The Nutrition Title Of The Farm Bill Begins To Take Shape
Posted by: Phillip Fraas
April 06, 2007

When USDA released its farm bill proposals on January 31, it included a number of recommendations regarding the nutrition title of the legislation. Also, it is increasingly clear that Congress likely will not allocate new money for the 2007 farm bill. Both these developments give us the first outlines of what the farm bill's nutrition title might ultimately look like when all is said and done.

BACKGROUND

When Congress started passing "farm bills" decades ago, they were just that--bills to extend or change the farm commodity price and income support programs. Since 1972, however, they have included additional titles (as in "title I," "title II," etc.) and, since 1977, have all included nutrition titles.

In fact, the nutrition programs, primarily the food stamp program, now take up a large part of the money allocated to the farm bill. USDA, in its proposal, did a projection of the farm bill baseline, that is, the amount that will be spent on farm bill programs over the next 10 years if current programs are extended without change. Its estimate is that the food stamp and other nutrition programs it has proposals for would cost $438 billion over that period, which is roughly 70% of the total estimated cost of $619 billion for all its farm bill programs. 

That is not to say that all that spending on nutrition programs neglects farmers and agriculture. The reason the farm bill has a nutrition title is that farmers clearly are secondary beneficiaries of the nutrition programs. Essentially all of the money allocated for participation in the food stamp program, for example, must be spent on things farmers produce--food.

In passing, it should be noted that reauthorization of two major nutrition programs--school lunch and WIC (the nutrition program targeting women, infants, and children) is not done in the farm bill. Traditionally, these programs have been developed, amended, and renewed in separate legislation that, in the House of Representatives, is handled by both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Education and Labor (the latter having a major role in the legislative process). Having said that, the USDA farm bill proposal does include several school lunch program proposals.

USDA'S NUTRITION PROPOSALS

USDA proposes several changes in the operation of the food stamp program. Some changes would increase spending, others would reduce it; but as a whole the USDA proposals are essentially budget-neutral--they would reduce nutrition program spending by just $66 million over 10 years, according to USDA's own estimates.

USDA would increase access to the food stamp program (a means-tested program), and by extension spending under the program, by excluding retirement and college savings accounts, and combat-related military pay, and by eliminating the cap on deductions from income for dependent care costs, when determining eligibility to participate in the program. It would reduce food stamp spending by narrowing categorical eligibility to persons receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) benefits or supplemental security (SSI) assistance under the Social Security program, and by reforming food stamp administration to increase program integrity.

USDA also would change the program name from "food stamps" to "food and nutrition" since the program hasn't used stamps or coupons for decades. Now, participants use what amount to food debit cards. And, it would allocate $100 million to grants for food stamp demonstration projects targeted at reducing the rising rates of obesity in the United States.

Among its other proposals, USDA recommends additional spending of $500 million over 10 years for the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for the school lunch and breakfast programs.

THE VIEW FROM CAPITOL HILL

Neither the Senate nor House Committee on Agriculture has developed its own farm bill proposal yet, so we can't at this time compare the USDA proposals to what those committees are thinking on the nutrition title. We'll have a better sense on that when the chairmen of the committees make known their farm bill recommendations in May.

What is already apparent on Capitol Hill, however, is that likely the farm bill nutrition title will not get additional money for improvements to the food stamp and other programs beyond the amounts already allocated to them under the baseline. What the committees are wrestling with now, and will continue to do so as the year progresses, is to decide which meritorious nutrition program changes don't cost or save money, so thus can be included in the farm bill, and which ones are so necessary that they should be included in the bill, even if money has to be taken from other programs to pay for them.

Some of the USDA proposals are being favorably received. For example, Senator Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has introduced legislation (S. 591, cosponsored by Committee Chairman Harkin) with a provision similar to USDA's proposal to exclude retirement and college savings accounts in determining food stamp eligibility. But, as one staffer put it, the question is not whether there is disagreement on how to improve the food stamp program, the question is where to find the money for the improvements.

Another theme I am hearing is not to expect major nutrition program changes this year. It is reported that the food stamp program right now is operating at historically low error and fraud rates, and Congress is not being called on to make major "fixes" to the program. Look, instead, for incremental changes--if not those recommended by USDA, something like them. And, as I have heard over and over again, look for spending to remain close to the baseline.

Permalink