Search Penny Hill Press

Monday, July 16, 2012

2012 Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits


Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy

Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy

As Congress formulates the 2012 farm bill—an omnibus bill that reauthorizes a range of agriculture and nutrition programs—program integrity and deficit reduction have been leading themes. One of the cost-saving measures in the farm bill would address the way in which Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are calculated. The SNAP statute allows for certain deductions from income when calculating a household’s benefit level, including a deduction for excess shelter expenses, which includes utility costs. If a family receives benefits through another federal program, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), this deduction from income can be higher, allowing for a higher SNAP benefit for the household. Both the Senate-passed 2012 farm bill (S. 3240) and the House Agriculture Committee Chairman’s mark limit the deduction associated with LIHEAP, seeking to end a practice that has been referred to as “Heat and Eat.”

Under current law, a SNAP household can use a LIHEAP payment (regardless of the amount of that payment) to document that the household has incurred heating and cooling costs. This documentation triggers a standard utility allowance (SUA), a figure that enters into the SNAP benefit calculation equation. Unless the household is getting the maximum SNAP benefit already, a household’s monthly benefit can increase if the SUA calculation results in an excess shelter deduction.

In addition to current law, current practice also affects the interaction between these benefit programs. While virtually all SNAP states consider LIHEAP in their calculation, approximately 16 states have implemented the so-called “Heat and Eat” policy. “Heat and Eat” is a phrase that the low-income and anti-hunger advocacy community has used to describe state and program policies that leverage nominal (as little as $1) LIHEAP payments into an increase in households’ SNAP benefits that is larger than the initial LIHEAP payment.

As of the date of the report, two policies have been voted on in Congress that would change current law to limit or eliminate this practice:

  • Under Section 4002 of the Senate-passed 2012 farm bill, S. 3240, only LIHEAP payments above $10 would confer this potential advantage. Payments of $10 and below would no longer entitle a household to earn an SUA during the benefit calculation process. If a household received less than $10 in energy assistance, households would have to present alternate documentation of utility costs in order to have utilities factored into calculating their excess shelter deduction. 
  • Under Section 104 of the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, H.R. 5652, no amount of LIHEAP benefits would garner additional SNAP benefits. Households would have to present alternative documentation of utility costs. 
The July 5, 2012, release of the House Agriculture Committee Chairs’ farm bill, scheduled to be marked up on July 11, 2012, also contains the S. 3240 version of this policy.

This report discusses the policy background, details, and context associated with these bills’ changes to the current law of LIHEAP and SNAP SUAs, focusing primarily on S. 3240’s language. The report will be revised to reflect congressional action in this area.


Date of Report: July 10, 2012
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R42591
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:


R42591.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The Senate-Passed 2012 Farm Bill (S. 3240): A Comparison with Current Law


Ralph M. Chite, Coordinator
Section Research Manager

Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill. The 112th
Congress faces reauthorization of the current five-year farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) because many of its provisions expire in 2012. The 2008 farm
bill contained 15 titles covering farm commodity support, horticulture, livestock, conservation,
nutrition assistance, international trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural
development, bioenergy, and forestry, among others.


The Senate approved its version of the 2012 omnibus farm bill (S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform,
Food, and Jobs Act of 2012) by a vote of 64-35. Within its 12 titles, the five-year Senate bill
would reshape the structure of farm commodity support, expand crop insurance coverage,
consolidate conservation programs, revise the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(formerly food stamps), and extend authority to appropriate funds for many U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) discretionary programs through FY2017. House Agriculture Committee
consideration of its version of a 2012 farm bill is scheduled for July 11, 2012.


Date of Report: June 29, 2012
Number of Pages: 83
Order Number: R42552
Price: $29.95


Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
 

To Order:

R42552.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports


Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Sugar Program Proposals for the 2012 Farm Bill


Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

The sugar program is structured to operate at no cost to the federal government—an objective that has been achieved over the last decade primarily using two tools: marketing allotments that limit the amount that sugar processors can sell, and import quotas that restrict the quantity of foreign sugar allowed to enter the U.S. market. Since the program records no outlays, its future did not receive attention among the proposals submitted to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees for revising the farm safety net and reducing farm program spending.

Producers of sugar beets and sugarcane, and the processors of these crops into sugar, favor retaining the current program without change. They highlight the jobs and economic activity created by the domestic sugar sector. Two general farm organizations and a coalition of some developing countries that benefit from selling against their shares of the U.S. sugar import quota also support continuing the current sugar program.

Food manufacturing firms that use sugar in their products advocate program elimination or a transition toward a free market in sugar in the United States. In support of these changes, they point to the higher wholesale refined sugar prices paid since the 2008 farm bill provisions took effect (twice the level compared to the previous 2002 farm bill period). Consumer, trade advocacy groups, and general business organizations that favor freer trade support their position.

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s reported farm bill (S. 3240) would reauthorize the current sugar and sugar-to-ethanol programs without any changes through crop year 2017. The American Sugar Alliance, representing sugar producers and processors, applauded the committee’s decision to continue the “no-cost” U.S. sugar policy. The Coalition for Sugar Reform, representing sugarusing food manufacturing firms and their allies, expressed disappointment that the committee extended what they call an “outdated and anticompetitive” program. The House Agriculture Committee plans to consider its version of a farm bill in late June.

Congressional opponents of current U.S. sugar policy have stated their intent to seek changes to the program in Senate floor action and House committee markup. Introduced bills and other proposals form the basis for amendments expected to be offered. S. 25 would phase out sugar loan rates in stages through the 2014 crops, and eliminate all price support beginning in 2015. The text of this bill was offered as an amendment during Senate floor debate on June 13, and tabled (i.e., rejected) on a 50-46 vote. Other pending bills, S. 685/H.R. 1739; Title I, Subtitle C, of identical bills S. 1658/H.R. 3111; H.R. 1385; and Section 521(a) of identical bills H.R. 408/S. 178, would repeal all sugar price support provisions immediately or starting with the 2013 crops.

All eight introduced bills would repeal all statutory authorities pertaining to sugar marketing quotas and allotments, payments made to processors to store sugar forfeited to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), storage facility loans, and the feedstock flexibility program for bioenergy producers (i.e., the sugar-to-ethanol) program. However, they differ in changes proposed to the sugar import quota. Some bills would require that each year’s import quotas for raw cane sugar and refined sugars be set to ensure “an adequate supply of sugar at reasonable prices in the United States.” By contrast, the other measures would go further and completely eliminate all U.S. tariffs on sugar imports as well as the quota-setting authority administered by USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative. Pending S.Amdt. 2433 to S. 3240 would return price support loan rates to 2008 levels, and require USDA to administer the sugar import quota and marketing allotments to provide “adequate supplies of sugar at reasonable prices.”


Date of Report: June 19, 2012
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: R42551
Price: $19.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:
 

R42551.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Sugar Program Proposals for the 2012 Farm Bill


Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

The sugar program is structured to operate at no cost to the federal government—an objective that has been achieved over the last decade primarily using two tools: marketing allotments that limit the amount that sugar processors can sell, and import quotas that restrict the quantity of foreign sugar allowed to enter the U.S. market. Since the program records no outlays, its future has not received attention among the proposals submitted to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees for revising the farm safety net and reducing farm program spending.

Producers of sugar beets and sugarcane, and the processors of these crops into sugar, favor retaining the current program without change. They highlight the jobs and economic activity created by the domestic sugar sector. Two general farm organizations and a coalition of some developing countries that benefit from selling against their shares of the U.S. sugar import quota also support continuing the current sugar program.

Food manufacturing firms that use sugar in their products advocate program elimination or a transition toward a free market in sugar in the United States. In support of these changes, they point to the higher wholesale refined sugar prices paid since the 2008 farm bill provisions took effect (twice the level compared to the previous 2002 farm bill period). Consumer, trade advocacy groups, and general business organizations that favor freer trade support their position.

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s reported farm bill (S. 3240) would reauthorize the current sugar and sugar-to-ethanol programs without any changes through crop year 2017. The American Sugar Alliance, representing sugar producers and processors, applauded the committee’s decision to continue the “no-cost” U.S. sugar policy. The Coalition for Sugar Reform, representing sugarusing food manufacturing firms and their allies, expressed disappointment that the committee extended what they call an “outdated and anticompetitive” program. The House Agriculture Committee plans to consider its version of a farm bill in late June.

Congressional opponents of current U.S. sugar policy have stated their intent to seek changes to the program in Senate floor action and House committee markup. Bills introduced to date and other possible proposals are likely to serve as the basis for amendments that could be offered. S. 25 would phase out sugar loan rates in stages through the 2014 crops, and eliminate all price support beginning in 2015. The text of this bill was offered as an amendment during Senate floor debate on June 13, and tabled (i.e., rejected) on a 50-46 vote. Other pending bills, S. 685/H.R. 1739; Title I, Subtitle C, of identical bills S. 1658/H.R. 3111; H.R. 1385; and Section 521(a) of identical bills H.R. 408/S. 178, would repeal all sugar price support provisions immediately or beginning with the 2013 crops.

All eight introduced bills would repeal all statutory authorities pertaining to sugar marketing quotas and allotments, payments made to processors to store sugar forfeited to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), storage facility loans, and the feedstock flexibility program for bioenergy producers (i.e., the sugar-to-ethanol) program. However, they differ in changes proposed to the sugar import quota. S. 25, H.R. 1385, and Section 521(b) of H.R. 408/S. 178 would require that each year’s import quotas for raw cane sugar and refined sugars be set to ensure “an adequate supply of sugar at reasonable prices in the United States.” By contrast, S. 685/H.R. 1739 and the sugar program repeal provisions in S. 1658/H.R. 3111 would go further and completely eliminate all U.S. tariffs on sugar imports as well as the quota-setting authority administered by USDA and the U.S. Trade Representative.


Date of Report: June 14, 2012
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: R42551
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at
http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs


Megan Stubbs
Analyst in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently administer over 20 programs and subprograms that are directly or indirectly available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural lands. The number, scope, and overall funding of these programs has grown in recent years. This growth can cause some confusion over which problems and conditions each program addresses, and specific program characteristics and performance. The programs are as follows: 
  • Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) Program 
  • Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program 
  • Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) 
  • Conservation Operations (CO); Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) 
  • Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 
  • CRP—Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 
  • CRP—Farmable Wetlands Program 
  • Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 
  • Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) 
  • Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program 
  • Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 
  • EQIP—Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) 
  • EQIP—Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) 
  • Farmland Protection Program (FPP) 
  • Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) 
  • Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) 
  • Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program 
  • Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program 
  • Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 
  • Watershed Rehabilitation Program 
  • Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) 
  • Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) 
This tabular presentation provides basic information introducing each of the programs. In each case, a brief program description is followed by information on major amendments in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246); national scope and availability; states with the greatest participation; the backlog of applications or other measures of continuing interest; program funding authority; FY2012 funding; FY2013 Administration budget request; statutory authority; the authorization expiration date; and a link to the program’s website.


Date of Report: May 30, 2012
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R40763
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at
http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.