Farm Bill's Provisions on Food Stamps Programs Illustrate Partisan Divide

House Agriculture members voted along party lines Thursday and rejected a Republican proposal under which states would continue hiring private contractors to administer food stamps programs.

The Subcommittee on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry voted, 5-6, to defeat the amendment by Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., during a markup of the farm bill (HR 2419). The panel later approved by voice vote the nutrition and forestry titles of the legislation, which is scheduled for one final Agriculture subcommittee markup June 19.

Boustany's amendment sought to undo a provision in the nutrition section specifying that only state employees could decide who is eligible for food stamps. According to the Agriculture Department (USDA), current law mandates that private contractors play no role in eligibility decisions; they only collect relevant information from potential beneficiaries. But the bill essentially would prevent states from hiring private contractors to administer food stamps programs, Boustany said. Some states, such as Indiana, have benefited from hiring contractors, he said.

"This provision would force states to void contracts," he said. "We'd be pulling the rug out from under Indiana, costing them billions to start all over again." Agriculture Committee Democrats are concerned that applicants' private infor-mation, including health records, is less protected when handled by contractors. "The whole transaction, including the interview, needs to be in the public sector," said Earl Pomeroy, a Democrat representing North Dakota, adding that he is concerned that some contractors are influencing state eligibility decisions for financial gain.

Although farm policy tends to split along regional lines, Thursday's markup indicated that budgetary issues are dividing Democrats and Republicans: Democ-rats defended increased spending on food stamps and other nutrition programs, and Republicans demanded that budgetary offsets be found first. Nutrition programs, which make up the bulk of the bill's spending, would be funded for five years at $5.8 billion more than allocated by the 2002 farm bill (PL 107-171), the committee said. But the additional funding would have to come from a $20 billion "reserve fund" lawmakers can tap only if they find offsets.

"There are some provisions that are built on reserve funds in this bill which, quite frankly, make us very nervous," said ranking subcommittee Republican Jo Bonner of Alabama. Nutrition advocates are still dissatisfied with the bill's overall funding -- they would like to see nutrition programs expanded by $20 billion over five years -- and they said they would push for amendments during the full committee markup of the bill, which is scheduled to be held June 26-28.

Other Amendments Randy Neugebauer, a Republican representing Texas, offered an amendment that would have prevented food stamps programs from being tweaked to reflect current inflation rates. It was rejected, 4-6.

Neugebauer claimed that annual inflation increases are hard to budget for, and he reminded the committee that overall increases to food stamps programs are contingent on reserve funding.

If that funding can be found, households with fewer than three people would get more benefits from the food stamps program. Smaller households tend to get fewer federal dollars. The bill also contains a provision that would exempt a family's education and retirement funds from calculations used to determine food stamps eligibility. Neugebauer offered another amendment that would have undone this provision, but it was rejected by voice vote.

The committee adopted several amendments by voice vote, including one by Wisconsin Democrat Steve Kagen, that would allow the USDA to give out grants to educate food stamps recipients about nutrition, and another by Bonner that would rename the food stamps program the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The forestry title was approved without amendment.