WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry passed its farm bill proposal last week, debate continued on how much belt-tightening will occur in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

“By closing loopholes in the food stamp program that grant eligibility to some who are not truly needy, we could still meet legitimate hunger and nutrition needs and also fulfill our budgetary obligations,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

The Senate’s proposal, passed 16-5 in committee, calls for $4 billion in SNAP savings over 10 years. The House plan, passed April 18 on mainly a party-line vote, called for annual SNAP savings of $13 billion.

Total SNAP spending was almost $72 billion in 2011, with nutrition programs making up more than 75 percent of annual farm bill expenditures. The Senate plan for SNAP – expected to form the basis for any legislation meeting presidential approval – realizes savings by increasing program accountability.

“This farm bill ends unnecessary direct payment subsidies, consolidates programs and cracks down on fraud and abuse,” said Senate committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

Proposals for SNAP savings in the Senate plan include stopping lottery winners from receiving SNAP assistance, ending SNAP misuse by college students, cracking down on those trafficking in benefits and increasing requirements to prevent liquor and tobacco stores from accepting SNAP benefits. Eliminating benefit overpayments also contributes to the Senate bill’s SNAP savings.

While the committee’s final proposal passed with broad bipartisan support, two amendments called up but both withdrawn in committee illustrated party differences toward potential SNAP reform. A “sense of the Senate” amendment, sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and supported by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), called for keeping SNAP funding at present levels to combat child poverty.

“I urge my colleagues who are looking for places where we need to tighten our belts. please, do not ask that of hungry children. It is the one place we should not be tightening a belt. These are children who need this food,” said Gillibrand.

The amendment was withdrawn in committee, with Gillibrand promising to bring it to the full Senate floor.

 

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) called up and withdrew an amendment that he said closed the “LIHEAP loophole,” referring to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Republicans claim current SNAP legislation allows those receiving LIHEAP to claim a standard utility deduction when calculating SNAP benefits.

This qualifies SNAP recipients for greater benefits, even though Republican critics claim out-of-pocket expenses for which the deduction was intended do not actually occur. Democrats in both House and Senate, including Gillibrand, dispute the “loophole” definition of LIHEAP.

Boozman said the Senate bill did not go far enough to reform the way LIHEAP benefits are used in SNAP calculations. “We really should close this loophole and redirect funds to other nutrition programs,” he said. “Gimmicks that inflate SNAP deny us the ability to confront the real problem and delay our ability to have the conversation we should be having, which is how do we define the neediest among us.”

Boozman withdrew his amendment, saying he hopes conversation for reform around LIHEAP and SNAP might continue.

The Senate committee’s public debate on SNAP was less heated than earlier debate in the House, where changing the LIHEAP language in SNAP made up the largest savings in the House Agriculture Committee’s Agricultural Reconciliation Act passed April 18. House Committee Ranking Member Collin Petersen (D-Minn.) said that proposal represented a departure from the committee’s bipartisan tradition.

“Taking a meat axe to nutrition programs that feed millions of hardworking families, in an effort to avoid defense cuts, is not a serious way to achieve deficit reduction,” he said.

House Republicans disagreed. “Every one of these proposals represents common sense and good government in a time of fiscal restraint. There is no denying that SNAP provides important support for many Americans. That’s why it’s important that we ensure the integrity of this program,” said Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas of Oklahoma.

In addition to changing the LIHEAP calculations, the House proposal calls for an additional $11 billion in SNAP savings by ensuring that eligibility be triggered only for households receiving government cash assistance.

Other proposed savings in the House plan include reducing inflation-indexed increases in nutrition education programs, cutting a $3.1 billion cost share for employment programs contained in SNAP and eliminating the $5.9 billion increase in SNAP benefits provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The average monthly SNAP caseload has increased from 17.2 million people in 2000 to 44.7 million in 2010, according to a USDA Economic Research Service report released April 6. According to that report, SNAP’s anti-poverty effect peaked in 2009, the same year benefit increases were authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The researchers reported SNAP benefits have had substantial effects upon reducing child poverty.