonus payments to states

a. The Food Stamp program’s QC system a. Substantially changed the QC system, a. Same as the House measure, except a. Substantially changed the QC system
measures the degree to which states make and eased its effect on states as it relates that it reduced, then ended, added and eased its effect on states as it
erroneous benefit and eligibility decisions. to fiscal sanctions. Raised the threshold federal funding for states with error relates to fiscal sanctions. Ended added
State “error rates” reported from annual above which states are sanctioned to the rates below 6%, and required the federal funding for states with error
QC sample surveys are used to (1) provide national average error rate, plus 1 Secretary to conduct annual rates below 6%. Raised the threshold
financial rewards to states with very low percentage point. Required a statistical “investigations” of states with error rates above which states are held liable to
error rates and (2) assess fiscal sanctions on adjustment to individual state error rates above the new (higher) threshold and 105% of the national average. Required
states having high error rates. Each year, that effectively lowers all state error fine them if they are found to be a statistical adjustment to individual
states with total error rates below 6% rates. seriously negligent in their administration state error rates that effectively lowers
receive added federal matching money for of the Food Stamp program. all state error rates.




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
administration (an increase from the normal
50% match, to as high as 60%). States with Provided that sanctions would not be Effectively penalized only those states
error rates above the national average are assessed until a state has been above the with persistently (over 3 years) high
assessed fiscal sanctions based on how far new (higher) threshold for 3 consecutive error rates. Made states liable for
above the national average they are. years. Sanctioned states based on how amounts equal to 10% of the value of
far they are above a 10% error rate in erroneous benefits above 6% (this
the 3rd year. liability amount is calculated for the 2nd
consecutive year in which a state
exceeds the threshold).

Authorized the Secretary to resolve
states’ liability amounts by (1) requiring
them to invest up to 50% of the amount
in administrative improvements, (2)
placing up to 50% of the amount “at
risk” for collection in the next year, or
iki/CRS-RL33690 (3) waiving any amount. If a state fails to
g/w reduce its error rate for a 3rd
s.or consecutive year, the “at-risk” amount would be collected.
leak
://wiki[Section 16(c) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 404] [Section 431] [Section 4118]
httpb. The Secretary has established a policy b. No provisions. b. Established in law, a requirement to b. No provisions as to error-prone
whereby assessed sanctions are reduced for adjust all states’ error rates to account households. Prior policy remains.
states serving high proportions of for high proportions of error-prone
households with earners or noncitizens households.
(“error-prone” households).
[Section 431]
st
c. Federal reviews of QC error-rate c. No provisions. c. Changed deadlines to May 31 and c. Adopted the Senate provisions
determinations and arbitration of federal- June 30th, respectively. changing deadlines.
state differences must be completed by the
end of March each year. By the end of April,
final QC error rates must be determined
and states notified.

[Section 16(c)(8) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 432] [Section 4119]

d. No provisions for specific “bonus d. Required measurement of states’ d. Required measurement of states’ d. Required measurement of states’




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
payments” to states with high levels of performance as to: (1) compliance with performance as to: (1) serving working performance as to: (1) actions taken to
performance (but see “enhanced deadlines for prompt eligibility poor households with children, and (2) 4 correct errors, reduce error rates, and
administrative cost-sharing,” below). determinations and benefit issuance and additional measures set by the Secretary improve eligibility determinations, and
(2) the degree to which negative in consultation with the National (2) other indicators of effective
eligibility decisions are made correctly. Governors Association, the American administration established by the
Public Human Services Association, and Secretary.
the National Conference of State
Legislatures.

QC provisions grant added federal funding Required annual federal “excellence bonus Required annual federal “high Required federal performance bonus
for administration (“enhanced administrative payments” of $1 million each to the 10 performance bonus payments” to states payments totaling $48 million a year to
cost-sharing”) for states with error rates states with the highest or most improved totaling $6 million for each of the 5 states that meet the Secretary’s
below 6%. This can raise the federal share of combined performance in the 2 measures noted above. standards for high or most-improved
state administrative costs from the normal measures noted above. performance in the areas noted above.
50% to as high as 60%.
Retained added federal funding for states Reduced, then ended added federal Ended added federal funding for states
iki/CRS-RL33690 with error rates below 6%. funding for states with error rates below with error rates below 6%.
g/w 6%.
s.or [Sec. 16(c) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 404] [Section 433] [Section 4120]
leak
A19. Grants for simple application and
://wikieligibility systems & improved access
http No provisions. Required the Secretary to spend up to Authorized grants to states and other Required the Secretary to spend up to
$9.5 million a year to pay states the cost entities to pay a 75% federal share of the $5 million a year on grants to states and
of developing and implementing simple cost of projects to improve access to other entities covering the cost of
application and eligibility determination food stamp benefits or outreach to projects to improve program access, or
systems. eligible individuals. Authorized develop and implement simple
appropriations totaling $3 million. application and eligibility determination
systems.

[Section 405] [Section 438] [Section 4116]
A20. Employment and training (E&T)
programs

Generally extended existing funding and Extended authority for funding for E&T Substantially the same as the Senate
rules for E&T programs through FY2011. programs through FY2006, but reduced provisions, but provided slightly less
the amount of unmatched federal money unmatched federal funding and
and eliminated several requirements on extended authority through FY2007.




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
states and limits on federal matching
funding.

a. Through FY2002, food stamp law a. Extended the requirement for a. Extended the requirement for a. Extended the requirement for
required unmatched federal funding for E&T unmatched federal funding for E&T unmatched federal funding for E&T unmatched federal E&T funding at $90
programs for food stamp recipients. For programs through FY2011. Set the programs through FY2006. Set the million a year through FY2007.
each year, specific amounts were provided amount at the FY2002 level (a total of amount at $90 million a year, available Rescinded the unspent carryover
(e.g., a total of $165 million for FY2002). $165 million a year). until expended. Rescinded the unspent balance.
Unmatched money is available until carryover balance.
expended; a carryover balance exceeding
$300 million was available.

b. States must use at least 80% of their total b. No provisions. b. In addition to the $90 million noted b. Adopted Senate provisions (1) for
allocation of unmatched federal funds for above, provided up to $25 million a year funding of ABAWD services (limited to
services to ABAWDs. (unmatched) for services to ABAWDs. $20 million a year) and (2) eliminating
Eliminated the pre-existing “80%” the “80%” requirement.
iki/CRS-RL33690 requirement for services to ABAWDs.
g/w
s.orc. To receive a portion of their federal funds allocation (e.g., $75 million in FY2002), c. No provisions. c. Eliminated the “maintenance of effort” requirement. c. Adopted Senate provisions eliminating the “maintenance of effort”
leakstates must maintain their E&T spending at requirement.
://wikithe FY1996 level.
httpd. The Secretary may set specific dollar d. No provisions. d. Ended the Secretary’s authority to set d. Adopted Senate provisions ending
amounts that the federal government will per-placement funding amounts. authority to set per-placement funding
pay for each E&T program “placement.” amounts.

e. Federal matching funds are provided for e. No provisions. e. Eliminated limits on federal funding for e. Adopted Senate provisions
non-child-care E&T participant support costs participant support costs. eliminating limits on funding for
(e.g., transportation)—50% up to half of $25 participant support costs.
per person per month.

[Sections 6(d) & 16(h) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 406(a)] [Sections 169(c) & 434] [Section 4121]
A21. Food stamp informational
activities

States’ authority to use TANF funds to No provisions. Made explicit states’ authority to use No provisions. Prior law remains in
conduct food stamp informational TANF funds for food stamp effect, but a federal guidance was issued
(“outreach”) activities is unclear. informational (“outreach”) activities. telling states that they may use TANF
funds for food stamp informational




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
activities.

[Section 16(k) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 436]
A22. Pilot project waivers

The Secretary may grant waivers from Food No provisions. Made clear that the Secretary may grant Adopted the Senate provisions on
Stamp Act rules when carrying out pilot waivers from federal food stamp rules in granting of waivers.
projects. The extent of this waiver authority all pilot projects, regardless of the entity
is unclear for pilot projects implemented by that implements them.
nonfederal entities.

[Section 17 of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 437] [Section 4123]
A23. Reauthorization

Expiring at the end of FY2002: Extended expiring authorities through Extended expiring authorities through Extended expiring authorities through
iki/CRS-RL33690 FY2011. FY2006. FY2007—except for the authority for
g/w—appropriations authorizations for the outreach pilot projects (see Item #A19
s.orFood Stamp program, the Food Distribution above for similar new authority).
leakProgram on Indian Reservations, and nutrition assistance grants for Puerto Rico
://wikiand American Samoa; —authority to reduce federal administrative
httpcost sharing payments otherwise due to
states by $197 million a year;
—authority for a limited number of pilot
projects granting cash food stamp benefits;
and
—authority for outreach pilot projects.

[Sections 18(a), 16(k), 17(b), & 17(i) of the [Section 406] [Section 435] [Section 4122]
Food Stamp Act]
A24. Puerto Rico and American
Samoa

a. Puerto Rico. In lieu of regular food stamp a. Extended Puerto Rico’s nutrition a. Consolidated nutrition assistance a. Consolidated nutrition assistance
program, Puerto Rico received an annual assistance block grant through FY2011, grant funding for Puerto Rico and grant funding for Puerto Rico and
nutrition assistance block grant, authorized retaining annual inflation indexing. American Samoa (see below). Mandated American Samoa (see below). Mandated
through FY2002. It covered all benefits costs the consolidated grant through FY2006. the consolidated grant through FY2007.
and 50% of any administrative costs. It was The base consolidated grant was $1.356 The base grant would be $1.401 billion




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
annually indexed for food price inflation, and billion (FY2002). It was then to be (FY2003), adjusted for food-price
the FY2002 grant amount was adjusted for food-price inflation inflation beginning with FY2004. Puerto
$1,350,518,000. beginning with FY2003. Puerto Rico’s Rico’s annual share would be 99.6%.
annual share was 99.6%.

Permitted Puerto Rico to use up to $6 Same as the House measure with regard Permitted Puerto Rico to use up to $6
million of its FY2002 grant to pay costs to permission to use up to $6 million for million of its FY2002 grant for costs of
of upgrading electronic systems, without costs of upgrading electronic systems. upgrading electronic systems, without
matching the amount. matching the amount. Also allowed
Puerto Rico to carry over up to 2% of
any year’s grant to the following year.

[Section 19 of Food Stamp Act] [Section 406(f)] [Section 439] [Section 4124]

b. American Samoa. American Samoa b. Extended American Samoa’s nutrition b. American Samoa’s share was .4% of b. American Samoa’s share was .4% of
received an annual grant covering all assistance grant through FY2011. each year’s new consolidated nutrition each year’s new consolidated nutrition
iki/CRS-RL33690expenditures for a nutrition assistance Increased it to $5.75 million for FY2002 assistance grant (see above). Its separate assistance grant. (see above). Its
g/wprogram primarily designed to assist the and $5.8 million a year for later years. grant was repealed. separate grant was repealed. Allowed
s.orelderly and disabled. The grant was authorized through FY2002 and mandated American Samoa to carry over up to 2% of any year’s grant to the following year.
leak$5.3 million a year.
://wiki [Section 24 of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 406(g) & (j)] [Section 439] [Section 4124]
httpA25. Vitamin and Mineral
Supplements

Food stamp benefits can be used only to No provisions. Permitted the use of food stamp benefits No provisions. Prior law remains in
purchase food items for home consumption to purchase dietary supplements that effect.
(or, in limited cases, prepared meals). “provide exclusively one or more
vitamins or minerals.” Required a report
on the effects of this new provision.

[Section 3(g) of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 445]
A26. Noncitizens

a. ChildrenLegal permanent residents a. No provisions. a. Made legal permanent residents under a. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
who were living in the U.S. as of August 22, age 18 eligible for food stamps—legal permanent residents under age
1996, and who are under age 18 are eligible regardless of their date of entry. Also 18—effective October 1, 2003.
for food stamps under rules governing the exempted them from requirements that




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
categorical eligibility of noncitizens. In their sponsor’s financial resources be
general, their sponsors’ financial resources deemed to them in determining food
may be deemed available to them in stamp eligibility.
determining their food stamp eligibility, as is
the case with other groups of legal [Section 452(a)] [Section 4401(b)]
permanent residents with sponsors.

b. Work history requirementLegal b. No provisions. b. Reduced the work history b. No provisions. Prior law remains in
permanent residents with a substantial work requirement to 16 quarters (4 years). effect, but the new 5-year residence
history (defined as 40 quarters, or 10 years) rule described below has the effect of
are eligible for food stamps under rules [Section 452(b)] shortening the work history
governing the categorical eligibility of requirement.
noncitizens.

c. Humanitarian casesAsylees, refugees, c. No provisions. c. Removed the 7-year limit on eligibility c. No provisions, but the new 5-year
Cuban/ Haitian entrants, certain aliens for humanitarian cases. residence rule described below has the
iki/CRS-RL33690whose deportation/removal is being effect of removing the 7-year limit.
g/wwithheld for humanitarian reasons, and [Section 452(c)]
s.orVietnam-born Amerasians fathered by U.S. citizens are eligible for food stamps for 7
leakyears after entry/grant of status under rules
://wikigoverning noncitizens’ categorical eligibility.
httpd. Disability benefit recipientsLegal d. No provisions. d. Made legal permanent residents d. Adopted Senate provisions as to the
permanent residents who were living in the receiving federal disability benefits eligibility of legal permanent residents
U.S. as of August 22, 1996, and who are eligible without regard to their date of receiving federal disability benefits—
receiving federal disability benefits—e.g., entry. effective October 1, 2002.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
payments—are eligible for food stamps [Section 452(d)] [Section 4401(a)]
under rules governing the categorical
eligibility of noncitizens.

e. Length of residence in the U.S. e. No provisions. e. Made eligible individuals who have e. Made eligible individuals who have
No provisions. continuously resided in the U.S. legally resided in the U.S. legally for a period of
for a period of 5 years (e.g., as legal 5 years (e.g., as legal permanent
permanent residents, refugees/asylees, residents, refugees/asylees, but not as
but not as temporary residents). This temporary residents)—effective April 1,
new 5-year residence rule would not 2003.
apply in the case of aliens who entered
the country illegally and remain illegally




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
for 1 year or more (or who have been
“illegal aliens” for 1 year or more), unless
they have continuously resided in the
U.S. for 5 years as of enactment.

[Section 402(a) of the Personal Responsibility [Section 170(b) & (c)] [Section 4401(c)]
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996; P.L. 104-193]
B. COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
B1. The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP)

a. Commodity Purchases. From amounts a. Extended the commodity purchase a. Extended the commodity purchase a. Extended the commodity purchase
available under the Food Stamp Act, the requirement through FY2011; raised the requirement through FY2006 and raised requirement through FY2007 and raised
Secretary was required to use $100 million a total amount set aside for TEFAP to the total amount set aside for TEFAP to the total amount set aside for TEFAP to
iki/CRS-RL33690year through FY2002 to purchase $140 million a year beginning in FY2002; $110 million a year beginning in FY2002. $140 million a year beginning in FY2002.
g/wcommodities for TEFAP. and required the Secretary to use $10 Same as House bill with respect to the
s.or million a year to pay for costs related to use of $10 million for processing, storing,
leak processing, storing, transporting and distributing commodities. transport and distribution costs.
://wiki [Section 27 of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 406(i) & (j)] [Section 441] [Section 4126]
http
[Note: Section 166 of the Senate [Note: The $40 million in additional
measure required the Secretary to buy commodities in Section 166 of the
not less than $40 million a year in Senate measure was not included in the
additional commodities for TEFAP each enacted law.]
year through FY2006.]
B1. The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP) (continued)

b. Administrative/distribution costs. b. In addition to $10 million set-aside b. Same as the House measure, except b. Extended the authorization of
Appropriations of $50 million a year were noted above, extended through FY2011, the authorization was extended through appropriations for administrative and
authorized, through FY2002, for the costs of the $50 million authorization of 2006. distribution costs through FY2007 and
administration and distributing TEFAP and appropriations for administrative and raised the amount to $60 million a year.
non-TEFAP commodities handled by state distribution costs.
and local programs.

[Section 204(a) of the Emergency Food [Section 443] [Section 451(d)] [Section 4204]




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
Assistance Act]
B2. Commodity Supplemental Food
Program (CSFP) and commodity
authorities.

a. Expiring authorities. Expiring at the end a. Extended expiring CSFP and a. Extended expiring CSFP and a. Extended expiring CSFP and
of FY2002: authority for the Commodity commodity authorities/requirements commodity authorities/requirements commodity authorities/ requirements
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), through FY2011. through FY2006. through FY2007.
requirements to provide cheese and nonfat
dry milk to the CSFP, requirements for Also required the Secretary to provide
commodity processing agreements, and funds to permit Montana and Vermont
general authority to obtain commodities to to continue to participate in the CSFP
maintain traditional levels of support for at their originally assigned (FY2000)
various commodity distribution activities. caseload levels through the FY2002
“caseload cycle.”
iki/CRS-RL33690 [Sections 4 & 5 of the Agriculture and [Sections 441 & 442] [Section 451] [Sections 4201 & 4203]
g/wConsumer Protection Act of 1973; Section
s.or1114(a)(2) of the Agriculture and Food Act of
leak1981]

://wikiB2. Commodity Supplemental Food
httpProgram (CSFP) and commodity authorities (continued)

b. CSFP Administrative Costs. The b. No provisions. b. Replaced the limit on administrative b. Replaced the limit on administrative
Secretary is required to pay the CSFP payments with a requirement for “grants payments with a requirement for
administrative costs of state/local agencies—per caseload slot.” Required the “grants per caseload slot.” Required the
but may not use more than 20% of the CSFP Secretary to provide each state a grant Secretary to provide each state a grant
appropriation. per assigned caseload slot—set by law at per assigned caseload slot—set at the
$50, indexed beginning in FY2003. FY2001 actual amount, indexed for
FY2003 and following years.

[Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer [Section 451] [Section 4201(b)]
Protection Act of 1973]
B3. Use of Approved Food Safety
Technology

No provisions. No provisions. Barred the Secretary from prohibiting Adopted the Senate provisions, with




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
the use of “any technology that has been technical changes.
approved by the Secretary or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services”
in acquiring commodities for distribution
through domestic nutrition programs.

[Section 442] [Section 4201(b)(3) & (d)]
B4. Use of Commodities for Domestic
Feeding Programs

No provisions. No provisions. Provided that any commodities acquired Adopted the Senate provisions on use
in the conduct of Commodity Credit of commodities.
Corporation (CCC) operations and any
“Section 32” commodities may be used
for any domestic feeding program.
iki/CRS-RL33690Covered domestic programs include: TEFAP, and programs authorized under
g/wthe Richard B. Russell National School
s.orLunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, the
leakOlder Americans Act, or other laws the
Secretary determines appropriate.
://wiki
httpThis authority would apply to the extent that the commodities involved are in
excess of those needed to carry out
other obligations (including quantities
otherwise reserved for specific
purposes).

[Section 457] [Section 4202]
C. CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
C1. Commodities for the school lunch
program

Beginning with FY2002, any commodities No provisions. Delayed, until FY2004, the date by which Adopted the Senate provisions.
supplied to the School Lunch program must bonus commodities supplied to the
be counted in meeting the requirement that School Lunch program will begin
12% of all federal school lunch support (cash counting toward the 12% requirement—
+ commodities) be in the form of in effect, mandating that only entitlement




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
commodities. This would include commodities count toward meeting the
commodities provided to meet schools’ requirement until then. This was the case
“entitlement” (15 cents in value per lunch) under pre-FY2002 law.
and “bonus” commodities provided at the
Secretary’s discretion from stocks acquired
to support the agricultural economy.

[Section 6(e)(1) of the Richard B. Russell [Section 453] [Section 4301]
National School Lunch Act]
[Note: Section 166 of the Senate [Note: Section 10603 of the enacted
amendment required the Secretary to law provided for at least $50 million a
provide at least $50 million a year year in fresh fruit and vegetable
through FY2006 to the Defense purchases (through the DoD) for
Department (DoD) for the purchase and schools and institutions in child
distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables nutrition programs.]
to schools and institutions participating
iki/CRS-RL33690in child nutrition programs.]
g/wC2. Eligibility for Free and Reduced-
s.orPrice School Meals and WIC Benefits:
leakMilitary Housing

://wikia. School meals. All military housing a. No provisions. a. Through FY2003, required that, in a. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
httpallowances reported on leave and earnings statements are counted as income in [Note: H.R. 3216—passed by the House cases where military personnel live in “privatized” housing, their housing school meal eligibility and military personnel in “privatized” housing.
determining eligibility for free and reduced-on December 11, 2001—contained the allowance will not be counted in
price school meals. The value of on-base provision included in the Senate’s determining eligibility for free and
(free) housing is not. For “privatized” measure.] reduced-price school meals.
military housing—where formerly free
housing is converted to privately operated
housing (or families are moved from free
housing to privately operated housing) and
military personnel are given a housing
allowance to pass on to the housing
operator—the allowance is counted.

[Regulations under Section 9 of the Richard B. [Section 454] [Section 4302]
Russell National School Lunch Act]

b. The WIC program. In determining b. No provisions. b. Added an option for states to exclude b. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
income eligibility for the Special any housing allowance provided to WIC eligibility and military personnel in




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
Supplemental Nutrition Program for military personnel living in on-base “privatized” housing.
Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC “privatized” housing.
program), states may choose to exclude any
housing allowance received by military
personnel residing “off-base.”

[Section 17(d)(2)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act] [Section 455] [Section 4306]
C3. Funding for the WIC Farmers’
Market Nutrition Program

No comparable provisions. [Note: For No provisions. Made available an additional $15 million Adopted the Senate provisions for
FY2002, some $11 million was made in mandatory funding for the FY2002 added FY2002 funding for the WIC
available for the farmers’ market program WIC farmers’ market nutrition farmers’ market nutrition program.
from regular WIC appropriations and funds program—no later than 30 days after
carried over from FY2001.] enactment.
iki/CRS-RL33690 [Section 460] [Section 4307]
g/w
s.orD. SPECIAL PROJECTS
leakD1. Nutrition education clearinghouse

://wikiNo provisions. No provisions. Required the Secretary to establish (on No provisions. [Note: In March 2002,
httpthe Agriculture Department’s website) a the Department established a website
nutrition education clearinghouse. that features a clearinghouse for
nutrition education initiatives.]
[Section 428]
D2. Community food projects and
innovative programs addressing
common community problems

a. Community food projects. Through a. Extended authority for community a. Extended authority for community a. Extended authority for community
FY2002, the Secretary was authorized to food project grants through FY2011. food project grants through FY2006. food project grants through FY2007.
make grants to private nonprofit entities for Increased the amount reserved to $7.5 Maintained the amount reserved at $2.5 Increased the amount reserved to $5
“community food projects.” Funding was million a year. million a year. Increased the federal million a year. Modified the list of goals
reserved from Food Stamp Act share of project costs from 50% to 75%. that projects are designed to achieve
appropriations, and grants could not exceed Modified the list of projects that must be and the list of projects that must be
a total of $2.5 million a year. given preference for grants. given preference for grants.

[Section 25 of the Food Stamp Act] [Section 406(h) & (j)] [Section 440]




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW

D2. Community food projects and
innovative programs addressing
common community problems
(continued)

b. Innovative programs addressing b. No provisions. b. Required the Secretary to contract b. Required that the Secretary contract
common community problems. with a non-governmental organization to with (or make a grant to) a non-
recommend innovative programs for governmental organization to
No provisions. addressing “common community coordinate with federal agencies, states
problems”—including loss of farms, rural and political subdivisions, and non-
poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, the governmental organizations in order to
need for job training, juvenile crime, and gather information (and make
individuals’ and communities’ need for recommendations) about innovative
self-sufficiency. Made available $400,000 programs for addressing “common
for the contract. community problems”—including loss
iki/CRS-RL33690 of farms, rural poverty, welfare
g/w dependency, hunger, the need for job
s.or training, and individuals’ and communities’ need for self-sufficiency.
leak Reserved $200,000 a year (from the $5
://wiki million a year total) for this initiative.
http[Section 443] [Section 4125]
D3. Report on Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT) systems

No provisions. No provisions. Required the Secretary to submit a Adopted the Senate provisions for a
report to Congress on EBT systems (e.g., report on EBT systems and revised and
difficulties relating to their use, fraud, expanded the elements to be included
efforts to address difficulties). in the report.

[Section 444] [Section 4111]
D4. Report on conversion of the WIC
program into an individual entitlement
program

No provisions. No provisions. No later than December 31, 2002, No provisions.


required a report from the Secretary—


LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
to the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce and the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry—that analyzes conversion
of the WIC program from a discretionary
program into an individual entitlement
program.

[Section 456]
D5. Purchase of locally produced foods

a. Policy & Grants. No provisions. a. No provisions. a. Required Secretary to encourage the a. Adopted the Senate provisions as to
purchase of locally produced foods in grants to encourage the purchase of
school meal programs and authorized locally produced foods.
appropriations for start-up grants
iki/CRS-RL33690 ($400,000 a year) to defray costs incurred in carrying out this policy.
g/w
s.or [Section 458] [Section 4303]
leak
b. School food purchases in Hawaii and b. No provisions. b. No provisions. As with Hawaii under pre-existing law,
://wikiPuerto Rico. Requires—to the maximum required—to the maximum extent
httpextent practicable—that school food authorities in Hawaii purchase commodities practicable—that school food authorities in Puerto Rico purchase
or food products that are produced in commodities or food products that are
Hawaii if produced in sufficient quantities to produced in Puerto Rico if produced in
meet their meal program needs. sufficient quantities to meet their meal
program needs.

[Section 12(n)(3) of the Richard B. Russell [Section 4304]
National School Lunch Act]
D6. Seniors farmers’ market nutrition
program

Using funding available under Commodity For (FY2002 - FY2011), authorized a For (FY2002 - FY2006), required the Adopted the House provisions as to the
Credit Corporation authorities, a seniors seniors farmers’ market nutrition Secretary to carry out and expand a seniors farmers’ market nutrition
farmers’ market nutrition program was program and required the Secretary to seniors farmers’ market nutrition program, but (1) reduced the FY2002
instituted by the Secretary in January 2001. support it with $15 million a year from program. Provided mandatory funding of amount to $5 million (in addition to the
Initial funding was set at $15 million. Commodity Credit Corporation funds. $15 million a year. Authorized the $10 million already appropriated) and




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
Authorized the Secretary to issue Secretary to issue regulations to carry (2) authorized the program through
Under the FY2002 Agriculture Department regulations to carry out the program. out the program. FY2007.
appropriations law, $10 million was provided
as a direct appropriation for a seniors [Section 925] [Section 459] [Section 4402]
farmers’ market nutrition program.
[Note: These provisions were located in
Title IX of the House measure.]
D7. Fruit and vegetable pilot program

No provisions. No provisions. In the 2002-2003 school year, required Adopted the Senate provisions with
the Secretary to use “Section 32 funds technical changes; increases funding to a
to conduct and evaluate a pilot program total of $6 million.
to make free fruit and vegetables
available to elementary and secondary
school students. Provided $200,000 for
iki/CRS-RL33690the pilot.
g/w[Section 461] [Section 4305]
s.or
leakD8. Congressional hunger fellows
://wikiBill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships are provided through the Established—as an independent agency in the legislative branch—the Congressional Same as the House bill, with minor and technical differences. Adopted the House provisions, with minor and technical revisions.
httpCongressional Hunger Center and given Hunger Fellows Program to offer
funding through annual Agriculture fellowships providing training and
Department appropriations laws (e.g., placements with domestic and
$2.496 million in FY2002). international organizations. The
program’s purposes would be to:
encourage careers in humanitarian
service; recognize the needs of poor and
hungry persons; provide aid to those in
need, increase awareness of the
importance of public service, and provide
training and development opportunities
for future leaders. The program would
be funded from the earnings of a trust
fund invested in federal securities (an
$18 million appropriation is authorized)
and gifts.




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
[Section 461] [Section 462] [Section 4404]
D9. Fresh fruit and vegetables

No provisions. No provisions. Authorized a pilot program to increase Adopted Senate provisions, but reduced
domestic consumption of fresh fruit and the number of pilot states from 15 to 5
vegetables. The federal share of project and lowered the annual appropriations
costs would be 50%, and $25 million a authorization to $10 million.
year was authorized to be appropriated.

[Section 463] [Section 4403]
E. COST ESTIMATES
a. 6-year CBO estimates: April 2001
“baseline”

iki/CRS-RL33690Title IV (nutrition): $1.94 billion (budget Title IV (nutrition): $3.11 billion (budget Title IV (nutrition): $2.66 billion
g/wauthority; $1.92 billion (outlays). authority); $3.63 billion (outlays). (budget authority); $3.17 billion (outlays).
s.or
leakFood stamp program: $1.65 billion Food stamp program: $2.85 billion Food stamp program: $2.19 billion
(budget authority/outlays). (budget authority); $3.37 billion (budget authority); $2.71 billion
://wiki (outlays). (outlays).
http
Commodity assistance programs Commodity assistance programs Commodity assistance programs
(TEFAP): $240 million (budget (TEFAP): $260 million (budget (TEFAP & CSFP): $241 million (budget
authority); $238 million (outlays). authority); $258 million (outlays). [Note: authority/outlays).
$200 million of these amounts is for
TEFAP commodity purchases under Title
I.]

Child nutrition programs: No Child nutrition programs (commodity Child nutrition programs (commodity
provisions. purchases, WIC farmers’ markets): purchases, WIC farmers’ markets):
$115 million (budget authority/outlays). $115 million (budget authority/outlays).

Special projects (community food Special projects (community food Special projects (community food
projects, senior farmers’ markets): projects, senior farmers’ markets, fruit projects, senior farmers’ markets,
$118 million (budget authority); $110 & vegetable pilots): $85 million (budget fruit & vegetable pilots): $107 million
million (outlays). [Note: $75 million of authority); $90 million (outlays). (budget authority); $103 million
these amounts is attributable to senior (outlays).




LAW/POLICY HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT AND
ENACTED LAW
farmers’ market provisions in Title IX).
b. 6-year CBO estimates: March 2002
“baseline”

None available. None available. Title IV (nutrition): $2.79 billion
(budget authority); $3.18 billion
(outlays).

Food stamp program: $2.33 billion
(budget authority); $2.72 billion
(outlays).

Commodity assistance programs
(TEFAP & CSFP): $241 million (budget
authority/ outlays).
iki/CRS-RL33690 Child nutrition programs (commodity
g/wpurchases, WIC farmers’ markets):
s.or$115 million (budget authority/outlays).
leak
Special projects (community food
://wikiprojects, senior farmers’ markets,
httpfruit & vegetable pilots): $108 million (budget authority); $103 million
(outlays).
Source: P.L. 107-171





Joe Richardson
Specialist in Social Policy
jirichardson@crs.loc.gov, 7-7325