[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1302-H1303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PREVENTING PRISONERS FROM BEING CONSIDERED PART OF HOUSEHOLD UNDER FOOD 
                           STAMP ACT OF 1977

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1000) to require States to establish a system to 
prevent prisoners from being considered part of any household for 
purposes of determining eligibility of the household for food stamp 
benefits and the amount of food stamp benefits to be provided to the 
household under the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1000

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. STATES REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH SYSTEM TO PREVENT 
                   PRISONERS FROM BEING CONSIDERED PART OF ANY 
                   HOUSEHOLD UNDER THE FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1977.

       (a) In General.--Section 11(e)(20) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(20)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(20) that the State agency shall establish a system and 
     take action on a periodic basis--
       ``(A) to verify and otherwise assure that an individual 
     does not receive coupons in more than one jurisdiction within 
     the State; and
       ``(B) to verify and otherwise assure that an individual who 
     is officially detained in a correctional, detention, or penal 
     facility administered under Federal or State law is not 
     considered to be part of any household participating in the 
     food stamp program, except to the extent that the Secretary 
     determines that extraordinary circumstances have made it 
     impracticable for the State agency to obtain the information 
     necessary to do so.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 11(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     shall apply, in accordance with its terms, to any failure of 
     a State agency to comply with section 11(e)(20)(B) of such 
     Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 11(e)(8)(E) of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(8)(E)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or (20)(B)'' after ``(16)''.
       (d) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall not apply with respect to certification periods 
     beginning before the end of the 1-year period that begins 
     with the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith] and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, a 
bill that requires States to establish a system to verify that 
individuals detained in Federal, State, or county penal facilities are 
not counted as household members for the purposes of determining 
eligibility of the level of benefits in the Food Stamp Program.
  On March 10, 1997, the General Accounting Office released a report 
entitled, ``Food Stamps: Substantial Overpayments Result From Prisoners 
Counted as Household Members.'' As a result, the General Accounting 
Office estimates that $3.5 million in food stamp benefit overpayments 
were made in the year 1995.
  The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed H.R. 1000 and has 
concluded requiring a verification system will reduce food stamp 
benefit overpayments and save an estimated $6 million by fiscal year 
2003. Although States and the Federal Government will incur a slight 
cost to establish the verification system in fiscal year 1998, that 
cost will be more than offset in subsequent years.
  Based on the findings and conclusions of the General Accounting 
Office, I believe that the verification system requirement of H.R. 1000 
is a cost effective method of preventing prisoners from being counted 
as members of food stamp households with a minimum burden or 
inconvenience on food stamp recipients and States. Additionally, 
requiring this verification will identify and reduce program fraud and 
increase the collection of benefit overpayments. I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 1000.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I have been a tireless advocate along with 
many of my colleagues in fighting hunger in the United States. The bill 
before us today is aimed at helping to ensure that the funds allocated 
by the Federal Government for the food stamp program actually go to 
feed those who are hungry.
  In fiscal year 1995, USDA issued over $22 billion in benefits. Some 
26 million Americans were helped by these funds. Congress passed 
legislation last year to cut the food stamp program by $23 million 
through the year 2002. So the total appropriation for fiscal year 1997 
is $23.3 billion, $1 billion less than they were in fiscal year 1996, 
which was $24.3 billion.
  This bill, H.R. 1000, is designed to ensure that we concentrate those 
declining resources to make sure that those who are in actual need get 
that help.
  Although the Food Stamp Act automatically disqualifies people who 
were institutionalized from inclusion in participating households 
because they receive meals during their sentences, oftentimes the food 
stamp administrative agency is not notified that a member of a 
household has been incarcerated.
  A GAO audit recently published a report which found out of four 
States studied for calendar 1995, California, Florida, New York, and 
Texas, 12,138 inmates were included in household food stamp benefits, 
resulting in an estimated $3.5 million that was not directed to needy 
families.
  H.R. 1000 will help prevent this from happening in the future as it 
requires States to establish a system to verify that individuals 
detained in Federal, State, and county penal institutions are not 
counted as household members for the purpose specified by the Food 
Stamp Program.
  In fact, a database already exists for States to check. The Social 
Security Administration maintains such a database, as it too is 
required to check for inmates participation.
  In addition, this legislation takes into account the needs of the 
various States and permits them some flexibility. Mr. Speaker, I urge 
every Member of this body to support this legislation as we consider it 
under suspension of the rules, so that limited funds that we do have 
allocated to the Food Stamp Program go actually to those who are 
eligible and to those who are hungry.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], the chief sponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding me this time as well as for his strong support for this 
legislation.

[[Page H1303]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, a bill I introduced to 
require States to establish a system to verify that individuals 
detained in Federal, State, city, or county penal facilities are not 
counted as household members for purposes of determining eligibility or 
the level of benefits in the Food Stamp Program.
  The General Accounting Office recently released a report on its 
review of prisoners counted as household members in the Food Stamp 
Program. Currently, prisoners are not permitted to be included in food 
stamp households or receive food stamp benefits, nor should they be. 
Despite this prohibition, GAO's limited review discovered over 12,000 
prison inmates who were included in food stamp households resulting in 
$3.5 million in food stamp overpayments. The bill before the House 
today requires States to set up a system to enforce the current 
prohibition in the Food Stamp Act.
  I believe that the GAO report identified a problem which is a 
significant concern. I believe that public confidence and support of 
the Food Stamp Program are undermined when a household receives a 
higher level of food stamp benefits than an identically situated 
household simply because the household receiving more food stamp 
benefits is illegally counting an incarcerated individual as a member, 
who is, after all, receiving three squares a day in the slammer.
  This concern is furthered by GAO's conclusion that a cost effective 
matching technique can be used to prevent this problem, but that many 
States have not done so.
  H.R. 1000 requires States to establish a system to verify that 
individuals detained in Federal, State, or county penal facilities are 
not counted as household members for purposes of determining 
eligibility or the level of benefits in the Food Stamp Program.
  H.R. 1000 allows States to avoid establishing a verification system 
if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that extraordinary 
circumstance have made it impractical for the State agency to obtain 
the information necessary to establish such a system. I believe that 
this exception should be invoked by the Secretary in rare and truly 
extraordinary circumstances. An extraordinary circumstance would 
include when a State does not have computerized records of its State or 
county inmate population. Under such circumstances, the State could 
have great difficulty establishing a verification system and the 
Secretary may be justified in granting an exception. I would expect, 
however, that in such circumstances the exception to be narrowly 
tailored to address the specific situation.
  If a State fails to comply with the requirements of this bill, the 
penalty provisions of section 16(g) of the Food Stamp Act apply. This 
provision provides the Secretary notify the State that it is in 
noncompliance. If a State continues to fail to establish a verification 
system, the Secretary may withhold a portion of the State's 
administrative funds.
  Under the Food Stamp Program, one-half of the State's administrative 
costs are paid by the Federal Government. Additionally, the Secretary 
may request the Attorney General to seek an injunction ordering a State 
to establish a verification system.
  The Food Stamp Act requires that States attempt to collect 
overpayments made to food stamp households. As an incentive to States, 
each State retains a portion of the overpayments its collects. States 
retain 35 percent of overpayment collections resulting from intentional 
program violations and 20 percent of overpayment collections resulting 
from recipient error. By identifying overpayments that have previously 
gone undetected, the verification system required by H.R. 1000 will 
enhance each State's abilities to identify and collect overpayments. 
Because States retain a portion of these collections, any increase 
results in additional funds for the States, clearly making this not an 
unfunded mandate.
  Finally, H.R. 1000 provides States with 1 year from the date of 
enactment to comply with the provisions of this bill without risk of 
penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1000. It is an 
important bill that deserves their attention and full support.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, food stamp rules make quite clear that 
residents of most institutions are not eligible to participate in the 
Food Stamp Program. Yet, according to GAO, thousands of prisoners are 
being counted as members of food stamp households, resulting in those 
households receiving more food stamps than they should. GAO has 
recommended that the Food and Consumer Service encourage States to 
implement periodic computer matches of data on State and local prison 
inmates with data on food stamp participants.
  H.R. 1000 goes several steps further than this recommendation. It 
requires States to perform such periodic verifications and also 
requires that the matches be not only of State and local prison inmates 
but of Federal inmates as well. It includes a provision allowing the 
Secretary of Agriculture to exempt from this requirement any State 
having circumstances making it impractical to perform the matches, such 
as a lack of a central computerized data base for its prison 
population. States will have 1 year from the date of enactment to 
comply with the new requirement.
  Several States, such as Texas, already conduct such matches. Other 
States have plans to begin conducting these matches in the future. This 
bill will provide the impetus for most States to perform periodic 
matches, thereby saving the taxpayers at least $1 million a year. It is 
a good bill, and I urge your support of it.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1000.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________