[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11580-11581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DECREASING RATES OF FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE IN SNAP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 18 times this year I've come to this floor 
and talked about the need to end hunger now. Eighteen times I've 
defended our Nation's anti-hunger programs, discussed the paradox of 
hunger and obesity, and talked about hunger among the elderly.
  Over the past few weeks, this House has voted on two versions of a 
farm bill reauthorization. The first was defeated after the Republican 
leadership overreached, not only by cutting the linchpin of our anti-
hunger programs, SNAP--formerly known as food stamps--but also by 
adding poison pill after poison pill amendment to the bill.
  Last week, the Republican leadership responded to the stinging defeat 
of their farm bill by stripping out the entire nutrition title while, 
at the same time, expanding subsidies for highly profitable big 
agribusinesses. Talk about messed up priorities, Mr. Speaker. By the 
way, the nutrition title not only includes SNAP, it includes as well 
funding for food banks and senior anti-hunger programs.
  Opponents of SNAP like to focus on the idea that SNAP is somehow 
fraudulent; not just that some SNAP money is being misspent, but that 
so much is being wasted that we need to drastically rein in the 
program, regardless of whether SNAP cuts increase hunger in America. We 
heard these claims time after time during consideration of the two farm 
bills.
  Sadly, those who claim rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in SNAP don't 
let facts get in the way of their arguments. That is because SNAP is 
among the most effective and efficient, if not the most effective and 
efficient, federally administered programs.
  I serve on the House Agriculture Committee, and I took part in an 
extensive debate over SNAP during both the committee markup and on the 
House floor. Not one member, Democrat or Republican, on the House 
Agriculture Committee provided sourced, statistical information on 
fraud, waste, and abuse in the SNAP program.
  On top of that, no hearings were held on the SNAP program at all. In 
fact, I challenged any member of the committee to find any Federal 
program that has a lower rate of fraud, waste, and abuse. The truth is 
no one could answer my challenge.
  Mr. Speaker, according to both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and 
the Office of the Inspector General at USDA, the fraud rates for SNAP 
are at all-time lows and are going down. On top of that, USDA continues 
to pursue instances of fraud, waste, and abuse and is prosecuting these 
cases.
  Despite the rapid growth in SNAP participation, primarily due to the 
historic economic recession we are still recovering from, the error 
rate for SNAP is also at a record low, according to the latest data 
available. Specifically, 3 percent of all SNAP benefits represented 
overpayments, meaning they either went to ineligible households or went 
to eligible households but in excessive amounts. This means that more 
than 98 percent of SNAP benefits were issued to eligible households. 
The combined error rate--the total error rate that includes both under- 
and overpayments--reached an all-time low in 2011, falling to 3.8 
percent.
  These statistics show just how well SNAP is truly managed. But 
there's even more data to consider. In July, the USDA's Office of 
Inspector General issued a report on fraud investigations of USDA 
programs. It showed that fraud in SNAP is limited primarily to a few 
bad actors. It also showed cases of fraud are far greater in other USDA 
programs.
  According to this report, 10 cases involving USDA programs were 
closed in the past 2 months, and only one of them involved fraud on the 
part of a SNAP recipient. That's right, only 1 case in 10 had to do 
with an individual defrauding the SNAP program. In fact, half of those 
cases dealt with improper use of rural development funds. The remaining 
four cases all involved SNAP abuse by retailers, not recipients.
  While this may seem like an innocuous statistic, it goes to the heart 
of what opponents claim: that SNAP beneficiaries--poor, hungry working 
Americans--are lazy and want to steal from the Federal Government. 
Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be further from the truth.
  SNAP provides a lifeline to hungry Americans, whether they are 1, 10, 
25, 50, 75 years old or older. In doing so, SNAP is likely the most 
effective and efficient program administered by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, of course we can make SNAP better. We can make anything 
better. We can make it more efficient. We can ensure that even more 
people get the food they need to prevent hunger in America. But we need 
to address hunger in a holistic and comprehensive way, including the 
role SNAP plays in preventing and treating hunger. This is why we need 
a White House Conference on Food and Nutrition if we are going to truly 
reduce hunger and improve nutrition in this country. We need a plan. We 
need to get this right. We need some urgency and some leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, attacking SNAP, and demonizing those who rely on it to 
make ends meet isn't just wrong, it's counterproductive. Arbitrarily 
cutting SNAP will only make hunger in America worse, and it certainly 
won't reduce

[[Page 11581]]

the rates of fraud, waste, and abuse. The SNAP program works. While it 
can always be improved, we can't simply cut our way to a hunger-free 
society. We must work together if we are going to end hunger now.

                          ____________________