stores to the other earlier comments made for additional corroborating information beyond what we have traditionally sought and especially so in locations where we've had prior issues. these kinds of issues of trafficking and fraud tend to congregate in the same location. we want those spots moved up on our high-risk profiles. we also want to make sure we're exhausting every available source of information to us. >> i think on the debarment issue, that contractor in afghanistan that was overcharging $787 million, they are still operating on a single source contract. they don't even have to compete for the contract and are still in business. i know your efforts of debarring is important to this comment, both sides of the aisle. moving forward on that i hope you do proceed. i'm hearing from pat barrack who does mass law reform who tells me you're doing a very good job in fda and they are adamant to

work with you on that. people are clever, and they keep coming up with different ways. one of the ones recently crosses the border between abuse of people and the system. they find some women supporting their children are threatened, sometimes physically attacked to get them to turn over their electronic card. are you addressing that issue at all? anyone come across that? apparently it's more prevalent? >> that would be the kind of incident where we have a number of partnerships where we call state law enforcement bureaus as well. we would definitely want to know about that, that absolutely is the worst kind of extortion. so we would want to work closely as inspector general faulkner mentioned we work closely with state agencies on a variety of things. that wouldweeould be happy to p that. >> thank you all. i think it's important work you do there. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from massachusetts and i apologize to the gentleman from virginia and texas because i got the order

out of whack, so i would now recognize the gentleman from virginia as i should have and then the gentleman from texas. >> mr. chairman, thank you. no need for an apology. i know the pressures sitting in that chair. but you are always gracious and i thank you. mr. concannon, i'm old enough to remember some ground breaking books like nick cass's promises, michael harrington's, the other america, and the ground breaking work done by united states congress especially by then senator george mcgovern on a bipartisan basis with then senator bob dole to establish the food stamp program to address a pervasive problem of hunger and malnutrition in the united states. has the food stamp program, in fact, successfully addressed the

issue of hunger and malnutrition in the united states. >> i believe the food stamps program has been one of the most effective first line efforts to reduce hunger in the country. it also has reduced poverty. we know in the census bureau last year pointed out last year alone 4 million additional americans would have sunk below the poverty line absent the food stamp program. as has been mentioned here today, almost half, 47% of the beneficiaries of food stamps are children, another 8% are senior citizens over 60. about 20% of the households have people with disabilities. increasingly these days the food stamp program are serving households in which 41% of the household members which one is working in the workforce. i refer to that group of beneficiaries often as the new faces of s.n.a.p. these are folks who have been

displaced in this difficult economy. they might not be getting as many hours in their work. it's really important that the s.n.a.p. program be responsive. across the country s.n.a.p. is serving 72% of the eligibles in the country. that reflects -- that has been moving upwards from in the mid-50s and mid-60s now 72%. we're serving eligible children in the country. there are a few states far below the rest of the country we continue to dialogue with and work closely with. the program really is responding as it should to the needs of folks in this country. it's the most inclusive of both state and federal feeding programs. so finds your testimony in the 40 plus years we started this program, it has, in fact, achieved its desired result in reducing hunger and malnutrition

in rural america as well as reducing the poverty level in the united states. >> indeed. there's a measure called food insecurity. we have data that points to the impacts of the food stamp program as it's still known in 20 some states. >> what percentage of food stamp recipients are children? >> 47%. >> 47%. that translates to how many people? >> there are 46 million people, round figure around 21 or 22 million. >> children. it's too bad the title is food stamp fraud as a business model, usda struggle to please store owners, seems to suggest or one could confer we have prejudged the case and apparently fraud is rampant. it kind of begs the question of the purpose and original mission of this program and whether, it, in fact, has achieved that

mission some fraud that has to be stamped out notwithstanding. but let me ask you a question given that title what percentage of s.n.a.p. funds were improperly issued last year. the committee has looked at improper payments what percentage of the total program classified as improper payments? >> last year we achieved record low -- we and states, all benefits are extended through states. we achieved an improper payment rate of 3.81%. about 3% of that was overpayments. just about 1% was underpayments meaning the beneficiary based on his or her income, household income, 3% received more than they should have. less than 1% received less. this is part of our quality control effort. >> of that total -- i'm sorry. mr. chairman, your pitch hitter

as chairman offered to give me one extra minute. >> he's so much kinder than i would be. >> i lucked out, mr. chairman, that's right. i would ask the chair to honor that request. but 3.8% roughly improper payments, so all of that was not fraud? >> correct. >> what percentage of fraud? >> the fraud figure we have is 1%. >> and have we reduced improper payments over the last decade or has it gone up? >> we have considerably -- that's one of the charts we handed out. we have reduced it significantly over the past decade and continue to focus on it as well as reducing fraud in the program also. >> it's good this committee is having this hearing to absolutely highlight there are still problems we have to get -- our goal should always be to get it to 0. let's not overstate the problems and lose sight of the mission especially at budget time when people might be thinking of a $100 million cut in the program. miss fong you mentioned to us

you still think mr. concannon's operation could do a better job of debarment and suspension, correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. concannon, could you address that, in my final question. >> in your second overrun minute. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman. >> go ahead, please. >> thank you. >> i mentioned earlier that we believe that the approach we make of moving people out of the program immediately is a more effective way. to most of the beneficiaries, the stores we're concerned with don't do other business with the federal government. even to cover, that we have been working with the general service administration to have these stores or companies put on the excluded parties list system, which will prevent them from being able to participate with other government programs. now, we're also -- we're continuing to have dialogue with the office of the attorney

general to see if there are ways we can do both. our desire, we don't have an aversion to the debarment process, it's that it slows it down. we like the authority we have right now. when we find that a store has misled us about their business relationships, or debarred before, we can take them out of the program. we send them a letter, give them 10 days, they are out. i don't have to give them more hearings. i don't have to give them more due process they are gone. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your consideration and my colleague. >> because i know you want full disclosure miss faulkner, i think you had something to say on those questions, too. >> i wanted to talk about what my s.n.a.p. trafficking program has found in the fiscal year 2010, 2011, we conducted 584 s.n.a.p. trafficking investigations, we scheduled 158 administrative hearings with the total restitution we received back of over $250,000.

we disqualified 77 recipients of s.n.a.p. benefits who committed trafficking violations, which really gave us a cost savings of close to $500,000. that's with the limited staff that we have. in pennsylvania, as i stated earlier, we're seeing more fraud. we are. in that we have little staff, we hope to get a little bit more, that was our 2010, 2011 alone of we don't expect it to go down. >> i know miss fong has previously said you don't necessarily concur with those figures independently at this point. i would only ask that since the secretary said they are going to redo them again, i would hope we could expect them to be mutually agreed to by metrics that then you could essentially concur with? >> yes. we have some work planned for this year to take a look at the methodology in those numbers. >> thank you.

we now go to the gentleman from texas, mr. speaker farenthold. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to deal with something i hear about some from my constituents. that is the stretching of actually items that qualify under the program. for instance, i received a photograph from a constituent of a sign outside of a place that prepares pizzas to order. they just don't cook them. apparently it qualifies under the letter of the law. certainly i wouldn't think under the spirit of the law the sign out there says accepts the lone star card, which in texas is our method of doing that. you also see an instance of grocery stores and convenience stores also offering quite a few hot food items i would think would not qualify under the program. i guess i'll address this to miss fong, what are y'all seeing

with respect to that? what can we do to combat that. >> we as far as i know have not received any allegations along those lines that would indicate fraud or criminal activity. i would defer to the under-secretary, i think it's really a policy question. >> mr. secretary. >> i'd be happy to try to answer it. the second part of your question, when you look at first of all consumers in the program cannot buy hot foods, period. they can buy frozen foods. there are pizza chains that have been admitted into the program over time. i mentioned earlier my testimony. one of the -- one of the definitions of who is eligible for the program in terms of the 231,000 providers is set in the statute through the farm bill. and it requires a minimum number of certain food groups, what we refer to as the depth of stock

requirement. i would like to see that strengthened. >> let me follow up on that maybe with miss hatcher. we've got the technology now in place through upc codes that we can actually determine what items are qualified and don't qualify. i guess if you wanted to get into a big brother scenario could probably link up who is buying what. with the cost of upc readers, 20, $30, hook up to a pc. i can imagine any store to be too small to implement it. do you see technological problems, could technological problems or solutions -- i'll let you answer it and then come back to the under-secretary. >> sure. i guess in the question about hot foods, that one is already taken care of now. our members, and we educate them very clearly, hot foods are not eligible. we code in anything that's a hot food item as ineligible in the

store. so then especially on the pizza thing, it would depend actually. if it's a frozen picture in the frozen pizza section it would be eligible. if it's a heated pizza in the deli area it would not be eligible. >> strikes me a pizza made to order or not is stretching it. mr. secretary, that's fine. i guess my question do you see a technological sploogs? another complaint i hear consistently from constituents people will go in and buy highly processed food with low nutritional value. i don't want to get in the business of dictating what people do and don't eat but to some degree our money our rules. what do you see as an optimum situation there. >> unfortunately on the processed food question, i'm not talking about those mini carrots that come from larger foods that

have too much sodium. all of us, americans, eat more processed food than any other country in the world. we are trying through another part i have responsibility for, center for nutrition policy to encourage americans to eat healthier, more fruits and vegetables. my plate is very simple but very effective icon. we are also encouraging access to farmers markets for our -- in your case lone star beneficiaries to try to nudge them, direct them to buying healthier, often locally grown foods. i'm also still, i remain very interested in increasing the requirement for small stores to have better choices of fresh fruits, healthier foods for people rather than just the overabundance of processed food. >> i see my time has expired. thank you very much. >> i think the gentleman's time has expired. i thank the panel of witnesses.

i think this was informative. contrary to what might have been perceived, this was a limited hearing, limited to businesses who, in fact, defraud the government and deny our children that $22 million or more children the receipt of the actual food rather than trading 50 for 100. our intention is to allow for at least five days for members who were not able to get here for questions to supplement by asking all of you questions. would you agree to respond to them if you get them in writing? i want to thank you. i would like unanimous consent that if anyone thinks of something they didn't say and would like to supplement their own record would be loufd to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned. to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned. al to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned. l to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned. ow to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned. e to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned. d to do so. without objection, so ordered. we stand adjourned.

."

here on c-span3, waiting for the start of a hearing on the president's proposed 2013 budget and how it will affect indian tribes. we understand at the hearing at 4:00 eastern it's been pushed back and delayed a bit because of a number of votes going on on the senate floor, amendment votes in relation to the transportation bill. that voting under way now. can you follow that on c-span 2. again, this hearing they are saying in about 15 minutes or so 4:00 eastern will get under way. at this hearing we'll hear witnesses including assistant interior secretary, heads of

indian health service and bureau as well as cherokee chief and other representatives of the tribal organizations. we'll have it live for you when it starts on c-span3. until then part of the conversation from this morning's washington journal. >> joining us is representative jackie spears. she's a democrat from california, we spent the first 45 minutes talking about u.s. policy in syria and whether u.s. military intervention is an option. your commit, what's your feeling about that? >> i think if we do engage, we need to do it as we did in libya, where it is a joint force going in. i think the times of us moving in solo to try and take over the world have to cease.

so as a nato parts panther pant, i would say yes. i think the blood shed that's going on there is something we cannot continue to just observe. >> so do you see this as a to just observe. >> do you think this is a short-term possibility? >> i would see it as a short-term possibility. but when it comes to war it's not two days, two months, or two years. there's several different housing assistant programming out there, how would you rate the government's all the different programs that are out there? >> i would give the federal government an a for effort and a c for execution. because we have done a very poor job in terms of bringing the financial service industry to the table. all of the programs we have put

in place have all been voluntary. and the result is, unless the bottom line was attractive to the financial service industry, they didn't engage. meanwhile, we bailed them all out with t.a.r.p. and with hindsight, we should have made that part of the deal with bailing out the banks, that, should we be in this kind of financial meltdown, in terms of foreclosures, they would follow certain patterns, they would make these programs available. let's say you're out of work and

you have cancer, you're not going to continue to pay that mortgage. we can provide relief by lowering the interest rate. is there a taxpayer cost to that proposal? >> no that's actually a tax benefit. because fanny may is -- if you walk on it, the taxpayers are going to be in the hole more than if the mortgage holders stay in their homes and pay the mortgage. >> california, your state, 11.9%, and san mateo county, which is your district, 7.2%.

>> we're doing better than the national average, obviously. in temperatures of home foreclosures, less in my area than around the country. what's the average cost of a home in your district? >> it's about $600,000 to $700,000. we have a very high cost of living. >> we want a question to be put on the table before we begin taking your calls. this is from reuters yesterday. eight women alleged rape and retaliation in u.s. military.

this just came out tuesday, is this a story that you are following and as a member of the armed services committee, are you planning on pursuing that? n not -- figures from 2010 in the department of defense. of that 19,000 figure, about 13% actually report the crime and only 8% are actually prosecuted. it is a system that is wrought with conflict of interest, it is a system in which the perpetrator gets a pass and the victim get victimized all over. >> what's been the response? >> i met with secretary panetta

on the issue and he was shocked. shortly after he became secretary of defense, he said he had zero tolerance for sexual assault in the cia, and he was going to pursue that here. but the problem is, every person has said we have a zero tolerance, but the rapes continue and they are not prosecuted. and so i'm very committed to changing that paradigm. >> as a senior democratic whip, let's put some politics on the table as well. as the debate and the discussion in this country been beneficial to democrats. >> i think the -- women in this

country dealt with this issue in the '60s. >> this come bum we're about to show you on tuesday, limbaugh and our phony contraception debate is the title of the column, it's written by kathy -- she writes, i was not a catholic when i attended georgetown law, but i certainly you the university was. she chose georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to catholic teachings and it's student health plans.

>> i think the fact that it's written by st. the family council says it all. first after all, look at the facts. georgetown university provides contraception coverage to its employee. but does not provide contraception coverage to its students. how do you square that? in california, i covered the election that required that if you were offering a prescription drug benefit, you must also cover contraceptive drugs. the final hour the catholic bishops came in and said we want an exemption. we gave them an kempation for things -- -- the church staff,

the search schools and not for hospitals and not for universities because they are much more secular in their function. what we found, catholic health care west was at the time, they were already providing contraceptive pills to their employees. so in issue has been long been decided and the real question would be why would georgetown offer benefits to its employees that it doesn't offer to its students? >> 202 is the area code. 628-0205. if you would like to talk with representative jackie spear, democrat of california, member of the armed services committee. she's currently in her third term in congress. she's also a senior democratic whip. she spent 18 years in the california state and legislature. before that, six years on the san mateo county board of

supervisors. the first call up for her is garry in macon, missouri. >> i would like to ask this lady if, i'm sure she knows about an article i see on abc about -- it's been a few months ago and it was the only report that i saw about this, i thought it was a really big story. about a bridge they're building from san francisco to oakland, across the bay and, you know, nobody has reported this, but the chinese are building this bridge. a chinese company is building this bridge with chinese steel and chinese labor and nobody's talking about this bridge, where the money come from, it's said to be the biggest -- the largest self suspension bridge in the world. >> the oakland bay bridge as a result of the 1989 loma