Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in SNAP

This hearing on the subcommittee on delivering on government efficiency will come to order I wanna welcome everyone uh without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time. And I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. Good morning. I wanna welcome everybody. Uh, we are here to examine waste, fraud and abuse in one of the largest government welfare programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as Food Stamps, provides one hundred billion dollars annually in federal food assistance. Every dollar from this program is intended to help feed eligible individuals in need. That's not where every dollar goes, not by a long shot. In one state, Food Stamp and Rollies and Rollies own more than fourteen thousand luxury vehicles including Lamborghinis and Bentleys. due to an eligibility loophole. And in two thousand twenty-four, ten billion dollars in food stamps benefits were improperly paid out by the States, which are charged with administering the program. The Government Accountability Office reports that these payment errors are most mostly failures to verify recipients met all eligibility r- criteria such as being in the country legally. Loopholes in incorrect payments are costly enough, but the tax dollars lost outright. fraud may be greater. For instance, the Government Accountability Office estimated that trafficking in food stamps is a five billion dollar annual industry. Trafficking occurs when a crooked store owner profits off taxpayers by turning benefits into cash for example a customer swipes the EBT card for two hundred dollars in groceries the clerk gives back a hundred dollars cash and pockets the difference the customer then uses the cash to buy ineligible items, such as alcohol or cigarettes. To address fraud in federal benefit programs, the Pre- the President created in March the White House Task Force to eliminate fraud led by Vice President Vance. Building on Doge's efforts, the task force is working to eliminate data silos that make it hard to access the data needed to verify recipient eligibility and to flag potential fraud. If food stamp recipients' d- data stays in state-specific databases, for instance, individuals may apply for and receive benefits from multiple states. That's why Agrico- Agricultural Secretary, Brooke Rawlins, requested food stamp beneficiary and transaction data for the past five years from all fifty states and Washington, D. C. Data came in from twenty-nine states, nearly all under Republican governance, including my own state of Tennessee. With the data received, the Agricultural Department reports identifying three billion in potential fraud and waste including benefits being sent to a hundred and eighty-six thousand dead people, to four hundred and forty-two thousand applicants with fraudulent social security numbers and to hundreds of thousands of individuals who got duplicate benefits by submitting applications to multiple jurisdictions. But we do not know the full extent of the problems because many states, including some of those with the most food stamps beneficiaries, like California, refused to comply with Agriculture Department's data request. And that's very disappointing. The fight against fraud should not be a partisan issue. That's why yesterday I sent request letters to the noncompliant states with the highest number of food stamp beneficiaries. Um, my letter demands to know why they refuse to release data about federal taxpayer-funded spending. It also demands their communication and correspondence about the administration's data requ- request. Federal taxpayers deserve to know what Governor Newsom and his counterparts in other states are trying to hide. and at what cost. Congress must provide safeguards and oversight on these programs. With that, I yield to my co-chair, Miss Stansbury, for her opening remarks, otherwise known as Ranking Member.

All right. Well, good morning, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. And it's great to finally have a formal hearing again and be on the record, as this subcommittee has had a long absence from formal hearings, in fact by our count it's been eight months since this committee has been on the record, and so I wanna congratulate the chairman on his first official hearing, and I am eager to get into this conversation and certainly there are lots of bipartisan efforts that can be identified to address waste fraud and abuse in federal programmings and to root out improper payments and fraud in federal support programs. And we can prove it. House Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass over eight oversight bills this month aimed at rooting out financial fraud and improper payments. But we remain skeptical and strongly uh opposed to efforts to use this as a front to try to further gut public assistance programs. In fact, uh we have seen over the last year and a half as this administration and this majority has used waste, fraud, and abuse basic programs that feed our children. I think that all of us can agree that in one of the wealthiest countries on planet Earth there should not be hungry children. But over the last year and a half we have seen one of the most dramatic increases in hunger in the modern time. In fact, recent reports have revealed that the United States is experiencing the highest rates of hunger since before the pandemic. One in five children right now are currently going without meals. One in five children in the United States. And because of the big ugly bill that was passed last year, on July fourth, and signed into law, a report this week in Pro Publica revealed that over seven hundred and seventy thousand American children are going without meals because of the big, ugly bill that Donald Trump pushed through with the support of this majority on the backs of the American people, which we know has also affected three point five million Americans' access to food assistance. This is a moral fail- failure. This is not just a policy argument. This is a moral failure in one of the richest countries on planet Earth. What we have seen, not just through the Big Ugly Bill, but through the sustained attacks on the WIC and other food assistance programs that have happened during this Congress and this administration is that it had it has chipped away at the ability of families to access these programs. While these supposed work requirements and other paperwork requirements are intended supposedly to address waste, fraud and abuse, they have instead created barriers that are significant enough to cause millions of families to lose access. to basic food. This is a public health crisis. Food is not just essential to life, but access to healthy food is also essential for children's development, for their health, for their ability to thrive. And so while President Trump is taking away food from hungry kids, we've also seen economic policies that have caused the cost of food to skyrocket. the price of food and vegetables has increased by six percent since May of last year. Energy costs have increased by twenty-three percent since last year. And when you couple that with cuts in access to health care, cuts in access to food assistance, cuts in access to educational assistance, and the fact that yesterday the President of the United States failed to show up to sign a housing bill that was bipartisan that would have helped millions of families across the United States access housing assistance. We have never seen in, I believe, modern times an administration that is so anti-family and so anti-working family as we have seen over the last several months. It is hurting our children. It is on the backs of our people. Meanwhile, we're back to this Doge subcommittee. Doge has effectively been killed within the administration because of the significant breaking of the law that has happened over the last year and a half of laying off workers gutting programs and doing so without congressional consent. Court orders have ordered them to rehire, to rebuild, and yet this administration continues to ignore the law. And here we are, once again, attacking a fundamental program that supports our families. If we were actually serious about rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, we would be investigating the twenty-one inspector generals who were fired by this administration. We would be investigating the thousands of investigators in these federal programs who were laid off by Doge, who are actually the people who look into waste, fraud and abuse. If we were serious about rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, we would be investigating the millions of dollars that this administration just wasted on remodeling the reflecting pool in which is now disintegrating before our eyes. We would be investigating what is happening with the illegal demolition of the East Wing. We would be investigating the Secretary of Defense, who not only used federal taxpayer dollars to buy lobster and steak dinners, but just asked this body last night for billions of dollars more for an illegal war that both the House and the Senate have already voted on a war powers resolution is an illegal war. And so while I appreciate that today is about investigating waste, fraud and abuse, and I appreciate the oversight on states that have records of challenges, I would also note that the five states to whom this letter was sent have democratic governors, was not sent to any states with Republican governors. So. I think we have to ask ourselves, what is this actually about? Is this really about rooting out waste, fraud and abuse? Or is this about taking food out of the mouths of our children? So I look forward to the conversation, and with that I yield back.

Thank you. I'd like to welcome our witnesses. Um. First we have John Walck, Mister Walck is Inspector General for US Department of Agriculture. Next we have Don Royal. a former two-term President and current Director of the United Council on Welfare Fraud. Next we have Rachel Gressler. Miss Gressler is a Senior Research Fellow at the Plymouth Institute for Free Enterprise and Advancing American Freedom. And last we have Gina Plata. I'm sorry, ma'am, I know I wanted to get it right, that's why I asked him Plata, Birchit, nobody ever gets it right. Plata Nino. So thank you, ma'am. And you're the Director of uh Snap Policy and advocacy at the Food Research and Action Center. And I want to thank you all for joining us, and I look forward to your testimony. Um, pursuant to committee rule nine G, the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. Do you solemnly swear to affirm or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing of it but the truth, so help you God? The record showed the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and thank you. All y'all may take your seats. We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written statement and it will be appear in the in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it is on and the members can hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes on, your five minutes have expired and we would ask you to please wrap it up. I now recognize Inspector General Walck for his opening statement. Uh, sorry, you're recognized.

Chair and branchette, Ranking members Dansberry and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on supplemental nutrition assistance program, Snap Fraud. Snap Fraud is a reprehensible crime that squanders the compassion of American who fund the program and rob some of those low income Americans who qualify for Snap benefits to feed themselves and their families. Snap fraud is not confined to a single individual who engages in deceptive practices to apply for Snap benefits they are not eligible for. Perpetrators of Snap fraud include highly organized, tech-savvy, sophisticated criminals that steal enormous sums of money. Proceeds of Snap fraud have gone to individuals linked to terrorist groups, foreign adversary nations, and transnational criminal organizations. Snap fraud is not a victimless crime, although its victims are often forgotten. They are the hard-working, tax-paying American farmers, meatpackers, and truck drivers who deliver produce from farm to family. All of America's taxpayers give from the fruits of their labor to fund food assistance, showing America's goodness to less fortunate neighbors. And they are the victims of snap fraud. The other victims are the vulnerable and low-income Americans who Snap is intended to benefit. People like the woman one of my special agents told me about, a working mom of four, a Snap recipient who discovered that her Snap benefits were all stolen from her electronic benefits transfer or EBT card while attempting to pay for food at the grocery store and here she asked how she would feed her family for the month until Snap benefits would next be paid out. Just this week I spoke to another victim in New York, a working father of five. whose Snap EBT card was skimmed and benefits were remotely drained. I've heard many stories from victims like these, working moms and dads, in my six months as Inspector General. USDA OIG is working hard every single day on behalf of these victims. They are why Snap Fraud matters. With limited time, I will highlight some of the prevalent forms of Snap Fraud OIG encounters though there are many others. EBT card skimming is a serious concern. Criminals use skimming technology to capture information such as the EPT card, number, and PIN code. The data captured is then used to clone the victim's EPT card. Criminals will then cash out at the opportune time. The legitimate recipient is left without food assistance. On this easel here is a picture of a skimmer that can be overlaid to a point of sale device in as little as seven seconds. The criminal now controls the EPT card, and owns all the dollars that will be loaded to that card. Snap trafficking remains an investigatory priority. Today, there are more than two hundred fifty thousand food retail stores authorized to exchange food for Snap benefits. They then obtain federal reimbursement for the food they sell. You can think of them as the providers in this program. And scrupulous retailers will instead use their stores to launder Snap benefits. An individual will exchange their EPT card for cash and the retailer will extract the remaining value from the card or sell it. But it's not only cash. Picture it is a store in Southern California, involved in an investigation by local and federal law enforcement that OIG supported. Snap EPT cards were trafficked for cash, exchanged with local gang members at that location for crack cocaine. The gang members then u- used the proceeds from those SnapCards to purchase guns, all with tax dollars. I'll just repeat that. Snap dollars, federal tax dollars used to buy drugs and guns. And as - as the um uh District Attur- Attorney of uh San Diego shared, just perpetuating the violence already in the - in some of our communities. EBT terminal fraud is also a growing concern. This scheme allows fraudsters to impersonate an authorized retailer and direct Snap payments to their own bank account. In a recent case, one case, the loss was sixty-six million dollars. Deterring fraud requires exacting real consequences on those who commit fraud. OIG will continue to investigate, make arrests, and support convictions. Although a strong law enforcement response is critical, we cannot pay and chase our way to stopping Snap fraud. To be effective, we need to guard the front door by ensuring that proper internal controls at USDA and state administering agencies are in place to prevent fraud. Adopting modern technology to verify identity and other applicant information before making payments is crucial. In addition to the ability to identify and prevent snap fraud, uh, we need to - we would benefit tremendously from improved information sharing between the Fe- federal government and the states. Although USDA maintains data on authorized retailers, individual states maintain data on their own program participants, and access to this information would allow federal oversight to evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls at the applicant level and help fix vulnerabilities. Finally, low-tech security measures associated with SNAP are outmatched by high-tech schemes. Fraud identification, detection, and prevention systems should be updated to meet the tactics and tools of modern fraudsters. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on this important topic. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, General. This role you recognize, ma'am.

Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Stansbury, other members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to p- to appear before you today. The United Council on Welfare Fraud is the only national organization of investigators dedicated to protecting public assistance We are the professionals to get it dedicated to the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of fraud, safeguarding billions of taxpayer dollars to ensure our nation's welfare programs remain strong to assist those in need. I appear before you today as a certified welfare fraud investigator with nearly two decades of experience, representing hundreds of investigators who spend their days in the trenches fighting the war against fraud. also advocating to ensure the laws and regulations that are supposed to be supporting these efforts do so. Unfortunately, too many of the safeguards of our nation's SNAP program have been weakened, delayed, or inconsistently implemented. The result is predictable, benefits have been exploited, and public confidence has eroded. I first had the honor of appearing before this subcommittee nearly a year and a half ago to discuss the broader issues of fraud. We provided our unique perspective from those dealing with these issues and detailed our recommendations to this panel, many of which were later echoed in the committee's own recommendations. So thank you, on behalf of UCOF and the beneficiaries we are protecting. My message today, with the focus on SNAP, fifteen months after the subcommittee's first hearing, the passage of H R one, and in light of the nationwide fraud discoveries, is more direct. The time for reflection has passed. Action is needed now. SNAP is a vital program, but it's broken. Congress has held hearings, GAO has issued reports, and for its part, Yukof has submitted detailed recommendations to congressional committees, including this one, to the White House Task Force to eliminate fraud and several cabinet agencies. The bottom line, Snap and the beneficiaries who rely on it need you to act. So what is missing? Where is the disconnect? Action, accountability, and support. Growing up, like you, my family taught me that actions speak louder than words. But even more so, what actions we take on a regular basis form our habits and that creates our character illustrating our priorities. When every week brings another screaming headline on another uncovered fraudster, what does this tell us about where we stand on curbing the incidence of snap fraud? If we care as a people, we act, if we don't, the results are predictable. I'd like to share a brief anecdote One of my colleagues recently brought a case to our attention that illustrates several of the ongoing problems in SNAP. One addressed a one-bedroom efficiency, had twenty-seven SNAP and twelve Medicaid beneficiaries. Logic would suggest it's impossible for all of those beneficiaries to live in a one-bedroom apartment. But it is this this is the program we have fostered. These are the types of circumstances that we're dealing with. Or take another case that is a remnant of the COVID area, long after the end of the public health emergency. There is nothing an investigator, based on current federal policy, can do to prevent a SNAP beneficiary from using their EBT benefits to have eligible items delivered to someone else in another state. So, a recipient with an EBT card issued from Nebraska can order a case of Red Bull on Walmart, Amazon, DoorDash, or Uber Eats and have it delivered to or picked up by someone in Kentucky. This was permitted during the pandemic, but it's one of the few COVID-era policies that has not been rescinded. and it's fraud. Benefits delivery should be restricted to the beneficiary's address of record. It's one of the few safeguards the program has, and convenience of this sort only encourages fraudulent behavior. My written testimony, the bills on you coughed comments last year, and I promise I won't go point by point, but rather refer it to you as it represents a perspective of those fighting the daily battles for all of us. Further, it also serves as a blueprint for the work that still needs to be accomplished, not only to protect the millions of SNAP beneficiaries, but also the taxpayers underwriting the program. We urge Congress to legislate where authority is needed and protect funds for program integrity. We urge USDA to fully implement the laws and uniformly enforce its regulations. Similarly, CMS mu- must resolve the uncertainty fragmenting SNAP and Medicaid cases due to its inaction. To enforce all of this, the subcommittee, in coordination with authorizers and appropriators, should require written plans with named officials, measurable milestones, public reporting, and consequences for missed deadlines. Program and integrity program integrity and compassion are not competing values. Strong oversight of SNAP program protects taxpayers and recipients. Both parties have a stake in the continuing viability of this program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The dedicated professionals at Ucoff are committed to helping you and your colleagues preserve SNAP, and the rest of our country's social welfare programs. And I welcome questions from you and your colleagues.

Thank you, Miss Rohl. Miss Gressler, you are recognized for five minutes, ma'am.

Chairman Burchett, ranking member of Sandsbury, and members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Rachel Gressler and I am a senior research fellow at Advancing American Freedom. The American people must report every dollar they earn to the federal government. And they face penalties, audits, and potential prosecution if they don't pay the right amount. Yet, there's remarkably little accountability for the four point two trillion taxpayer dollars that the Washington re- re- distributes across about a hundred federal benefit programs. This lack of transparency and accountability is the central problem underlying waste, fraud, and abuse. A hundred and eighty-four billion dollars. That's the amount that the federal government reported last year in improper payments. And it's equivalent to about eight weeks of gas and groceries for every household in America. That figure doesn't even include programs that aren't measured or fraud that goes undetected. The GAO reported that taxpayers lose up to five hundred and twenty-one billion dollars per year at the upper end that's almost two months of housing payments, for every household in America. It's understandable that many hard-working Americans are frustrated when they struggle to afford ordinary expenses even as the government fails to safeguard their taxes. Today, we're talking about the SNAP program, which has exploded over the past past fifteen years. This growth can't be explained solely based on need. The poverty rate has declined since two thousand eight, and yet the percentage of people on SNAP benefits has increased over fifty percent. With the explosion in spending has come a five-fold increase in improper payments, a ten point nine percent improper payment rate last year, equal to ten point two billion dollars. The incentive problem is obvious. The states decide what to spend and the federal taxpayer foots the bill. It doesn't matter whether a state has a three percent improper payment rate like South Dakota or twenty-five percent like Alaska. The federal government pays it all. H R one included a huge win for SNAP accountability by requiring states to share in the costs if their improper payments exceed six percent. This is a crucial step towards protecting taxpayer dollars, and it should be extended to other federal programs. It's important to note that much of the outright fraud that occurs, such as that that's been discussed by Inspector Wok and Miss Royal, often isn't counted in the improper payments because it happens after the benefits are delivered. Legal abuse of programs, such as millionaires qualifying for benefits because of eligibility loopholes also isn't included in p- in proper payments. The Trump administration and this Congress have taken unprecedented steps towards reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. And many of those actions are in line with my four proposals to establish radical transparency and meaningful accountability for taxpayers' dollars. First, follow the money. The federal government should account for the money it spends as carefully as it accounts for the dollars it collects. We can't reduce fraud if we can't follow the money. Second, close eligibility loopholes. Congress should end legal abuse of federal welfare programs by eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, which allows individuals to automatically qualify for benefits based on something as trivial as receiving a brochure. The Department of Agriculture estimated that this loophole allowed five point six million individuals who were not eligible under federal standards to nonetheless receive SNAP benefits. The No Welfare for the Wealthy Act of twenty twenty five would reduce this abuse by requiring households to meet federal standards for SNAP benefits. Third, measure improper payments accurately and consistently. Many programs aren't measured at all, others are measured inconsistently, and some recent administrations have intentionally undercounted improper payments. Congress should require all distributors of federal benefits to comply with federal measurement standards and data requests. Failure to do so should trigger cost sharing or disqualification from distributing benefits. And fourth is to expand skim in the g- skin in the game accountability. Without consequences, laws aimed at protecting taxpayers' dollars will fail. Policymakers should expand H R one's SNAP provisions by imposing fix it or fund it yourself requirements across all federal programs. Congress's constitutional authority over the purse does not end when taxpayer dollars leave the treasury. Every federal dollar that is spent should be subject to the same scrutiny, accountability that is required of taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Miss Plata Nino is recognized.

Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am an attorney in good standing and I have represented clients who need help accessing SNAP because the process was too burdensome. I have seen firsthand the daily struggles families face when food assistance is delayed, denied, or difficult to obtain. I have also had the opportunity to serve the federal government and saw the hard work state agencies do to help programs operate more efficiently and effectively. I want to begin with a simple point. Program integrity and food access are not competing goals. Congress can protect taxpayers' dollars and protect families from hunger at the same time. But to do that, we must be precise about the problem we are trying to solve. SNAP is not an abstract line item. It is grocery money that allows a grandmother to buy food after paying for prescriptions. It is a support that helps the parents stretch a low paycheck through the end of the month. It is the difference between a child arriving at school ready to learn and a child trying to focus on an empty stomach. In twenty twenty four, over forty seven million people in the United States live food insecure households, including over fourteen million children. Those numbers represent American families making impossible choices every day. SNAP responds to that need. It served over forty one million people in fiscal year twenty four, and most SNAP households include a child, an older adult, a person with a disability. Many participants work in jobs that pay too little or offer too few stable hours. Others turn to SNAP during a layoff, a health crisis, a caregiving emergency, or a temporary loss of income. SNAP helps people weather hardship and it helps them move forward. That is why accuracy matters. Every dollar should reach the people who qualify for help, but we s- not but we must not confuse payment errors with fraud. Fraud involves intentional wrongdoing. Payment errors often involve complicated rules, changing work hours, missing paperwork, outdated systems, or agency mistakes. Treating every hour as fraud misdiagnoses the problem. It also drives policies that can punish eligible families instead of fixing the administrative systems that need support. SNAP already has one of the most rigorous integrity systems in the federal government. Applicants complete detailed applications, participate in interviews, submit documentation, and have their information checked against federal and state databases. States conduct ongoing reviews and the SNAP quality control system reexamines tens of thousands of cases each year. When states identify errors, they must correct them and where required, submit corrective action plans. The greatest fraud threat facing SNAP households, as my colleague said, today is organized benefit theft. Criminal skims, clone, and phish, EBT. cards then drain benefits from households that have already proven their eligibility, costing billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. Behind every claim is a household that expected to buy groceries and instead found an empty account. Congress should focus on the vulnerabilities that actually harm families and taxpayers. That means accelerating chip-enabled EBT cards. Congress should also protect the administrative capacity that makes integrity possible. States reduce errors when they can hire trained eligibility workers. modernize outdated systems, answer phones, process documents on time, and conduct meaningful quality reviews. Cutting administrative support as H R one has done by shifting an additional twenty-five percent to states while demanding greater accuracy, runs counter to the goal of accountability. Finally, Congress should evaluate snap performance with a full set of measures. Payment accuracy, benefit theft, timeliness, access, churn, customer service, and participation among eligible households. A state can lower an error rate by making the program harder to access, but that does not mean it has improved integrity. It may simply mean eligible people give up, missed an interview, could not reach a call center, or lost food assistance because of paperwork. The right standard is clear. Snaps should be accurate, secure, timely, and accessible. Families should not have to prove their hunger repeatedly through unnecessary barriers. States do not have to choose between service delivery and fiscal survivors. Taxpayers should not expect oversight that targets real risk, not policies that shift costs onto families with the least ability to bear them. Snap works when it reaches eligible people and protects public resources. We can strengthen both. I urge you to invest in secure pa- payment technology, restore and preserve strong federal, state administrative support, measure what truly matters, and keep the human impact at the center of every integrity discussion that has caused over four million individuals losing snap benefits since the passage of hr one thank you and i look forward to your questions

thank you ma'am and i will commend all y'all you got it done in five minutes which is kind of incredible so y'all get your rewards in heaven alright cause this is a subcommittee we don't even have food back here anyway thank y'all and i now recognize myself Um, this is for all you all. According to nonpartisan anti-fraud experts, improved data sharing is needed to better identify and prevent fraud in federal benefit programs, especially those administered by the states. But twenty-one states have for the past year refused to provide food stamp data with the Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Department identified three billion in potential fraud just from the food stamp data submitted by twenty-one state. twenty-nine states. That includes benefits going to a hundred and eighty-six thousand deceased individuals and to four hundred and forty-two thousand beneficiaries with fake social security numbers. Based on these results, is it fair to assume the Trump administration could identify additional fraud if it had the data from twenty-one non-compliant states? Miss uh Pla- Plato Nino? Thank you, ma'am.

Plato Nino. Um,

Say it one more time for me.

platanino.

Yeah, they've told me this back here and I'm just terrible. I apologize.

That's okay.

I'm gonna get it.

That's all right. Um, thank you for the question. The Price Efficiency Act of seventy-four and the paperwork reduction of eighty creates a balance between Congress and the executive branch to make sure that we protect the privacy of Americans. The data that USDA handles and the state's handles has a high rigorous quality control measures that are important to protect the safety of American families. The data request that is being asked goes above and beyond that. It asked for five years of Americans' families' data, including HIPAA protected information, whether or not they were eligible, whether or not they apply. So think about the fifteen year old child and single mother who applied during the pandemic, and right after they found a job. Now that fifteen year old child with many medical needs, that information will go over to an entity that we don't know what sort of protections and privacy will go forward. The quality control program, as USDA has stated, has rigorous control measures and the data that is currently being sent by those states is randomized and anonymized to protect privacy of American individuals.

Thank you, ma'am. Miss Grisler.

Yes, it is absolutely fair to assume that you could catch significantly more fraud if you take fifty different siloed databases and compile them together. And just one example of that is that the same social security number could be used to claim food stamps in fifty states plus the District of Columbia. And none of those states will know that because they don't have access to the other one.

There's no um cohesive force between the two. There's the no, as we found with the IRS and a lot of our agencies, the computers just don't hook up. Is that what you're telling me?

Yes, they're not looking across them and essentially the federal government is granting a blank check to the states to apply these programs and yet they're not returning the data per the recent request to be able to ensure the integrity of those dollars.

Right. Thank you. Miss Royal.

Miss Gressler did a excellent job of answering that question. Of course more data is going to be able for us to identify more fraud. The trouble right now, states don't have access to information if uh a recipient or applicant is already receiving benefits in another state. There is a question on the application that requires the applicant to provide that information. You know, have you received benefits in another state, if so, which one? If they mark no to that, then as an investigator there's no way for me to contact another state to verify that. So having access to the data, making sure that benefits um aren't already being issued by another state and preventing dual issuance would be a significant savings to the taxpayer.

Inspector General.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can just give uh a couple of examples. Uh so with OIG, and I I'll just speak from OIG's perspective, I know that USDA is is doing a a separate data request but about a year ago under my predecessor oig requested data from the top ten uh snap uh states in terms of spending in order to review integrity and quality of the of state data. We've released one report very recently from ohio um and found thirteen point three million dollars in anomalies that would not have otherwise been found, because we were able to work with the state. the state before that report even became public started working on those uh anomalies to be able to figure out what was actually going on. Uh Puerto Rico, although not one of the - not one of the state agencies that we were looking at, uh their Comptroller General looked at their own data and came up with a h- found a hundred fifty million dollars of uh nap benefits that went to dead people, thirty-eight thousand dead people that received that that nutrition dollars. And almost immediately we went down to Puerto Rico and met with the Comptroller General and with their IG to talk through that to talk through how we can help from a federal perspective to exercise federal oversight. Because the states have this this participant data, if we don't have it, we can't even find the vulnerabilities, much less start to to uh collaborate about how we um ho- how we can go about changing it.

Okay.

Um, and today we have six of those ten states that have provided the data, four have s- continued to object after a year, and uh I recently ordered uh subpoenas for that data, and we're still waiting on it.

Okay, thank you. Um, I've run over a little bit. As Chairman I'm allowed to do that apparently, but I hate it when they do that, so I'm gonna recognize my ranking. No, you want me to go to the the demok okay. Yep, go ahead brother, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh Mister Walk, were you involved in the development of project twenty twenty five? You have any involvement in it?

I was a

Yes or, it's a yes or no?

Yes, I was a volunteer.

Limited involvement maybe?

I was a volunteer, sir.

Okay. Before you were nominated as IG you were a political appointee USDA.

N- I I was actually the judicial officer at USDA since December twenty twenty, um, twi- twenty twenty.

You were a, were you a political appointee at any point in your career in the Trump administration?

Sure, I was a a political appointee after about a- after

Okay.

nearly ten years as a career employee at USDA.

Before your nomination as IG, did you have any experience specifically in auditing? Have you ever, did you ever serve as an auditor?

When I was at the Homeland Security Department, one of my first assignments as a attorney was to um provide advice to auditors,

You provided legal advice to auditors.

about about Audit Specter general audits.

So you you never conducted any audits.

No.

Did you ever work in an IG's office as a deputy staff member? Ever work in any IG office at any level before your nomination?

No, I did not work in an IG's office.

Okay. During your tenure as IG at UST,

I'm not.

You haven't found the need to or you've made a decision that you're not gonna recuse, you don't think you need to recuse if you were involved in anything or you just

I've s- Sure. I've spoken with counsel and as well as the uh career ethics official at USDA and uh there have there have been no issues raise that has required my refusal based on their counsel.

Hmm. Interesting. OK. Your - your predecessor, uh, IG Fong, had twenty-two years of experience. Before she became IG, she had IG experience. Before that, bipartisan credibility. Mister Chairman, you can go back and watch the videos in this committee. I stood in this room and watched Democrats and Republicans praise her work. She was fired by President Trump. because he doesn't want independent IGs with experience. He wants you. No IG experience, no audit experience. A political actor and a political appointee. Snap fraud is a real issue. And that's why we need qualified, independent, non-partisan, non-political IGs. The Trump administration has systematically fired them, but let's talk about some waste, fraud, and abuse. I went down to the reflecting pool yesterday, check out the president's new project. Uh, this guy here, and I don't like to judge a book by its cover, appearances can be deceiving. But sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and dresses like a duck, it is a crook. This is John Carafo. He's a crook. He pled guilty to bribery and campaigned vi- finance violations, longtime Republican donor, got a one point seven million dollar no-bid contract to filter the water at the reflecting pool. I went down to check it out yesterday. Somewhat ironically, I didn't believe this when I was told it, his company's name is Greenwater Services. President promised us beautiful blue water. gave a contract to this crook who gave us green water, algae, and dying ducks. Mister Chairman, at some point this committee will have to address the waste, fraud, the abuse that's taking place in this administration. The wolves are in the house. They're in the White House. The waste, the fraud, and abuse is happening under our own eyes. And this Doge committee, committed to government efficiency hears no evil and sees no evil, because this is the president's buddy from Mar-a-Lago. Said he's a great guy. The president and this Congress, this Republican Congress, have literally taken food from the mouths of hungry children and they're putting it in the pockets of crooks like this. If that's not fraudulent, Mister Chairman, I don't know what is. I yield back.

Thank you. Now yield to five minutes to Mister Cloud.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I appreciate you holding this hearing. Uh, us getting rid of the waste, fraud and abuse in our government is extremely important. Uh, Miss Gessler, I think you mentioned a hundred eighty-four billion dollars in fraud uh in just a year. I'm on the Appropriations Committee and only two of our appropriations bills that fund the government are over that amount so it's that's significant with what we could be doing or returning to the American people uh if we can rein in the waste, fraud, and abuse. I'm also constantly amazed by uh how much we try to measure compassion uh by how many dollars go out the door how many people are on the rolls without uh looking at to whether it's going to accomplish those needs I appreciate uh mister walk which you had pointed out that some of these dollars are actually being used fraudulently by gangs to buy drugs and guns and uh nefarious activities not to mention somebody going overseas to bad actors and all those different kind of things uh it's important that we make sure that it's going to to do exactly what it was supposed to do i note that snap has almost doubled in the last five years meanwhile the poverty rate in our country is roughly where it was five years ago within a percentage. And so it it seems like maybe there's some overhead. Recently, just in the data shared as the chairman had mentioned, three billion a year in potential waste, fraud, and abuse just among the the the states that have shared information. A hundred eighty-six deceased individuals who are on the rolls. Now, if we take those off the rolls and the numbers of SNAP beneficiaries went down, w- what you'd hear is, oh, uh, children are not being fed from the left, but actually we're just trying to make sure that uh we're not sending money to people who are not alive anymore uh there are three hundred fifty six to five hundred thousand duplicate enrollees so some of these are people who are enrolled in multiple states uh i think miss gressler you had talked about that uh some up to six states that we know of of and this is of the state sharing information, I would think that those states not sharing information that potentially the problem is worse and maybe that's not why they're sharing information um who knows uh you know uh miss roy you talked about the checkbox that you know all you have to do is say you know are you not receiving us hoping that those committing fraud would be honest on their application right yeah this this is the big check we have um miss i was wondering if you could speak to maybe we'll go down the line to to you mentioned some of them but some of the protections that we could put in place to make sure that the the snap benefits are going to those who are truly in need uh and that we're making sure that the federal taxpayers i was really struck by your thought of what we require the information of those paying taxes into this those are basically footing the bill for snap we require to know every dollar that they're making uh but those who are receiving the benefits doesn't seem like they have that same sort of

yes thank you and i wanna go over two things and the first is looking at and

yeah

level of

addressing the benefits that the government delivers the same as the taxes it collects and so what we need to do is establish some new ten ninety nine forms. You know, if you receive a social security benefit, you file that with your taxes each year. We should be able to have every benefit that goes out the door, a beginning to an end accounting of that. And then you can have a situation where it automatically this gets detected. The Department of Justice announced a six point five billion dollar fraud take-down yesterday four hundred fifty-five dependents' health care programs. Some of those were stolen identities, and then the individuals had benefits claimed on the stolen identities. uh individual's behalf well if you don't have that individual claiming on their form that they received that benefit that's gonna be an automatic trigger to look back to the next step the next pathway in this you know beginning to end accounting to say were you the point of fraud or was it that next one but you should be able to follow that end to end and the second is getting rid of these eligibility loopholes if you look at the seven states that actually use the federal standards instead of this categorical eligibility They have fifty percent fewer people on SNAP, and they have the exact same poverty rate.

It seems to me that states are actually incentivized to just get more people in the roles, w- whether it's valid or not is the

It's money into the state and they pay zero dollars of it.

Yeah. Miss Royal, did you wanna speak to that?

Having access to the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which is a nationwide database that would provide information to states to prevent or identify dual enrollment would be critical. Uh, the next thing, ID verification, to make sure that a person applying for the benefits is not deceased, is who they say they are, and we can make sure again that the benefits are issued accurately. Um, ending self-attestation, uh, someone can go in and submit an application and answer a question with a shoulder shrug and still receive benefits. So verifying the information provided for eligibility would be significant. Increasing the retention amount, so when a state has determined that benefits have been issued to a household that they shouldn't have received, when the state recovers that, they're able to retain a portion of that money. And increasing that percentage to incentivize states to actually identify and prosecute or prevent and detect fraud uh would be substantial. And finally, requiring that retention money be used for the prevention detection and prosecution of fraud. Often many states just roll that into their general fund, so investigators continue to be um understaffed and undersourced.

Thank you. My time's up. Chairman, you're back.

Thank you. Um, mis- Mister Timmins, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you for holding this hearing. Uh, there's a huge opportunity to get government benefits to people that need them and deny uh government benef benefits to people that do not qualify for them. And it's a incredibly important issue. Uh, hundreds of billions of dollars every decade um are are are lost to waste, fraud and abuse. And we've actually been working on a bill that actually passed this committee, uh, passed this committee unanimously. I, that doesn't happen often, but It's called the Tabs Act, timely and accurate benefits. And what it does is it uses technology to confirm that a person does not make enough money. And what you do is you log into a website, you then go to your bank, you then go to your Cash App, your Zelle, your Venmo, and you would then get benefits immediately. And if you make too much money, you do not get benefits, and um it is just using technology to make sure that we're being efficient with our resources. Miss Royal, are are you familiar with this proposal?

I'm not familiar with the proposal, but based on what you described, I'm gonna get familiar with it because it sounds wonderful.

So the Congressional Budget Office scored it uh as costing a half a million dollars over a ten year window, which I think is ridiculous. Uh there was a pilot program where it was implemented in Missouri and it saved twenty percent. It saved twenty percent. We spend one and a half trillion dollars on social safety nets, twenty percent of that uh is a lot of money and over a ten year budget window it's two two plus trillion dollars so, and again that's not money that that it's money that we could put to better use because it's peop- people that need it and so uh I think that we need to get the TABS Act on the floor and we need to get it passed because giving states the ability to get a better picture of an individual's earning capacity um is step one and it's this is actually really exciting because The first thing we do is we we get a f- use technology to get a better understanding of uh whether people actually qualify for it. The second part is more critically important, and that's we end the benefits cliff. So right now you got people that are gaming the system and it's I I would I would too. If I needed these benefits I would game the system, but i- if you make more than a certain amount of money you lose all your benefits. And that's not helpful. You're not helping people get out of the situation they're in. So i- if you stratify them to say, all right, you're gonna get this, this amount for now. We could even give more at the beginning and create a, an incentive structure to get out of whatever their situation they're in, to end the benefits cliff. We can't do that now because it's too complicated, but with technology we could. Um, uh, uh, uh, Miss Platonino, uh, does that make sense to you, to use technology to get people benefits faster and then create incentive structures to help them get back on their feet? Uh, does that make sense?

I think that's what every every person who's applying for SNAP benefits would like. No one wants to be in the program. If the economy and jobs was strong, individuals would not be in the program.

And I think we we agree that we have an obligation to help people that are down in their luck. I mean, that's what these social safety nets are for, but they're not designed for generational cyclical poverty. If a if a grandmother, a mother and a daughter have all experienced the need for SNAP benefits, our social safety nets are not working. I mean, because that that is not the desired outcome. It should be a transitory opportunity for them to get back on their feet. Um, Miss Gressler, uh, uh, wh- what are your, I mean, this makes sense. I- is this not just a no-brainer? We have the ability to use this technology, it's been tested, and uh, we could literally transform our social safety nets. Uh, does that make sense?

Absolutely, and we've seen yesterday with the Department of Justice's announcement of fraud that there are advanced techniques that are being used and yet there are still many silos that are out there. And so in the same na- way that we need the data to no longer to be a to be siloed, so that you can also deliver benefits more quickly, we also need the welfare programs to not be siloed. So the individuals, it's it's always gotta be work-oriented welfare. And oftentimes you do face these benefit cliffs, and you may not know that if I take this benefit, I'm gonna lose this benefit. And so to have a coordinated system, um, Congress has allowed Utah to do it because they were grandfathered in, but currently prevents the other states from adopting this like one door model that actually helps individuals get into work instead of trapping them in a maze of welfare.

And we have the ability to do all of this, and this committee has seen it seen it appropriate to pass a bill unanimously, and it's currently waiting a vote on the floor. Um the the TABS Act has the ability to transform our social safety nets and to save billions and billions and hundreds of billions of dollars. So uh we're gonna be pushing to get a vote on that on the floor. And again, using technology to get benefits quickly to people that deserve them and deny, deny individuals that are trying to take advantage of the system, it's just uh i- i- it's a no brainer and we have to do this. We're forty trillion dollars in debt, we're running out of opportunities uh to start saving money. So uh, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you holding this hearing, and with that I yield back. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Burleson, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, the American people expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely. They expect us to be stewards, wise stewards of the money that they worked so hard to put food on the table and then send some to this government. And for us to be wasteful with those dollars is is not acceptable. But for unfortunately, for many in the go- federal government, your hard-earned dollars are an afterthought. Um, that's part of the reason why we see billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud and abuse, and why we have a thirty nine trillion dollar debt. It's clear that many programs are not working as intended and the American people deserve better. Over the past year, the Trump administration has taken meaningful steps, and this body has taken meaning meaningful steps to make sure that those dollars are gonna be put in the in the hands of the people that truly need them. Um, and so my first question is to you, Miss Plata Nino, in your testimony you emphasized the importance of distinguishing between fraud and administrative errors, uh but the US uh USDN Inspector General and multiple audits have documented that organized crime fra- fraud rings are stealing hundreds of millions, sometimes billions of dollars. Do you believe those reports?

I believe he was talking about skimming, where there is no way to measure that, especially after USDS, there the government stopped doing reimbursement, instead stopping taking claims.

So you don't believe the re- you don't believe the information is accurate?

Not fully.

Really? So we have three panelists here that are all experts that have studied this. You're saying that they're not, that they are, they don't know what they're talking about?

There is uh there is underreported data in terms of how many millions of dollars, if not billions, have been stolen from um vulnerable Americans in terms of skimming, but there's no data to really ascertain the full amount.

Okay, I think we could kind of put blinders on if, I mean, all of us could put blinders on and continue to to get to mount up thirty nine trillion dollars in debt, but I'm not gonna do that, I'm gonna focus on let me ask you this question. Only twenty nine states have provided their data. Should all of the states at least provide data back to Congress about how that money is being spent?

The SNAP program does have a high quality control program, and states have been historically providing the data in order to ascertain high quality control measures. The data that is being asked is in violation of the Privacy Act and the Paper Reduction Act. the data is incredibly sensitive and is not necessarily the problem.

Apparently most of the states are fine. Most of the states are being responsible. They're responding because they see the problem. Miss Plata Nino, let me ask you this question. Is thirty nine trillion dollars debt, is that is that acceptable to you?

It is unacceptable that we still have over forty forty hundred people in and under influence in the voting.

So do you know do you know how much that is per taxpayer? Do you do you have any idea how much each taxpayer in America, if they had to pay right now, what that would be? I'll tell you.

I am an expert on food insecurity, so.

It's three hundred and fifty-six thousand. You, if you care about the national debt, if you care about the money that's coming out of this building, you should care about the fact that every hard-working American who is is trying to put food on the table at the end of the day, has to somehow pay three hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars for all of the misuse of funds that this Congress and previous Congresses have made.

Wow.

I don't find it acceptable, and we're trying to do everything we can to unwind this clock and undo the damage that previous Congresses have done to not just the American people today but future generations. And and to demonize that work I think is is unacceptable. Mister Wok, thank you for your service as an Inspector General. Um, can you describe the scale of the threat based on the investigations your office has has conducted on the sophisticated organized crime that's occurring that we're seeing with the SNAP program?

i think it's it's very large scale we um in terms of skimming that requires some kind of sophistication it requires organization and so we're seeing a lot of what um uh baltic transactional criminal organizations involved in skimming um that money oftentimes goes overseas um we also know that um in some many of our investigations or um we've we've seen um ties uh of individuals subjects um that have had uh uh ties to the known or suspected terrorists so the it it very it very much is a sophisticated um

In which countries do you see that activity the most? from which countries are they are they the organizing scheming

well we see a lot of skimming from romania

roman romania do you how how do you feel when you talk to the american people about this How do you think they feel to find out that their dollars aren't even going to their neighbor in need? They're going to some fraud organized crime syndicate out of Romania.

Well, I I actually had a conversation with a victim just this this week. I was in a store in New York and uh this father of five uh told me he was skimmed more than once. The card was replaced and he was skimmed again. He showed me on his device that how the money got into his account. Um, at about midnight, the, they were sitting on that account. They, they had already cloned the number apparently because they were able to skim to skim that all the the money deposited by seven AM. Seven hours.

That's unacceptable.

Seven hours.

Thank you for your work in trying to fix it.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Chairlady Stansbury, your economics, ma'am.

uh, especially as somebody who grew up in a low income family and a low income community, I always find it fascinating to hear how people talk about low income people. Um, but let me just start out with some facts. Um, can any of our panelists here answer the question, by dollar, what are the top three causes of improper payments, waste, fraud, and abuse in Snap? Nobody wants to volunteer? Top three.

Number one would be eligibility errors.

Wrong. It is improper payments. It's improper payments, it's an intentional snap fraud, and the third is criminal organizations who are actually explicitly stealing people's snap benefits. That is what is the top three causes of snap fraud and the loss of federal taxpayer dollars. It's actual criminal organizations. Does anyone on the panel know what the penalties are for committing snap fraud. Raise your hand. Anyone know? Yep, please, Miss Royal.

There are different penalties. Uh, an individual who is found guilty of committing snap fraud is subject to criminal prosecution, incarceration, fines and restitution.

Yep, so it's a it's

Somebody who is found guilty of an intentional program violation is subject to disqualification, either twelve months, twenty-four months, permanent or a ten year, other special disqualification penalties.

Excellent, yes. Um, and in fact in some cases with extreme uh fraud can be up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and twenty years in prison. All right, who can answer about what the average individual receives per month in SNAP benefits? Miss Platonino.

For household two it's less than three hundred and twenty dollars a month.

And about per person, what would you say?

It's about two hundred dollars.

Yeah, so it depends on the household and the beneficiaries. but when you average it out according to the USDA, it comes out to between about a hundred and seventy-four and a hundred and seventy-seven dollars per person per month. And so when you break that down, that's about six dollars a day. Right? Six dollars a day. Can anyone answer who is the number one beneficiary of Snap benefits? Miss Platonino.

retailers, because the money goes straight into the retail's stores and then goes and offers up into the local economy raising taxes and increasing wages.

But in terms of the actual beneficiaries, in terms of the people who receive the SNAP benefits,

Children.

um but yes,

As children follow.

the economic downstream impacts.

Yes, as children followed by older adults and people with disabilities.

Exactly. Thirty-nine percent of SNAP beneficiaries are children under eighteen years old. not fraudsters, children, ten percent people living with disabilities, twenty percent older adults over sixty, the vast majority of Snap recipients are not committing fraud, they are children, they are people living with disabilities, and they are seniors. Now, I'm gonna save you, because I know many people have uh don't wanna uh share this publicly. But I would ask if any of you have actually been on Snap Benefits, um, and I wanna say publicly there's no shame in being on Snap Benefits because it is a program that was created to help people who are struggling. It's to help grandparents who are taking care of children. It's to help take care of kids who are in the foster care system. It's there so that when a mom goes through a divorce and she loses her job and is having a hard time she can take care of her kids. That's what the SNAP program exists for. It is a bridge. It doesn't even cover the cost. I would like to know, can any single person on this panel feed your family for a hundred and seventy-four dollars a month? Anybody? Can anybody in this room feed your family for a hundred and seventy-four dollars a month? Anybody? Not a single hand in the room?

I think I'm not good at this.

Yeah, okay. This is not a joke, my friend. Let's get real here. There is actual waste, fraud, and abuse in this system. It's criminal activity. It's activity that is just like every single financial system out there. There are bad people who take advantage of financial systems. But the vast majority of beneficiaries of this program are seniors, children, and people living with disabilities. and when you make it harder for them to access benefits, then it means that they go hungry, they skip meals, they don't have access to food, they go to our food banks who are already struggling because of the cuts that we're put in this budget to cut other programs that put food to our food banks, and essentially it leaves our people, our children, our seniors, our grandparents without access to food. And so, Mister Chairman, I'm happy to work with you on bipartisan efforts to deal with criminal activity involving waste, fraud, and abuse and snap, but I will not support cutting programs for people who need them.

I yield back.

Thank you, ma'am. Um, next we have Representative Fallin

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

from Texas.

Um, um, so unlike, uh, uh, some of us, uh, we're not in a classroom, so I'm not gonna ask anybody to raise your hands. Okay, we'll just have a civil conversation. Uh, Miss, is it Platonino? Am I saying it correctly? Okay. Um, you've worked for how long, uh, in your current position?

Um, over a year.

Okay. All right, and, and did you have related jobs that were similar?

I served as an attorney for multiple years representing low-income individuals in various public benefit programs.

Okay. Okay. Did you know, uh, what the amount the federal government spent in SNAP benefits in uh fiscal year two nine two thousand nineteen was?

Two thousand nineteen, not off the top of my head.

Uh, uh, uh, uh, and I'm not gonna try to play gotcha, it was sixty five billion. And then in twenty twenty five, do you think it went up or down from that number?

It went up because of the pandemic and the job loss and the economy.

Oh, yeah, but the pandemic has long since been over. Uh, for several years at this point it was a hundred two billion, which is a massive increase of sixty eight percent. And yet the GDP per capita, if you ingest for inflation, is only eight point nine percent. So that's quite a leap and a quite a difference. And according to the GAO, At minimum, we're looking at three hundred million dollars in fraud, uh waste and abuse, and of course I think we all could agree that it's, the reality is far more. Would you agree that in a perfect world, there shouldn't be any American that needs SNAP benefits?

Americans wanna have jobs and employment,

Oh really?

so if the economy is strong,

Yeah,

absolutely.

yeah, in a perfect world there would literally be no one on SNAP, that's what we're all working toward. Ironically you'd be working toward finding another job.

Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, I agree, yeah, that would be amazing. Um, do you think that able-bodied, able-minded, non-elderly adults should be eligible for SNAP benefits? Philosophically.

Individuals who need SNAP and who need the resources should be eligible for SNAP.

Do you think that if you're able-bodied, able-minded, you're not an uh you're non-elderly, you should receive SNAP benefits?

It's a matter of having job sufficiency and available jobs, and

So you think yes. That sounds to me that's your answer. that an able-bodied,

I believe American people.

able-minded person should be eligible for snap. But if it's I philosophically disagree, I think it's shocking that eight twenty-one percent of the people on snap are non-elderly, able-bodied, able-minded, it costs the American taxpayers eighteen billion, and there's eight point eight million of those folks. Uh, does that sound like a large number?

I think it's an incorrect number,

Do you

since many individuals do have disabilities who have been undiagnosed,

Well, this is able-bodied, able-minded, but

and because of health miracles cannot be able to

You know when, you know, I've been in Congress six years now, and when people come into our office, uh, and and there's a various array of fields that they um work in, that every single one of them has something in common, they are desperate for labor. The unemployment rate is uh very low, and yet there are still folks that claim that they're able-bodied, able-minded, and they just can't find jobs. They can if their belly was uh, if they were truly uh that that's a motivator is someone that when you're hungry, you go out and find a job and not just have to rely on someone else to do it, again when you're able-bodied, able-minded. Secretary Rawlings directed all SNAP state agencies to share their participant eligibility data with uh USDA's Food and Nutrition Association. Uh, did, were you aware of that, that she directed them to do that, the states?

I'm aware that the labor market is uh been very weakened for blue-collar workers, and that

That's not what I asked you. Uh, when I asked about Secretary Rawlins directed the state SNAP agencies to share their participant uh their participant eligibility data, were you aware that she asked them that? The states?

Do you, are you talking about the data request?

Let's try it again. Secretary Rawlins asked the states, the fifty states in DC, to share their participant eligibility data with the USDA. Were you aware of it or not? If you weren't, we can talk about it and I can tell you what happened.

If there's a data request, yes.

OK, yeah. And did you know that uh twenty-two states d- uh did not uh share that data?

Yes.

Do you know what they all have in common?

That they don't care about protecting Americans' privacy?

Every single one of them has a Democratic governor. All of them. And so it's Arizona all the way through Washington state and DC. I find it ironic when I was doing a little research for this that when you take the states

They are ensuring that individuals who need access to benefits to be able to make make and meet their basic needs have those resources. make and meet their basic needs, have those resources.

Well, let's hopefully we can get in a perfect world and snap benefits go away completely. Mister Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. Uh, Mister Gill, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, for uh, holding this hearing and for your um intense and steadfast work on combating waste, fraud and abuse. We certainly appreciate it. I know taxpayers appreciate it. And thank you to the witnesses um, for taking the time to be here um miss platonino did i pronounce that correctly plat platonino ok platonino um got a a couple questions um for you um should snap dollars be spent on sodas

the purpose of the snap program is to provide families to have food and beverages

Should it be spent on spent on sugary sodas?

That means something. I am happy to talk about hungry nutrition, but not dictate what Americans should or should not eat or may have access to.

I'm I'm asking if tax dollars should be used to pay for sodas.

Taxpayers' money should be utilized to ensure that individuals have access to the food that they need to survive or may be accessible to them.

Do they need sugary sodas to survive?

Some of them do, who do have low blood issues, who may have

Is that right? You think they need Coca-Cola to survive?

Or just

You think that's the most appropriate use of our tax dollars?

I am not a physician, but medical records and expertise do show that it's still circumstantial.

You're you're just citing h- the health needs apparently of of the American people. So, do the American people need Coca-Cola to survive?

I did not say that. I said the individual should have everything.

I'm I'm asking you. I'm giving you the opportunity to say yes or no.

I will not answer for individuals and their uh choices.

You you think that there are some Americans who need Coca-Cola to survive? Is that your testimony?

I I am happy to talk about the food and nutrition needs that individuals have.

You don't you just don't know. You just don't know. I think most people can rationally say that you don't need Coca-Cola to survive. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree that we have a hunger crisis and that we need to address it, but ensuring that individuals have the food resources that they need.

Got it. And one of those is sugary Coca-Cola. What does what does SNAP stand for?

It's a supplemental nutrition assistance program.

What's nutritional about Coca-Cola?

I am not a nutritionist. I am a food security expert in ensuring that individuals have the food resources that they need.

I'm I'm This is a common sense question. All of these have been common sense questions. I'm just asking you, is there a nutritional value to sugary sodas?

They are I

It's a yes or no question.

I am not an expert. I would have to look at the dietary guidelines to look at the thing.

You're not an expert. I don't think that there's nutritional value to sugary sodas. I think most people in this room would agree with that assessment. But you you have no opinion?

I'm here to talk about the food needs and the hunger crisis that individuals here in America are facing.

You Are you that ideologically dug in that you want our tax dollars paying for sugary sodas that you will not in a straightforward way admit that sugary sodas are not helpful for the american people

i think that focusing on soda when people are going hungry is an issue

we spend a lot of our a lot of our tax dollars are spent on soda that's why i'm asking about it

yeah

we have no

and you you appear to be so ideologically dug in that you won't answer a simple question that that's not an appropriate use of our tax dollars and that that does not in fact make the american people more healthy

I won't answer, cuz there's no data sort of put proving that.

Do you need data to determine whether drinking soda is healthy?

I think fact that

I'm I'm sorry, it's a serious question. Do you, is is there some uh Do you believe that perhaps drinking sodas every day is healthy?

The worst health outcome is hunger, when the individuals don't have the resources to

Do you satiate hunger with Coca-Cola?

I did not say that.

But you said that the worst health outcome is hunger, and I'm asking you about sugary sodas.

And I'm focusing on the nutrition needs and making sure that children have the resources that they need.

Is is your organization funded by um soft drink makers?

I am not in charge of development, but no.

It's not, okay. Is your who is your organization funded by um organizations that make money from food stamps? Do uh organizations who profit off of food stamps fund your your organization?

W-

Or businesses?

I mean, in the in the I I can't comment to that, happy to talk about the resources that need it,

Does General Mills fund uh your organization?

but I don't have access to that information.

I do, it's right here. They do fund your organization. Um, do they profit off of food stamps?

retailers are the major beneficiaries of the program.

Do you think that that's a conflict of interest?

That's where EBT dollars are utilized.

Yes, and they're profiting off of your advocacy. Do you think that that's a conflict of interest? I think most people think that's a conflict of interest. I know you don't wanna answer. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. Mr. Jack, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you very much as well for convening this hearing. I, uh, wanna start my line of questioning with Mr. Walk. Thank you for your testimony. And I know that my colleague, Mr. Fallin, covered this briefly, but I understand that by the direction of our Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, the USDA requested SNAP participant eligibility data from all fifty states to ensure the benefits are being dispersed properly. But only twenty-nine states have released that data. And I was hoping you could illuminate for this committee why you believe the twenty-one states who have not yet released that data have not done so.

Well, I can I can s- I can't speak to the d- USDA's request, I can speak to my own OIG's request for uh state SNAP data. So about a year ago uh we we um asked for the top ten states in terms of uh SNAP spending for their participant data because we wanted to do an evaluation of their integrity and quality of that data, especially as it uh um as it um uh touched on um qualification, your eligibility to be on-stamp. Um and uh we received six states um the data from those six states, and I would just say that we finished a report of of Ohio and I think um uh I know I spoke a little bit to this earlier, but we we found thirteen point three million dollars in anomalies just just from that one state who shared their data with us um before that report became public they had already started working on those vulnerabilities um but three four states California New York Illinois and Michigan have yet to give us that data so that we could do the same thing and look at the the issues in their states um we've been we find things such as applications that miss key data like social security numbers um blanks in terms of citizenship uh duplicate enrollments like people who are who are clearly not living in that state but being paid out funds from that state um so with these four states california new york illinois and michigan if they do not provide the data we can't even start to look at that um now you did mention usda they i will i know that they have requested from all fifty states um and and uh uh the the s- the request is a little bit different so i can't get too much into that and they are a separate organization but i know that um from our separate requests we we're we're i have um i have ordered a subpoena which is um which is very unusual that a state agency will require uh the ig to to issue a subpoena for that kind of information but we have issued four subpoenas to those states and we're still waiting on that

Well, we'll look forward to seeing their results once returned and complied with. Miss Royal, uh, next question to you, um, I wanna commend your organization for publishing uh this report, why food stamp program integrity is more important now than ever. And specifically, I just wanna note from the report in twenty twenty-three alone, food stamp enrollees in one state own more than fourteen thousand luxury vehicles, and among those you had uh three Ferraris, eleven Lamborghinis, fifty-nine Maseratis, and uh thousands of other luxury vehicles. The supposed goal of the SNAP program of course has been litigated today, but what was revealed in this report seems to be the program's reality. Help this committee and the constituents back home understand how does a program dedicated to feeding low-income families end up subsidizing Lamborghinis and Bentleys.

People make false statements on applications. And uh there is very little access to technology for states to verify that information before benefits are issued. So it's the pay and chase model, where even though a benefits worker may think that information is suspicious or suspect, they still have to issue those benefits, get it to a fraud investigator, fraud investigator puts it on the stack of already overwhelming case load and then has to go back and verify the facts. it's not having access to technology and trying to fight these increased fraud numbers with a minimum amount of secure or of investigators, is a Herculean task that we can't accomplish.

Thank you very much. And to close in thirty seconds, Miss Grasler, good to see you again. Thank you for testifying again before this committee. Um, would love for you to close out by just illuminating how helpful the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to work in families tax cut was. in ensuring that we're rooting out waste fraud and abuse.

Yes, it was a great first step towards that and primarily in the SNAP program, because if you don't have accountability at the end of the day, there is zero incentive for any state or any agency that is delivering these federal benefits to be able to reduce those. And we can't accept as a cost of business having up to five hundred billion dollars per year in fraud just so that we can make it easier so that those who are actually eligible for these programs will receive them. You have to go after that. There is no private sector business that could stay in business it if it accepted the level of fraud, waste and abuse that's going on now.

Very well said. Mister Chairman, my time's up before I uh yield back, if I could enter into the record um why Food Stamp pro- program integrity is more important now than ever this report at your uh at your will, sir.

Accept.

Mister Chairman, I also have a UC.

Ma'am?

Uh, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record,

Without objection, Representative Lona, you are recognized, ma'am. Representative Lona, you are recognized, ma'am.

Thank you, Chairman. Honorable um, Walk, in operation Cold Snap, twenty Minnesota retail locations were hit in a single operation for Snap trafficking. Minnesota is also the epicenter of the largest documented social service fraud scandal in American history, where over ninety-eight individuals charged, eighty-five being of Somali descent, nearly three hundred million stolen from the USDA's federal child nutrition program. Did Minnesota's sanctuary status contribute to allowing that network to operate for years?

Uh, I'm I'm not sure um um if that did but I do know that um um in terms of Operation Cold Snap um and feeding our features there there was a big nexus to um the Somali uh community um but I I we haven't looked at the issue of how the sanctuary jurisdictions affected that.

Um I understand this to be correct not just in Minnesota though, in most states actually have illegal immigration

Well, I think we do we need to be able to cooperate across um jurisdictional lines when it comes to law enforcement. So th- if we're not getting cooperation from the state agencies and uh the proper degree of information sharing it's very hard difficult to to go after um uh the fraud particularly in terms of um uh illegal uh alien communities because um what we found is that often does involve um false identities um false document rings

mmm

and uh that the that um the resources that are needed to get at that is not is not just gonna be within usda we do need uh cooperation from from state and locals and other federal agencies to get at that

mmm um miss do you think that if the federal government gives a set budget for people to be able to access these programs and then you have others being able to access them as well that haven't paid into the system Um in your opinion would that limit the nutrition access for Americans?

Snap has the high quality control and uh measures to ensure that only eligible individuals are accessing the program.

So you don't think that fraud's occurring?

Absolutely. We have billions of dollars that are being scammed and scammed by by families.

Okay. Um my next question would be for Miss Gressler. Um, uh, recipients have significantly higher rates of obesity, specifically type two diabetes and hypertension versus the general population. USDA's own data shows approximately seven billion a year in SNAP funds spent on soda alone. Is it accurate to say that the federal government is currently running a program that simultaneously funds poor nutritional choices through SNAP and then funds the um resulting chronic illness through Medicaid, effectively subsidizing the same disease twice?

I think it's fair to say that there's a link there and that might mean that Congress should consider revising those standards of what qualifies as food under the SNAP program.

Okay, um, have any of you just, yes or no, quickly, honorable walk, have you ever been on SNAP or EBT?

No, ma'am.

Okay, Miss Royal?

No, ma'am.

Not to my knowledge, but my identity could have been stolen to be used elsewhere.

No, ma'am. Okay, the reason I ask you guys is because what I'm finding is some of the poorest of poor communities, specifically minority communities as well, and then obviously impoverished white Americans are given access to this program, but because of the amount of special interest money going into what they can and cannot buy, they're actually being made sick. Um, just being very direct, it is basically a government-funded pipeline to chronic illness and it didn't happen by accident. Snap eligible food list is not written by nutritionist, uh nutritionist, in fact it's written by lobbyists, and every time an es- every time a state will specifically tried to restrict snap purchases, whether it be New York, Maine, or even Florida, the American Beverage Association and the processed food industry killed the waiver at the USDA, not because nutritional restrictions were bad policy, but because Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have spent tens of millions of dollars protecting a seven billion in annual government guaranteed soda revenue. I'm just curious, do you really think that this program currently, as written, if special interest is controlling it, is really benefiting children? Honorable Walk, yes or no?

uh i i can't give a policy opinion but i do certainly understand that there are the questions about how nutritious some of that

do you think special interest money should be deciding that yes or no

no

ok Miss Royal yes or no do you think special interest money should be deciding no

no

ok i'll be honest with you i don't think that special interest money at all should be ok i'll be honest with you i don't think that special interest money at all should be going to funding this especially when you have democrats to include you know a young democrat from the state of washington which is where i used to be stationed that found it very problematic that you could that you could essentially open up a bag of chips but not serve in a daycare a banana because it didn't meet compliance standards because there wasn't enough syncs so all that to say i appreciate you guys being here but we clearly need to fix our snap program thank you

mister chairman i have another u c

you have another what

uh unanimous consent

yes ma'am Go ahead, Mark.

I I'd like to a- ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from this committee's H- uh House Democrats entitled " Abandoning Americans to Disease: The Trump Administration's Reckless Crusade is Harming Americans' Health", which is about an investigation into the policies that this administration is forwarding including some of the food standards at the uh federal dr- drug and uh, Food and Drug Administration.

No objection. And I wanna enter with no objection um a letter that I wrote to Governor Gavin Newsom of California for the record. And I wanna thank you all so much for being here, for our committee, we are getting out in record time, everybody got their questions in, so we're good. Um and with that and without ab objection, all members have five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions, for the witnesses. which will be forwarded to the witnesses. If there is no further business without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.