Opinion ID: 494606
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Food Purchasing Power

Text: 18 The first argument rests on two premises: that Congress intended that income should be defined to reflect the food purchasing power of a food stamp household and that the restaurant allowance does not increase this purchasing power in comparison with a household that has cooking facilities. To support the first premise, appellants rely on a passage from the House Report explaining that a deduction for certain work-related expenses was appropriate because a working household has fewer funds available to buy food after it has incurred [work-related] outlays. House Report, supra, at 61. Reliance on this passage for the conclusion that income must be defined in accordance with food purchasing power is misplaced. The surrounding language makes clear that Congress only sought to provide vital work incentives and to encourage household members to work by not making it more difficult for a working household ... to purchase its food stamps than a non-working household.... Id. 19 Any broader reading of this passage is contradicted elsewhere in the House Report. That Report indicates that one of Congress' key goals in enacting the Food Stamp Act of 1977 was to overturn cited court decisions that had invalidated the Secretary's rulings--counting certain payments as income--because the court had determined that the payments did not increase a household's food purchasing power. Id. at 27-28. By providing more specific definitions of income in the 1977 Act than it had previously, Congress sought to prevent frequent judicial invalidation of the Department's income regulations and instructions as inconsistent with Congressional goals and/or the even broader judicially-developed interpretation of the Act's purpose as guaranteeing households the right to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet. Id. at 19, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, p. 1995. 20 The House Report then expressly disapproved of the holding in Hein v. Burns, 402 F.Supp. 398 (S.D.Iowa 1975) (three judge panel), rev'd sub nom. Knebel v. Hein, 429 U.S. 288, 97 S.Ct. 549, 50 L.Ed.2d 485 (1977), which it described as having invalidated the inclusion in income of a reimbursement for training related travel expenses because the reimbursement did not increase the plaintiff's purchasing power and thus in any way aid plaintiff to attain a nutritionally adequate diet. House Report, supra, at 27. The Report also disapproved of Turchin v. Butz, 405 F.Supp. 1263 (D.Minn.1976), which had followed the rationale in Hein in invalidating the inclusion of a similar training allowance. House Report, supra, at 28. Commenting upon these cases, the Committee Report could not have been stated more clearly: 21 the Committee ... views its broad-gauged definition of income as rational and equitable, since it intends to measure income as broadley [sic] as possible to be fair to all recipients as well as to the taxpaying public and not simply by reference to purchasing power available for food. 22 Id. at 27, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977, p. 2004 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress has already rejected the first premise of appellants' argument. 23 The second premise--that the restaurant allowance does not increase a household's food purchasing power--is also plainly not supported by legislative history. Appellants compare restaurant allowance households to households which are able to prepare their meals at home and conclude that the latter has greater food purchasing power even after the former receives the allowance. The Secretary, on the other hand, compares restaurant allowance households to households that are not able to prepare meals at home, but still do not receive the allowance. Appellants' reasoning is similar to that of the lower court in Hein, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on appeal: 24 The District Court's primary reason for invalidating the regulations was its view that transportation grants do not increase food purchasing power. But the grant does give a household more food purchasing power than another household which receives no grant but incurs similar nondeductible expenses related to training or employment. 25 429 U.S. at 295-96, 97 S.Ct. at 554. The House Report for the 1977 Food Stamp Act quotes this passage with approval. House Report, supra, at 27. Thus, the Secretary's ruling is not, as appellants argue, inconsistent with Congress' aim.