[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMBATING WASTE, FRAUD,
AND ABUSE IN SNAP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DELIVERING ON
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-138 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Greg Casar, Texas
Byron Donalds, Florida Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Emily Randall, Washington
William Timmons, South Carolina Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri James Walkinshaw, Virginia
Elijah Crane, Arizona Christian Menefee, Texas
Brian Jack, Georgia Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
John McGuire, Virginia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brandon Gill, Texas
Richard McCormick, Georgia
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Jack Furla, Counsel
Luke Moll, Research Assistant
Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE)
Tim Burchett, Tennessee, Chairman
Michael Cloud, Texas Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico,
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Ranking Member
Pat Fallon, Texas Elanor Holmes Norton, District of
William Timmons, South Carolina Columbia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Maxwell Frost, Florida
Eric Burlison, Missouri Greg Casar, Texas
Brian Jack, Georgia Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Brandon Gill, Texas Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
James Walkinshaw, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Tim Burchett, U.S. Representative, Chairman................. 1
Hon. Melanie Stansbury, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member...... 2
WITNESSES
Hon. John Walk, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Ms. Dawn Royal, Former President and Current Director, United
Council on Welfare Fraud
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Ms. Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow, Advancing American
Freedom
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Ms. Gina Plata-Nino (Minority Witness), Director of SNAP Policy
and Advocacy, Food Research and Action Center
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Letter, to Newsom re SNAP data; submitted by Rep. Burchett.
* Report, FGA, ``Why Food Stamp Program Integrity is More
Important Now Than Ever''; submitted by Rep. Jack.
* Letter, Dated May 6, 2026, to Commerce re NSO Group;
submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated March 9, 2026, to DHS CISA re DOGE SSA OIG;
submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated October 6, 2025, to DHS re Spyware; submitted
by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated August 6, 2025, to Flock; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated February 6, 2025, from Dem Members, to IGs re
Musk; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated April 17, 2025, to SSA OIG re Master Data;
submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated September 23, 2025, to SSA re Borges
Disclosure; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated May 15, 2025, to TIGTA re IRS Tech; submitted
by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated February 25, 2025, to Trump; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* Letters, Dated March 12, 2025, to 24 Agencies re DOGE AI;
submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Staff Report, Committee Democrats, ``Abandoning Americans to
Disease''; submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated April 17, 2026, to OPM OMB re FEHB PII Data;
submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Letter, Dated March 9, 2026, to SSA OIG re DOJ Court Update;
submitted by Rep. Stansbury.
* Statement for Record from Urban Institute; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Ms. Gina Plata-Nino; submitted by
Rep. Stansbury.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
COMBATING WASTE, FRAUD,
AND ABUSE IN SNAP
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m.,
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Burchett,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Burchett, Cloud, Fallon, Timmons,
Luna, Burlison, Jack, Gill, Stansbury, and Walkinshaw.
Mr. Burchett. This hearing on the Subcommittee on
Delivering on Government Efficiency will come to order. I want
to welcome everyone. Without objection, the Chair may declare a
recess at any time. And I recognize myself for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TIM BURCHETT
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE
Good morning. I want to welcome everybody. We are here to
examine waste, fraud, and abuse in one of the largest
government welfare programs. The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, provides
$100 billion annually in Federal food assistance. Every dollar
from this program is intended to help feed eligible individuals
in need.
That is not where every dollar goes, not by a long shot. In
one state, food stamp enrollees own more than 14,000 luxury
vehicles, including Lamborghinis and Bentleys, due to an
eligibility loophole. And in 2024, $10 billion 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
mostly failures to verify recipients met all eligibility
criteria such as being in the country legally.
Loopholes and incorrect payments are costly enough, but the
tax dollars lost to outright fraud may be greater. For
instance, the Government Accountability Office estimated that
trafficking in food stamps is a $5 billion annual industry.
Trafficking occurs when a crooked store owner profits off
taxpayers by turning benefits into cash. For example, a
customer swipes the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card for
$200 in groceries. The clerk gives back $100 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 President
created, in March, the White House Task Force to Eliminate
Fraud, led by Vice President Vance. Building on DOGE 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' data
stays in state-specific databases, for instance, individuals
may apply for and receive benefits from multiple states.
That is why Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins requested
food stamp beneficiary and transaction data for the past five
years from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Data came in from
29 states, nearly all under Republican governance, including my
own State of Tennessee. With the data received, the Agriculture
Department reports identifying $3 billion in potential fraud
and waste, including benefits being sent to 186,000 dead
people, to 442,000 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 stamp
beneficiaries like California, refused to comply with
Agriculture Department's data request. And that is very
disappointing. The fight against fraud should not be a partisan
issue.
That is why yesterday I sent request letters to the
noncompliant states with the highest number of food stamp
beneficiaries. 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 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, Ms. Stansbury, for her
opening remarks, otherwise known as Ranking Member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
MELANIE STANSBURY, REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning, everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
And it is 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 has been eight
months since this Committee has been on the record, and so I
want to 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
programming 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 opposed
to efforts to use this as a front to try to further gut public
assistance programs. In fact, we have seen over the last year
and a half as this Administration and this Majority has used
waste, fraud, and abuse as a front to try to gut 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 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 4 and signed into law, a report this week in ProPublica
revealed that over 770,000 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 3.5 million
Americans' access to food assistance. This is a moral 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 SNAP, Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and
other food assistance programs that have happened during this
Congress and this Administration, is that 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 have 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 23 percent since last year. And
when you couple that with cuts in access to healthcare, 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 are 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 21 Inspectors General 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, and 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. It 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.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
I would like to welcome our witnesses. First, we have John
Walk. Mr. Walk is the Inspector General for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Next, we have Dawn Royal, a former two-term
president and current Director of the United Council on Welfare
Fraud. Next, we have Rachel Greszler. Ms. Greszler is a Senior
Research Fellow at the Plymouth Institute for Free Enterprise
at Advancing American Freedom.
And last, we have Gina Plata--I am sorry, ma'am. I know I
wanted to get it right. That is why I asked, Plata. Burchett,
nobody ever gets it right. Plata-Nino. So, thank you, ma'am.
And you are the Director of 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.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Walk. I do.
Ms. Royal. I do.
Ms. Greszler. I do.
Ms. Plata-Nino. I do.
Mr. Burchett. Let the record show the witness has answered
in the affirmative. And thank you. You all may take your seats.
And 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 appear in full in the
hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 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 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would
ask you to please wrap it up.
I now recognize Inspector General Walk for his opening
statement. Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WALK, INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walk. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Stansbury, 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 taxpayers who fund the program and robs
from 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 hardworking, taxpaying
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. In
tears, 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 have heard many stories from victims like these, working
moms and dads, in my six months as Inspector General. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Office of 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 EBT card
number and PIN code. The data captured is then used to clone
the victim's EBT 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 EBT card and owns all
the dollars that will be loaded to that card.
SNAP trafficking remains an investigatory priority. Today,
there are more than 250,000 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. Unscrupulous retailers will
instead use their stores to launder SNAP benefits. An
individual will exchange their EBT card for cash, and the
retailer will extract the remaining value from the card or sell
it.
But it is not only cash. Picture it as a store in southern
California involved in an investigation by local and Federal
law enforcement that OIG supported. SNAP EBT cards were
trafficked for cash, exchanged with local gang members at that
location for crack cocaine. The gang members then use the
proceeds from those SNAP cards to purchase guns, all with tax
dollars. I will just repeat that. SNAP dollars, Federal tax
dollars, used to buy drugs and guns. And as the district
attorney of San Diego shared, just perpetuating the violence
already 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 $66 million.
Deterring fraud requires exacting real consequences on
those who commit fraud. OIG will continue to investigate and
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, we would benefit tremendously from improved information
sharing between the 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.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, General.
Ms. Royal, you are recognized, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF MS. DAWN ROYAL
FORMER PRESIDENT AND CURRENT DIRECTOR
UNITED COUNCIL ON WELFARE FRAUD
Ms. Royal. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Stansbury,
other Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
The United Council on Welfare Fraud is the only national
organization of investigators dedicated to protecting public
assistance from fraud, waste, and abuse. We are the
professionals 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 The United Council
on Welfare Fraud (UCOWF) and the beneficiaries we are
protecting.
My message today with the focus on SNAP, 15 months after
the Subcommittee's first hearing, the passage of H.R. 1, 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 is broken. Congress has held hearings,
GAO has issued reports, and for its part, UCOWF 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 do not, the results are predictable.
I would 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
address, a one-bedroom efficiency, had 27 SNAP and 12 Medicaid
beneficiaries. Logic would suggest it is impossible for all of
those beneficiaries to live in a one-bedroom apartment, but it
is--this is the program we have fostered. These are the types
of circumstances that we are dealing with.
Or take another case that is a remnant of the COVID era,
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 is
one of the few COVID-era policies that has not been rescinded,
and it is fraud. Benefits delivery should be restricted to the
beneficiary's address of record. It is one of the few
safeguards the program has, and convenience of this sort only
encourages fraudulent behavior.
My written testimony that builds on UCOWF's comments last
year--and I promise I will not 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, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 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 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
UCOWF 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.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Ms. Royal.
Ms. Greszler, you are recognized for 5 minutes, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF MS. RACHEL GRESZLER
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW
ADVANCING AMERICAN FREEDOM
Ms. Greszler. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Stansbury,
and Members of the Committee, good morning, and thank you for
the opportunity to be here today. My name is Rachel Greszler,
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 do not pay the right amount. Yet,
there is remarkably little accountability for the $4.2 trillion
taxpayer dollars that Washington redistributes across about 100
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 is the
amount that the Federal Government reported last year in
improper payments, and it is equivalent to about eight weeks of
gas and groceries for every household in America. That figure
does not even include programs that are not measured or fraud
that goes undetected. The GAO reported that taxpayers lose up
to $521 billion per year. At the upper end, that is almost two
months of housing payments for every household in America. It
is understandable that many hardworking Americans are
frustrated when they struggle to afford ordinary expenses, even
as the government fails to safeguard their taxes.
Today, we are talking about the SNAP program, which has
exploded over the past 15 years. This growth cannot be
explained solely based on need. The poverty rate has declined
since 2008, and yet the percentage of people on SNAP benefits
has increased over 50 percent. With the explosion in spending
has come a five-fold increase in improper payments, a 10.9
percent improper payment rate last year, equal to $10.2
billion. The incentive problem is obvious. The states decide
what to spend, and the Federal taxpayer foots the bill. It does
not matter whether a state has a three percent improper payment
rate, like South Dakota, or 25 percent, like Alaska. The
Federal Government pays it all.
H.R. 1 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 toward
protecting taxpayer dollars, and it should be extended to other
Federal programs.
It is important to note that much of the outright fraud
that occurs, such as that that has been discussed by Inspector
Walk and Ms. Royal, often is not 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 is not included
in improper payments.
The Trump Administration and this Congress have taken
unprecedented steps toward 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 cannot reduce fraud if we cannot
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 5.6 million individuals
who were not eligible under Federal standards to nonetheless
receive SNAP benefits. The No Welfare for the Wealthy Act of
2025 would reduce this abuse by requiring households to meet
Federal standards for SNAP benefits.
Third, measure improper payments accurately and
consistently. Many programs are not 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 skin-in-the-game accountability.
Without consequences, laws aimed at protecting taxpayers'
dollars will fail. Policymakers should expand H.R. 1 SNAP
provisions by imposing fix-it-or-fund-it-yourself requirements
across all Federal programs. Congress' 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 and accountability that is required of
taxpayers.
Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Plata-Nino is recognized.
STATEMENT OF MS. GINA PLATA-NINO (MINORITY WITNESS)
DIRECTOR OF SNAP POLICY AND ADVOCACY
FOOD RESEARCH AND ACTION CENTER
Ms. Plata-Nino. 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 needed 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 a parent
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 2024, over 47 million people in the United States live
in food-insecure households, including over 14 million
children. Those numbers represent American families making
impossible choices every day. SNAP responds to that need. It
served over 41 million people in Fiscal Year 2024, 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 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. Criminals
skim, 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. 1 has done, by shifting an additional 25 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 gave
up, missed an interview, could not reach a call center, or lost
food assistance because of paperwork.
The right standard is clear. SNAP should be accurate,
secure, timely, and accessible. Families should not have to
prove their hunger repeatedly through unnecessary barriers.
States should 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 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 cost over four million
individuals losing SNAP benefits since the passage of H.R. 1.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am. And I will commend all you
all. You got it done in 5 minutes, which is kind of incredible.
So, you all get your rewards in heaven, all right? Because this
is a subcommittee. We do not even have food back here. Anyway,
thank you all. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questions.
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. The 21 states
have, for the past year, refused to provide food stamp data
with the Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Department
identified $3 billion in potential fraud just from the food
stamp data submitted by 29 states. That includes benefits going
to 186,000 deceased individuals and the 442,000 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 21 noncompliant states? Ms. Plata-Nino, thank you,
ma'am.
Ms. Plata-Nino. Plata-Nino.
Mr. Burchett. Say it one more time for me.
Ms. Plata-Nino. Plata-Nino.
Mr. Burchett. They have told me this back here, and I am
just terrible. I apologize.
Ms. Plata-Nino. That is okay.
Mr. Burchett. I am going to get it.
Ms. Plata-Nino. That is all right.
Thank you for the question. The Privacy Act of 1974 and the
Paperwork Reduction of 1980 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 states
handle has the 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 asks for five years of Americans' families' data,
including Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA)-protected information, whether or not they were
eligible, whether or not they applied. So, think about the 15-
year-old child and single mother who applied during the
pandemic, and right after, they found a job. Now, that 15-year-
old child with many medical needs, that information will go
over to an entity that we do not 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.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Greszler?
Ms. Greszler. Yes, it is absolutely fair to assume that you
could catch significantly more fraud if you take 50 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 50 states plus the District of
Columbia. And none of those states will know that because they
do not have access to the other one.
Mr. Burchett. There is no cohesive force between the two.
There is no--as we found with the IRS and a lot of our
agencies, the computers just do not hook up. Is that what you
are telling me?
Ms. Greszler. Yes, they are not looking across them. And
essentially, the Federal Government is granting a blank check
to the states to apply these programs, and yet they are not
returning the data for the recent requests to be able to ensure
the integrity of those dollars.
Mr. Burchett. Right. Thank you. Ms. Royal?
Ms. Royal. Ms. Greszler did an 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 do not
have access to information if 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 is no way for me to contact
another state to verify that. So having access to the data,
making sure that benefits are not already being issued by
another state and preventing dual issuance would be a
significant savings to the taxpayer.
Mr. Burchett. Inspector General?
Mr. Walk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can just give a couple
of examples. So, with OIG--and I will just speak from OIG's
perspective. I know USDA is doing a separate data request. But
about a year ago under my predecessor, OIG requested data from
the top ten SNAP states in terms of spending in order to review
integrity and quality of state data. We have released one
report very recently from Ohio and found $13.3 million 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 anomalies to be
able to figure out what was actually going on.
Puerto Rico, although not one of the state agencies that we
were looking at, their comptroller general looked at their own
data and came up with--found $150 million of SNAP benefits that
went to dead people, 38,000 dead people that received that
nutrition dollars. And almost immediately, we went down to
Puerto Rico and met with the comptroller general and with their
Inspector General (IG) to talk through how we can help from a
Federal perspective to exercise Federal oversight.
Because the states have this participant data, if we do not
have it, we cannot even find the vulnerabilities, much less
start to collaborate about how we can go about changing it. And
today, we have six of those ten states that have provided the
data. Four have continued to object after a year. And I
recently ordered subpoenas for that data, and we are still
waiting on it.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Thank you. I have run over a little
bit. As Chairman, I am allowed to do that apparently, but I
hate it when they do that. So, I am going to recognize my
Ranking--no, you want me to go to the next Democrat? Okay.
Yes, go ahead, brother. You are recognized.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walk, were you involved in the development of Project
2025? Did you have any involvement in it?
Mr. Walk. I was----
Mr. Walkinshaw. It is a yes or no.
Mr. Walk. Yes, I was a volunteer.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Limited involvement maybe?
Mr. Walk. I was a volunteer, sir.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay. Before you were nominated as IG, you
were a political appointee, USDA?
Mr. Walk. I was actually the judicial officer at USDA since
December 2020.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Were you a political appointee at any point
in your career in the Trump Administration?
Mr. Walk. Sure, I was a----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay.
Mr. Walk [continuing]. Political appointee after about--
after nearly ten years as a career employee at DHS.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Before your nomination as IG, did you have
any experience specifically in auditing? Did you ever serve as
an auditor?
Mr. Walk. When I was at the Homeland Security Department,
one of my first assignments as an attorney was to provide
advice to----
Mr. Walkinshaw. You provided legal advice----
Mr. Walk. About----
Mr. Walkinshaw [continuing]. To auditors?
Mr. Walk. About our inspector general audits.
Mr. Walkinshaw. So, you never conducted any audits?
Mr. Walk. No.
Mr. Walkinshaw. 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?
Mr. Walk. No, I did not work at an IG's office.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay. During your tenure as IG at USDA,
have you recused yourself from any matters involving decisions
you made during your tenure previously as an advisor at the
agency?
Mr. Walk. I have not.
Mr. Walkinshaw. You have not found the need to, or you have
made a decision that you are not going to recuse, you do not
think you need to recuse?
Mr. Walk. As----
Mr. Walkinshaw. If you were involved in anything or just--
--
Mr. Walk. Sure, I have spoken with counsel and--as well as
the career ethics official at USDA, and there have been no
issues raised that has required my recusal based on their
counsel.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Interesting, okay. Your predecessor, IG
Fong, had 22 years of experience before she became IG. She had
IG experience before that. Bipartisan credibility, Mr.
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 does not 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 is why we need qualified, independent, nonpartisan,
nonpolitical IGs. The Trump Administration has systematically
fired them.
But let us talk about some waste, fraud and abuse. I went
down to the Reflecting Pool yesterday, to check out the
President's new project. This guy here--and I do not 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 Cafaro. He is
a crook. He pled guilty to bribery and campaign finance
violations, longtime Republican donor, got a $1.7 million no-
bid contract to filter the water at the Reflecting Pool.
I went down to check it out yesterday. Somewhat
ironically--I did not believe this when I was told it--his
company's name is Greenwater Services. The President promised
us beautiful blue water, gave a contract to this crook who gave
us green water, algae, and dying ducks.
Mr. Chairman, at some point this Committee will have to
address the waste, fraud, the abuse that is taking place in
this Administration. The wolves are in the house. They are 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 is a
great guy.
The President and this Congress, this Republican Congress,
have literally taken food from the mouths of hungry children,
and they are putting it in the pockets of crooks like this. If
that is not fraudulent, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is.
I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
I now yield to 5 minutes to Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
holding this hearing. Us getting rid of the waste, fraud, and
abuse in our government is extremely important. Ms. Greszler, I
think you mentioned $184 billion in fraud in just a year. I am
on the Appropriations Committee and only two of our
appropriations bills that fund the government are over that
amount, so that is significant with what we could be doing or
returning to the American people if we could rein in the waste,
fraud, and abuse.
I am also constantly amazed by how much we try to measure
compassion by how many dollars go out the door, how many people
are on the rolls without looking to whether it is going to
accomplish those needs. I appreciate, Mr. Walk, what you had
pointed out, that some of these dollars are actually being used
fraudulently by gangs to buy drugs and guns and nefarious
activities, not to mention some going overseas to bad actors
and all those different kind of things. It is important that we
make sure that it is going 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 about five years ago within a percentage. And so, it seems
like maybe there is some overhead. Recently, just in the data
shared, as the Chairman had mentioned, $3 billion a year in
potential waste, fraud, and abuse just among the states that
have shared information, 186 deceased individuals who are on
the rolls. Now, if we take those off the rolls and the numbers
of SNAP beneficiaries went down, what you would hear is, oh,
children are not being fed, from the left, but actually, we are
just trying to make sure that we are not sending money to
people who are not alive anymore.
There are 356- to 500,000 duplicate enrollees, so some of
these are people who are enrolled in multiple states. I think,
Ms. Greszler, you had talked about that, some up to six states
that we know of. And this is of the states sharing information.
I would think that those states not sharing information, that
potentially the problem is worse, and maybe that is not why
they are sharing information. Who knows?
You know, Ms. Royal, 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? This is the big check we
have.
Ms. Greszler, I was wondering if you could speak to, and
maybe we will go down the line, you mentioned some of them, but
some of the protections that we could put in place to make sure
that the SNAP benefits are going to those who are truly in need
and that we are 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 who are
basically footing the bill for SNAP, we require to know every
dollar that they are making. But those who are receiving the
benefits, it does not seem like we have that same sort of----
Ms. Greszler. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Cloud. Okay.
Ms. Greszler. And I want to go over two things, and the
first is looking at and 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 1099 reporting 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-end accounting
of that. And then you can have a situation where automatically
this gets detected.
The Department of Justice announced a $6.5 billion fraud
takedown yesterday, 455 dependents, healthcare programs. Some
of those were stolen identities, and then the individuals had
benefits claimed on the stolen identity's individual's behalf.
Well, if you do not have that individual claiming on their form
that they received that benefit, that is going to 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 50 percent fewer people on SNAP, and they have the
exact same poverty rate.
Mr. Cloud. It seems to me that states are actually
incentivized to just get more people on the rolls, whether it
is valid or not.
Ms. Greszler. It is money into the state, and they pay $0
of it.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, Ms. Royal, did you want to speak to that?
Ms. Royal. 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.
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.
Ending self-attestation. 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 should not have received, when the state recovers that,
they are 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 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 understaffed and under-sourced.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. My time is up, Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Mr. Timmons, you are recognized.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing.
There is a huge opportunity to get government benefits to
people that need them and deny government benefits to people
that do not qualify for them, and it is an incredibly important
issue. Hundreds of billions of dollars every decade are lost to
waste, fraud, and abuse.
And we have actually been working on a bill that actually
passed this Committee, passed this Committee unanimously. That
does not happen often. But it is called the TAB 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 it is just using technology to
make sure that we are being efficient with our resources.
Ms. Royal, are you familiar with this proposal?
Ms. Royal. I am not familiar with the proposal, but based
on what you described, I am going to get familiar with it
because it sounds wonderful.
Mr. Timmons. So, the Congressional Budget Office scored it
as costing a half a million dollars over a ten year window,
which I think is ridiculous. There was a pilot program where it
was implemented in Missouri, and it saved 20 percent. It saved
20 percent. We spend $1.5 trillion on social safety nets.
Twenty percent of that is a lot of money. And over a ten year
budget window, it is $2-plus trillion. And again, that is not
money that--it is money that we could put to better use because
it is people that need it.
And so, I think that we need to get the TAB 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 is step one. And this is actually really exciting
because the first thing we do is we use technology to get a
better understanding of whether people actually qualify for it.
And the second part is more critically important, and that is
we end the benefits cliff. So right now, you got people that
are gaming the system, and it is--I would too. If I needed
these benefits, I would game the system.
But if you make more than a certain amount of money, you
lose all your benefits, and that is not helpful. You are not
helping people get out of the situation they are in. So, if you
stratify them to say, all right, you are going to get this,
this amount for now. We could even give more at the beginning
and create an incentive structure to get out of whatever
situation they are in to end the benefits cliff. We cannot do
that now because it is too complicated, but with technology, we
could.
Ms. Plata-Nino, 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? Does
that make sense?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I think that is what every person who is
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.
Mr. Timmons. And I think we agree that we have an
obligation to help people that are down on their luck. I mean,
that is what these social safety nets are for, but they are not
designed for generational cyclical poverty. 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 is not the desired outcome. It should be a
transitory opportunity for them to get back on their feet.
Ms. Greszler, what are your--I mean, this makes sense. Is
this not just a no-brainer? We have the ability to use this
technology. It has been tested, and we could literally
transform our social safety nets. Does that make sense?
Ms. Greszler. Absolutely. And we have 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 way
that we need the data to no longer 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 has always
got to be work-oriented welfare. And oftentimes, you do face
these benefit cliffs, and you may not know that if I take this
benefit, I am going to lose this benefit. And so, to have a
coordinated system--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.
Mr. Timmons. And we have the ability to do all of this, and
this Committee has seen it appropriate to pass a bill
unanimously, and it is currently waiting a vote on the Floor.
The TAB Act has the ability to transform our social safety nets
and to save billions and billions and hundreds of billions of
dollars. So, we are going to 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 individuals that are trying
to take advantage of the system, it is a no-brainer, and we
have to do this. We are $40 trillion in debt. We are running
out of opportunities to start saving money.
So, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you holding this
hearing, and with that, I yield back. Thanks.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Timmons.
Mr. Burlison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The American people expect their tax dollars to be spent
wisely. They expect us to be stewards, wise stewards of the
money that they work 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 not acceptable.
But unfortunately, for many in the Federal Government, your
hard-earned dollars are an afterthought. That is part of the
reason why we see billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud, and
abuse, and why we have a $39 trillion debt. It is 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 meaningful steps to
make sure that those dollars are going to be put in the hands
of the people that truly need them.
And so, my first question is to you, Ms. Plata-Nino. In
your testimony, you emphasized the importance of distinguishing
between fraud and administrative errors, but the USDA Inspector
General and multiple audits have documented that organized
fraud rings are stealing hundreds of millions, sometimes
billions of dollars. Do you believe those reports?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I believe he was talking about skimming
where there is no way to measure that, especially after the
government stopped doing reimbursement and instead stopped
taking claims.
Mr. Burlison. So, you do not believe the information is
accurate?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Not fully.
Mr. Burlison. Really? So, we have three panelists here that
are all experts that have studied this. You are saying that
they do not know what they are talking about?
Ms. Plata-Nino. There is underreported data in terms of how
many millions of dollars, if not billions, have been stolen
from vulnerable Americans in terms of skimming, but there is no
data to really ascertain the full amount.
Mr. Burlison. Okay. I think we could kind of put blinders
on. I mean, all of us could put blinders on and continue to
mount up $39 trillion in debt, but I am not going to do that. I
am going to focus on--let me ask you this question. Only 29
states have provided their data. Should all of the states at
least provide data back to Congress about how that money is
being spent?
Ms. Plata-Nino. 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 it is not necessarily----
Mr. Burlison. Apparently, most of the states are fine. Most
of the states are being responsible. They are responding
because they see the problem.
Ms. Plata-Nino, let me ask you this question. Is $39
trillion debt, is that acceptable to you?
Ms. Plata-Nino. It is unacceptable that we still have over
40----
Mr. Burlison. Do you know how much that is per taxpayer?
Ms. Plata-Nino. [continuing]. Million people in----
Mr. Burlison. Do you have any idea how much each taxpayer
in America, if they had to pay right now, what that would be? I
will tell you.
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am an expert on food insecurity, sir.
Mr. Burlison. It is $356,000. If you care about the
national debt, if you care about the money that is coming out
of this building, you should care about the fact that every
hardworking American who is trying to put food on the table at
the end of the day has to somehow pay $356,000 for all of the
misuse of funds that this Congress and previous Congresses have
made. I do not find it acceptable. And we are 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 to demonize that work, I
think, is unacceptable.
Mr. Walk, thank you for your service as an Inspector
General. Can you describe the scale of the threat, based on the
investigations your office has conducted, on the sophisticated
organized crime that is occurring that we are seeing with the
SNAP program?
Mr. Walk. I think it is very large scale. We, in terms of
skimming that requires some kind of sophistication, it requires
organization, and so we are seeing a lot of what Baltic
transnational criminal organizations involved in skimming. That
money oftentimes goes overseas. We also know that in some--in
many of our investigations, or--we have seen ties of
individuals, subjects, that have had ties to known or suspected
terrorists. So, it very much is a sophisticated----
Mr. Burlison. In which countries do you see that activity
the most? From which countries? Are they organizing, scheming?
Mr. Walk. Well, we see a lot of skimming from Romania.
Mr. Burlison. From Romania. When you talk to the American
people about this, how do you think they feel, to find out that
their dollars are not even going to their neighbor in need,
they are going to some fraud, organized crime syndicate out of
Romania?
Mr. Walk. Well, I actually had a conversation with a victim
just this week. I was in a store in New York, and this father
of five 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. At about midnight,
they were sitting on that account. They had already cloned the
number, apparently, because they were able to skim all the
money deposited by 7 a.m., seven hours.
Mr. Burlison. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Walk. Seven hours.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you for your work in trying to fix it.
I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Chairlady [sic] Stansbury, you are
recognized, ma'am.
Ms. Stansbury. All right, well, I appreciate the
conversation. I always find these conversations about public
benefits interesting. 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.
But let me just start out with some facts. 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.
Ms. Greszler. Number one would be eligibility errors.
Ms. Stansbury. Wrong. It is improper payments. It is
improper payments, it is 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 is
actual criminal organizations. Does anyone on the panel know
what the penalties are for committing SNAP fraud? Raise your
hand. Anyone know? Yes, please, Ms. Royal?
Ms. Royal. There are different penalties. An individual who
is found guilty of committing SNAP fraud is subject to criminal
prosecution, incarceration, fines, and restitution.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, so it is----
Ms. Royal. Somebody who is found guilty of an intentional
program violation is subject to disqualification, either 12
months, 24 months, permanent, or a ten year, other special
disqualification penalties.
Ms. Stansbury. Excellent, yes. And in fact, in some cases,
with extreme fraud, can be up to $250,000 and 20 years in
prison.
All right. Who can answer about what the average individual
receives per month in SNAP benefits?
Ms. Plata-Nino?
Ms. Plata-Nino. For a household of two, it is less than
$320 a month.
Ms. Stansbury. And about per person, what would you say?
Ms. Plata-Nino. It is about $200.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes, 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 $174 and $177 per person
per month. And so, when you break that down, that is about $6 a
day, right? Six dollars a day. Can anyone answer, who is the
number one beneficiary of SNAP benefits?
Ms. Plata-Nino?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Retailers, because the money goes straight
into the retailers' stores and then goes and offers up into the
local economy, raising taxes and increasing wages.
Ms. Stansbury. But in terms of the actual beneficiaries, in
terms of----
Ms. Plata-Nino. Children.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. The people who receive the SNAP
benefits, but yes, the economic----
Ms. Plata-Nino. It is children followed----
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Downstream impacts----
Ms. Plata-Nino. Yes, it is children, followed by older
adults and people with disabilities.
Ms. Stansbury. Exactly. Thirty-nine percent of SNAP
beneficiaries are children under 18 years old, not fraudsters,
children; ten percent, people living with disabilities; 20
percent, older adults over 60. 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 am going to save you because I know many people do
not want to share this publicly, but I would ask if any of you
have actually been on SNAP benefits. And I want to say
publicly, there is no shame in being on SNAP benefits because
it is a program that was created to help people who are
struggling. It is to help grandparents who are taking care of
children. It is to help take care of kids who are in the foster
care system. It is 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 is what the SNAP program exists
for. It is a bridge. It does not even cover the cost.
I would like to know, can any single person on this panel
feed your family for $174 a month? Anybody? Can anybody in this
room feed your family for $174 a month? Anybody? Not a single
hand in the room? Yes, okay. This is not a joke, my friend.
Let us get real here. There is actual waste, fraud, and
abuse in this system. It is criminal activity. It is 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 do not have
access to food. They go to our food banks, who are already
struggling because of the cuts that were 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, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to work with you on
bipartisan efforts to deal with criminal activity involving
waste, fraud, and abuse in SNAP, but I will not support cutting
programs for people who need them. I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am.
Next, we have Representative Fallon.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burchett. From Texas.
Mr. Fallon. So, unlike some of us--we are not in a
classroom, so I am not going to ask anybody to raise your
hands, okay? We will just have a civil conversation. Ms.--is it
Plata-Nino? Am I saying it correctly? Okay. You have worked for
how long in your current position?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Over a year.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. And did you have related jobs that were
similar?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I served as an attorney for multiple years
representing low-income individuals----
Mr. Fallon. Okay.
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. In various public benefit
programs.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. Do you know what the amount the Federal
Government spent in SNAP benefits in Fiscal Year 2019 was?
Ms. Plata-Nino. 2019? Not off the top of my head.
Mr. Fallon. And I am not going to try to play gotcha. It
was $65 billion. And then in 2025, do you think it went up or
down from that number?
Ms. Plata-Nino. It went up because of the pandemic and the
job loss and the economy
Mr. Fallon. Yes, but the pandemic has long since been over,
several years at this point. It was $102 billion, which is a
massive increase of 68 percent. And yet the GDP per capita, if
you adjust for inflation, is only 8.9 percent. So, that is
quite a leap and quite a difference. And according to the GAO,
at minimum, we are looking at $300 million in fraud, waste, and
abuse. And, of course, I think we all could agree that the
reality is far more. Would you agree that in a perfect world,
there should not be any American that needs SNAP benefits?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Americans want to have jobs and employment,
so if the economy is strong, absolutely.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, in a perfect world, there would literally
be no one on SNAP. That is what we are all working toward.
Ironically, you would be working toward finding another job.
Ms. Plata-Nino. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Fallon. I agree, yes. That would be amazing. Do you
think that able-bodied, able-minded, non-elderly adults should
be eligible for SNAP benefits, philosophically?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Individuals who need SNAP and who need the
resources should be eligible for SNAP.
Mr. Fallon. Do you think that if you are able-bodied, able-
minded, you are non-elderly, you should receive SNAP benefits?
Ms. Plata-Nino. It is a matter of having job sufficiency
and available jobs, and----
Mr. Fallon. So, you think, yes, that seems to me that is
your answer.
Ms. Plata-Nino. Americans who are----
Mr. Fallon. That an able-bodied, able-minded person should
be eligible for SNAP benefits. I philosophically disagree. I
think it is shocking that 21 percent of the people on SNAP are
non-elderly, able-bodied, able-minded. It costs the American
taxpayers $18 billion, and there are 8.8 million of those
folks. Does that sound like a large number?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I think it is an incorrect number since
many individuals do have disabilities who have been
undiagnosed----
Mr. Fallon. Well, this is----
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. Because of healthcare costs--
--
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Able-bodied, able-minded, but----
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. Cannot be able to prove those
disabilities.
Mr. Fallon. You know, I have been in Congress six years
now, and when people come into our office, and there is a
various array of fields that they work in, that every single
one of them has something in common. They are desperate for
labor. The unemployment rate is very low, and yet, there are
still folks that claim that they are able-bodied, able-minded,
and they just cannot find jobs. They can if their belly was--if
they were truly--that is a motivator, is someone that, when you
are hungry, you will go out and find a job and not just have to
rely on someone else to do it, again, when you are able-bodied,
able-minded.
Secretary Rollins directed all SNAP state agencies to share
their participant eligibility data with USDA's Food and
Nutrition Association. Were you aware of that, that she
directed them to do that, the states?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am aware that the labor market has been
very weakened for blue-collar workers and that----
Mr. Fallon. That is not what I asked you. What I asked
about was Secretary Rollins directed the state SNAP agencies to
share their participant eligibility data. Were you aware that
she asked them that, the states?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Are you talking about the data request?
Mr. Fallon. Let us try it again. Secretary Rollins asked
the states, the 50 states and D.C., to share their participant
eligibility data with the USDA. Were you aware of it or not? If
you were not, we can talk about it, and I can tell you what
happened.
Ms. Plata-Nino. If it is a data request, yes.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. Yes. And did you know that 22 states did
not share that data?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Do you know what they all have in common?
Ms. Plata-Nino. That they do not care about protecting
Americans' privacy?
Mr. Fallon. Every single one of them has a Democratic
Governor, all of them. So, it is Arizona all the way through
Washington State and D.C. I find it ironic when I was doing a
little research for this that when you take the states that are
run by Democrats and you take the states that are run by
Republicans, particularly the larger ones, you are 30 percent
more likely to be on SNAP if you live in a blue state. You
think it is just because they are just terribly mismanaged or
maybe they are abusing the system?
Ms. Stansbury. [Off mic.]
Mr. Fallon. Ah, it is my time. This is not a classroom.
Ms. Plata-Nino. They are ensuring that individuals who need
access to benefits to be able to meet their basic needs have
those resources.
Mr. Fallon. Well, let us hope that we can get in a perfect
world and SNAP benefits go away completely.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Mr. Gill, you are recognized.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing
and for your 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 for taking the
time to be here.
Ms. Plata-Nino, did I pronounce that correctly?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Plata-Nino.
Mr. Gill. Plata-Nino? Okay. Plata-Nino. I got a couple of
questions for you. Should SNAP dollars be spent on sodas?
Ms. Plata-Nino. The purpose of the SNAP program is to
provide families to have food and beverages.
Mr. Gill. Should it be spent on sugary sodas?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am happy to talk about hunger and
nutrition but not dictate what Americans should or should not
eat or may have access to.
Mr. Gill. I am asking if tax dollars should be used to pay
for sodas.
Ms. Plata-Nino. 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.
Mr. Gill. Do they need sugary sodas to survive?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Some of them do, who do have low blood
issues, who may have----
Mr. Gill. Is that right?
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. Or who have kidney issues,
yes.
Mr. Gill. You think they need Coca-Cola to survive? You
think that is the most appropriate use of our tax dollars?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am not a physician, but medical records
and expertise do show that----
Mr. Gill. You were just citing----
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. In some circumstances, they
do.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. The health needs, apparently, of the
American people. So, do the American people need Coca-Cola to
survive?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I did not say that. I said that
individuals----
Mr. Gill. I am asking you.
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. Need to have beverages.
Mr. Gill. I am giving you the opportunity to say yes or no.
Ms. Plata-Nino. I will not answer for individuals and their
choices.
Mr. Gill. You think that there are some Americans who need
Coca-Cola to survive? Is that your testimony?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am happy to talk about the food and
nutrition needs----
Mr. Gill. You just do not know?
Ms. Plata-Nino [continuing]. That individuals have.
Mr. Gill. You just do not know? I think most people can
rationally say that you do not need Coca-Cola to survive.
Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I agree that we have a hunger crisis and
that we need to address it by ensuring that individuals have
the food resources that they need.
Mr. Gill. Got it. And one of those is sugary Coca-Cola.
What does SNAP stand for?
Ms. Plata-Nino. It is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program.
Mr. Gill. What is nutritional about Coca-Cola?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am not a nutritionist. I am a food
security expert in ensuring that individuals have the food
resources that they need.
Mr. Gill. This is a commonsense question. All of these have
been commonsense questions. I am just asking you, is there
nutritional value to sugary sodas?
Ms. Plata-Nino. There are--I----
Mr. Gill. It is a yes or no question.
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am not an expert. I would have to look at
the dietary guidelines and look at----
Mr. Gill. You are not an expert. I do not think that there
is nutritional value to sugary sodas. I think most people in
this room would agree with that assessment, but you have no
opinion?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am here to talk about the food needs and
the hunger crisis that individuals here in America are facing.
Mr. Gill. 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 healthful
for the American people?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I think that focusing on soda when people
are going hungry is----
Mr. Gill. A lot of our tax dollars are spent on soda. That
is why I am asking about it.
Ms. Plata-Nino. We have no----
Mr. Gill. And you appear to be so ideologically dug in that
you will not answer a simple question that that is not an
appropriate use of our tax dollars and that that does not, in
fact, make the American people healthier.
Ms. Plata-Nino. I will not answer because there is no data
sort of proving that.
Mr. Gill. Do you need data to determine whether drinking
soda is healthy?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I think facts----
Mr. Gill. I am sorry, it is a serious question. Do you
believe that perhaps drinking sodas every day is healthy?
Ms. Plata-Nino. The worst health outcome is hunger. When
the individuals do not have the resources----
Mr. Gill. Do you satiate hunger with Coca-Cola?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I did not say that.
Mr. Gill. But you said that the worst health outcome is
hunger, and I am asking you about sugary sodas.
Ms. Plata-Nino. And I am focusing on the nutrition needs
and making sure that children have the resources----
Mr. Gill. Is your organization funded by soft drink makers?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I am not in charge of development, but no.
Mr. Gill. It is not, okay. Is your organization funded by
organizations that make money from food stamps? Do
organizations who profit off of food stamps fund your
organization or businesses?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I mean, in the--I cannot comment to that,
happy to talk about the resources that need----
Mr. Gill. Does General Mills fund your organization?
Ms. Plata-Nino. I do not have access to that information.
Mr. Gill. I do. It is right here. They do fund your
organization. Do they profit off of food stamps?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Retailers are the major beneficiaries of--
--
Mr. Gill. Do you think that that is a conflict of interest?
Ms. Plata-Nino. That is where EBT dollars are utilized.
Mr. Gill. Yes, and they are profiting off of your advocacy.
Do you think that that is a conflict of interest?
Ms. Stansbury. [Off mic.]
Mr. Gill. I think most people think that is a conflict of
interest. I know you do not want to answer.
My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Jack, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much as
well for convening this hearing.
I want to start my line of questioning with Mr. Walk. Thank
you for your testimony. And I know that my colleague, Mr.
Fallon, 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 50
states to ensure the benefits are being dispersed properly, but
only 29 states have released that data. And I was hoping you
could illuminate for this Committee why you believe the 21
states who have not yet released that data have not done so.
Mr. Walk. Well, I can--I cannot speak to the USDA's
request. I can speak to my own OIG's request for state SNAP
data. So, about a year ago, we asked for the top ten states, in
terms of SNAP spending, for their participant data because we
wanted to do an evaluation of the integrity and quality of that
data, especially as it touched on qualification, your
eligibility to be on SNAP. And we received six states--the data
from those six states. And I would just say that we finished a
report of Ohio. And I think--I know I spoke a little bit to
this earlier, but we found $13.3 million in anomalies just from
that one state who shared their data with us.
Before that report became public, they had already started
working on those vulnerabilities. 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
issues in their states. We have been--we find things such as
applications that miss key data, like Social Security numbers,
blanks in terms of citizenship, duplicate enrollments, like
people who are clearly not living in that state but being paid
out funding from that state. So, with these four states,
California, New York, Illinois, and Michigan, if they do not
provide the data, we cannot even start to look at that.
Now, you did mention USDA. They--we--I know that they have
requested from all 50 states. And the request is a little bit
different, so I cannot get too much into that. And they are a
separate organization, but I know that from our separate
requests where I have ordered a subpoena, which is very unusual
that a state agency will require the IG to issue a subpoena for
that kind of information, but we have issued four subpoenas to
those states, and we are still waiting on that information.
Mr. Jack. Well, we will look forward to seeing their
results once returned and complied with.
Ms. Royal, next question to you. I want to commend your
organization for publishing this report, ``Why Food Stamp
Program Integrity Is More Important Now Than Ever.'' And
specifically, I just want to note from the report, in 2023
alone, food stamp enrollees in one state own more than 14,000
luxury vehicles. And among those, you had three Ferraris, 11
Lamborghinis, 59 Maseratis, and 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?
Ms. Royal. People make false statements on applications.
And there is very little access to technology for states to
verify that information before benefits are issued. So, it is
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.
The fraud investigator puts it on the stack of an already
overwhelming caseload and then has to go back and verify the
facts. It is not having access to technology and trying to
fight these increased fraud numbers with a minimum amount of
investigators is a Herculean task that we cannot accomplish.
Mr. Jack. Thank you very much. In my closing 30 seconds,
Ms. Greszler, good to see you again. Thank you for testifying
again before this Committee. I would love for you to close out
by just illuminating how helpful the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act, Working Families Tax Cut, was in ensuring that we are
rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.
Ms. Greszler. Yes, it was a great first step toward that
and primarily in the SNAP program because if you do not 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 cannot accept, as a
cost of business, having up to $500 billion 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 if it accepted the level of fraud,
waste, and abuse that is going on now.
Mr. Jack. Very well said.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Before I yield back, if I
could enter into the record ``Why Food Stamp Program Integrity
Is More Important Now Than Ever,'' this report, at your will,
sir.
Mr. Burchett. Accept.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I also have a UC.
Mr. Burchett. Ma'am?
Ms. Stansbury. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record 12 letters issued by House Oversight and Government
Reform, Democrats on the importance of data security and
privacy in government programs, which we have sent to the
Administration, which they have failed to respond to. Thank
you.
Mr. Burchett. Without objection.
Representative Luna, you are recognized. Ma'am?
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman.
Honorable Walk, in Operation Cold SNAP, 20 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 98
individuals charged, 85 being of Somali descent, nearly $300
million stolen from the USDA's Federal Child Nutrition Program.
Did Minnesota's sanctuary status contribute to allowing that
network to operate for years?
Mr. Walk. Congresswoman, I am not sure if that did, but I
do know that in terms of Operation Cold SNAP and Feeding Our
Futures, that there was a big nexus to the Somali community.
But I--we have not looked at the issue of how the sanctuary
jurisdictions affected that.
Mrs. Luna. I understand this to be correct not just in
Minnesota, though. In most states that actually have illegal
immigration problems and provide sanctuary status to these
people, where they are limiting cooperation with Federal
immigration enforcement, do you find it to be the case that
similar cases also exist in regards to SNAP fraud?
Mr. Walk. Well, I think that we do--we need to be able to
cooperate across jurisdictional lines when it comes to law
enforcement, so if we are not getting cooperation from the
state agencies and the proper degree of information sharing, it
is very difficult to go after the fraud, particularly in terms
of illegal alien communities because what we found is that
often does involve false identities, false document rings. And
that the resources that are needed to get at that is not just
going to be within USDA. We do need cooperation from state and
locals and other Federal agencies to get at that.
Mrs. Luna. Ms. Plata, 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 have not paid into the system, in your
opinion, would that limit the nutrition access for Americans?
Ms. Plata-Nino. SNAP has the high-quality control measures
to ensure that only eligible individuals are accessing the
program.
Mrs. Luna. So, you do not think that fraud is occurring?
Ms. Plata-Nino. Absolutely. We have billions of dollars
that are being skimmed and scammed by families.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. My next question would be for Ms.
Greszler. SNAP recipients have significantly higher rates of
obesity, specifically type 2 diabetes and hypertension versus
the general population. USDA's own data shows approximately $7
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 resulting chronic
illness through Medicaid, effectively subsidizing the same
disease twice?
Ms. Greszler. I think it is fair to say that there is a
link there, and that might mean that Congress should consider
revising those standards of what qualifies as food under the
SNAP program.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. Have any of you--just yes or no, quickly,
Honorable Walk, have you ever been on SNAP or EBT?
Mr. Walk. No, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. Ms. Royal?
Ms. Royal. No, ma'am.
Ms. Greszler. Not to my knowledge, but my identity could
have been stolen to be used elsewhere.
Ms. Plata-Nino. No, ma'am.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. The reason I ask you guys is because what
I am finding is some of the poorest of the 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 are actually being made
sick.
Just being very direct, it is basically a government-funded
pipeline to chronic illness and it did not happen by accident.
The SNAP eligible food list is not written by nutritionists. In
fact, it is written by lobbyists. And every time a state will
specifically try to restrict SNAP purchases, whether it be New
York, Maine, or even Florida, the American Beverage Association
and the processed food industry killed a 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 $7 billion in annual government-guaranteed
soda revenue. I am 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?
Mr. Walk. I cannot give a policy opinion, but I do
certainly understand that there are questions about how
nutritious some of it is.
Mrs. Luna. Do you think special interest money should be
deciding that, yes or no?
Mr. Walk. No.
Mrs. Luna. Okay. Ms. Royal, yes or no, do you think special
interest money should be deciding?
Ms. Royal. No.
Ms. Greszler. No.
Ms. Plata-Nino. There is multiple research that SNAP
supports the healthy----
Mrs. Luna. Okay. I will be honest with you. I do not 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 essentially open up a bag of chips but not serve in a
daycare a banana because it did not meet compliance standards
because there were not enough sinks.
So, all that to say, I appreciate you guys being here, but
we clearly need to fix our SNAP program. Thank you.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I have another UC.
Mr. Burchett. You have another what?
Ms. Stansbury. Unanimous consent.
Mr. Burchett. Oh, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. Go ahead.
Ms. Stansbury. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
enter into the record a report from this Committee's House
Democrats entitled ``Abandoning Americans to Disease: The Trump
Administration's Reckless Crusade is Harming America's
Health,'' which is about an investigation into the policies
that this Administration is forwarding, including some of the
food standards at the Federal Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Burchett. No objection.
And I want to enter, with no objection, a letter that I
wrote to Governor Gavin Newsom of California for the record.
And I want to 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 are good.
With that, and without 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.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]