basically what my amendment does is, would allow the differential in the $23 billion and the actual savings that we have of, i don't remember the number, but whatever it is, to be used to fund the conrad amendment. >> one of the things i would say, we've worked so hard and ended up doing such a good job on deficit reduction we've actually had flexibilities to be able to solve problems. so -- >> madam chair, might i inquire with that second-degree amendment then be styled as the conrad-chambliss amendment or the chambliss-conrad second degree amendment to the conrad amendment? >> answer that carefully. >> i'd be happy to defer to my friend, who's going to be -- voting on his last farm bill. >> if there's no objection, we will accept the second degree amendment of senator chambliss and senator roberts. >> i would like to make the observation, i think this is an outstanding example of

bipartisan cooperation, and i really want to thank the senator from north dakota. usually he gives me the third degree. >> i thank the senator. >> could we -- we would be willing to take a voice vote on the amendment? >> i just -- senator, i just wanted to, again, as state that has a very big biofuel market i want to make everyone realize, as we go forward, biofuels get attacked. 10% over fuel supply. that's why this is incredibly important to move forward to the next generation of biroe fuels and i thank senator conrad and am proud about to co-sponsor of the amendment. >> pleased we've been able to get to this point and thank senator conrad and all the co-sponsors of this amendment. we have accepted the chambliss second degree. so all those in favor of the amendment, say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, nay? >> the ayes have it. thank you very much. are there any other amendments to the energy title?

seeing none -- excuse me. senator hoven? >> i'd like to offer the amendment to the energy title. essentially under the energy title through the reap program, the secretary of agriculture -- and offering this as hoven 1. but through the -- through the reap title which is real energy for america program, the secretary can provide funding for blender pumps. blender pumps are an important way for americans to have choice at the gas station where they can choose anywhere from an eechlt-10 blend, 10% ethanol, up to e-85 blend, which is 85% ethanol or anything in between. so it truly is a way that seeks to move us to a market-based approach to provide an expanded market for ethanol.

now, my understanding is that in this energy title and within the r.e.a.p. program, the secretary can already provide this funding. so my language simply reinforces that. and i guess what i would offer at this point is, i would be willing to withdraw the amendment on the basis that i do receive an expression of support from the chairman that, in fact, this authority already exists and it's clear, then maybe this additional amendment isn't necessary, and so that would be my question to the chair at this point. >> thank you very much, senators. this authority does, in fact, exist for the secretary. he has exercised this. i think you raised some really excellent points, but certainly, if you would be willing to not proceed with this, i believe that your intent is there.

>> thank you, madam chair. ranking member -- >> senator roberts. let me also say, on the last vote on the energy amendment, senator roberts wants to be recorded as, no. >> yes, ma'am. that is correct. >> thank you. any other amendments to the energy title? seeing none, the energy title is closed. we'll now move to title 4. the nutrition title. let me indicate again that while so many americans are in need of food help today, we want to make sure every dollar is spent responsibly, goes to every person who needs it, and in addition to supporting important efforts with the supplemental nutrition assistance program, we've also strengthened food bank efforts, and we want to also ind dhat we've increased r investigate trafficking and stop abuse, and at this point we are

open for amendment. >> madam chair -- >> senator brown. >> thank you, madam chair. i first asked consent to offer substitute amendment to the filed amendment, co-sponsors, senator gillibrand and leahy. i introduced amendment on t-fab, senator casey did roughly the same time. the amendments are consolidated under his name. he asked plea to carry it today, if he couldn't get back here. i asked to offer the substitute amendment on t-fab listed at k.c. john gillibrand. >> do i have it right? >> it's kc 5. >> kc 5 amendment, without objection, the senator may proceed. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. we know that today under ffab, the emergency food assistance program, we've all seen in our states, probably each has met somebody who used to give food or money but are asking for food

from the food banks. we know the kind of pressure they're under. that's why what the chair and senator roberts and others did when the whole issuen tfap, made an important difference. we need to do more i think, madam chair, to address ongoing need of food banks that each of our states are trying to meet. the usda, grants the secretary the ability to not just consider commodity prices in purchase and distribution decisions but also to take into account current need in those communities, in those states. so it just gives the secretary, more flexibilities. i know the secretary when he was there and dealing with these issues how flexibility matters to them and gives the secretary that flexibility in making these decisions on tfap, and as i said, senator gillibrand, senator casey and leahy are

sponsors of this. so i ask -- >> yes. senator gillibrand. >> i would like to explain why this is so urgent around the current. in new york state alone we have over 700,000 families who are at risk and at need and are food insecure. all that food insecure means is that family may not know where the next meal comes from. we have so much need across every food pantry, every soup kitchen, every place that feeds the hungry, they have told me there's such an increase in demand because the economy is so bad, they have a decrease in charitable giving. so they're trying to do more with less. they said the group that is most affected by these terrible times is children. and i cannot emphasize enough how important it is to give the secretary flexibility during horrific economic times saying these are communities that need this little bit of extra money. something that can go a very long way to make sure kids don't

go to bed hungry in this country. >> thank very much. anyone else on the amendment? senator johanns? >> yes. whoa. here's what i would say about this. the way the secretary's authority has been established to date is, it's authority to, it gives the secretary purchasing authority and basically to provide agricultural support. and concept, especially from this committee, those areas where the secretary could step in and buy food and make a difference in terms of low prices or something of that nature. you're changing this program dramatically here. you're basically saying to the secretary, now go out there and try to make some assessment as best you can as to what an issue of need may be.

now, here's the challenge you're going to face. i've got an amendment that i decided not bring up at this committee that illustrates this -- this problem that we're going to get ourselves into. there are many states who take a different view and are much more conservative in how they distribute the resources that they have, that doesn't mean that people go hungry, but they may activate their churches more aggressively. they may do a whole host of things. the problem you're going to run into here is, some states are going to take very different views of that. and i'm inclined to think it's probably going to be your large population states. and today, there are going to be a program five or ten years and -- we've already got one of those programs going in training. i've got an amendment, like i said, i'm not going to bring forward, but basically what has

happened in that program is four, five big states are using the money. and my amendment would literally double the funding that is available to other states, but i appreciate the controversy involved in that now that the program is there, now that the money is being spent, but i really worry that if you head out in this direction you're going to turn this program in a whole different direction than what was originally intended. i think before you go in this direction, rather than doing it through an amendment process, where we don't really understand the full impact on our individual states, i think we need somebody to take a long, hard look at this, at usda or somewhere, and give us some advice and recommendation about what the direction of this would be, if this amendment were adopted. but i just see all kinds of

problems in what we're doing here, and we may literally end up with unintended consequences that will be shocking five to ten years from now. >> senator brown? >> i -- i respectfully disagree. i was not the secretary of agriculture so i understand that, the art of the argument he makes and the platform in which senator johanns makes it, but this is not -- first of all, not a big state, small state or big state medium state or any kind of competition this way. this doesn't -- this is not about discretion of the states for the states to decide what kind of program they want. this is giving more flexibility. we just passed an amendment on the credit title to give the second more flexalities. this gives the secretary flexibility to consider something in addition to what he or she considers today. today, the secretary is allowed to consider only commodity prices and consumer preferences when making the determinations.

now we're saying in addition to commodity prices and consumer preferences, the secretary can also take into account that other issue, and that's what -- that's what -- that the need of those states, or the need of those communities, and that's why so many food banks all over the country and not just in big states like new york and ohio and michigan, but smaller states have called us to want us to do this. there's no score involved. there's no additional cost to the government, to the secretary, to the usda. and this just gives the secretary one more consideration, doesn't force him to take into account any one of these. it just says they can consider commodity prices, consumer preferences and need and that's why the amendment makes sense. >> senator conrad? >> i'm told and just asking the question of senator johanns and senator brown that the bush administration claimed they

already had this authority. but the current administration argues that they don't. is that the case? >> senator johanns? >> i'm not entirely certain about that because at least when i was secretary, senator conrad, we looked at this from an agricultural standpoint. and so i probably never pushed the authority. this administration may be looking at it. times are different. times are more difficult and may be saying, gosh, do we have the authority here? kind of underscores the point. this may be something that we address at some stage, and i might even be willing -- i am willing, not might be willing i am willing to work with senator brown, senator case toy ty to t solve this issue but i would hesitate to jump to an amendment without really understanding the implications. at the end of the day the best way to answer your question is

to ask for a league opinion. as to whether that authority does or does not exist. >> just to clarify, from answering a question. staff indicated that in fact under president bush they did indicate they had that authority at one point. the current administration is questioning it and would like clarification. senator chambliss and then senator -- >> quickly, i concur with what senator gillibrand said with reference to the demands on food banks, and this is one way we can be of assistance. i kind of like the idea of any secretary having flexibility, but i hear what mike is saying here, that the secretary's all of a sudden going to be picking winners and losers. we have gotten anything from the secretary shared with respect to this? do we have anything from the secretary asking for this? or --

>> i don't believe -- certainly if you're looking at this, i don't think we have anything. >> i know they don't -- this came originally from conversations -- i'll speak for senator casey, but my conversations with him indicate this is a dead for me. came from discussions i had with food banks in big cities and small towns in ohio. we tran by the administer of the usda. they don't object to it. i don't know if they've written anything that supports it. that's as far as i can go. >> i am sympathetic with the issue and we've got a real problem in this regard, particularly with the atlanta food bank where we have just been besieged with applications during these tough times. madam chair, i wonder if i could maybe suggest that we try to figure something out between now and the time we get to the floor to make sure that we're doing this the right way, because i hear what mike's saying, and i

can't imagine there's no some sort of cost the secretary is then going to have to put people in the field out there to try to figure out who really needs the help and who doesn't. maybe a minimal cost, but we really ought to know that, and i -- i'm not, as i say, oppose the to the con swlaept so evcep but i think we need to be sure we're doing it right . >> in response to the thoughtful question, the secretary already has information readily available when needs are growing. he will know the circumstances in atlanta already. i don't think it will require additional resources to implement to give him the judgment, and i just think in times of volatility and difficulty, we saw so many communities destroyed with the recent tornadoes and flooding and natural disasters this past year, to be able to give the secretary the ability to respond quickly to urgent times, whatever they may be, and even

just the bad economy affecting places like atlanta, i think it just clarifies that he can use this as a consideration, and i don't think it's more than that. i think it's literally just a clarification this can be one of his myriad of considerations. he has all the information, because he does administer food stamps. >> senator brown. >> one point and then one request, and i appreciate senator chambliss and senator johanns weighing in on this. line 10 says secretary may consider the needs of the state. this puts no burden on them gives them for exampleability. always danger asking a question not knowing the answer. the under secretary is here of the usda. could we ask for their opinion on this? >> without objection? yes. would someone from usda like to address this? this particular issue in terms of the need for clarity or the position of the department as it relates to this? >> yes. i'm with the office of general

counsel. >> yes, please proceed and introduce yourself and if you could -- we do have a podium with a microphone if you'd like to go to -- it's -- >> good afternoon. >> very much impromptu. >> very. i'm david grin, associate general counsel at usda that handles in part of knew tris programs. looking at the amendment i think we understand generally what the amendment is trying to do. we are a little concerned about some of its breadth, particularly when talking about this or any other act. if i'm looking at casey 5, i assume that's what we're looking at. >> correct. >> the placement how it relates to specifically section 32, i think on batehalf of the administration happy to provide drafting assistance to try to address those concerns if they are reflective of concerns of the committee. >> senator brown, beware of

asking the question. thank you. thank you very much. >> that's what i said. i know it's dangerous -- i'm not trained as a lawyer. i know that, but i know in law school that's one thing they learn. madam chair on behalf of senator casey and senator gillibrand, concurring that we will work with senator chambliss and senator johns and usda. this is important, i want to emphasize how important it is the secretary have this authority to deal with natural disasters as kirsten said, but also to deal just with the persistent problems of hunger in our communities, and we will work on something as quickly as we can and hope to get an answer -- >> madam secretary, may we just delay the consideration of this amendment until the end of our considerations today to give the usda and secretary personally the opportunity to assess this and decide what he'd like? because if -- >> if there's no objection, we can certainly -- >> provide clarity from the secretary. >> is there any objection to coming back to this at some

later point? if not, then we will do that. we will hold it, and if you find there's a way to come together, we can come back to a later point and proceed. certainly share the concern -- addressed by this and like to see it resolved. >> if we can't come to an agreement during the course of this hearing i would like to ask you come back to this amendment before final passage for a vote if we can't come to agreement. i hope we can, but if we can't. >> without objection, i think that would be fine, and we are now on the third to the last title. so there's not that much time, but if you have time to do that, we certainly would want to give you the opportunity to come back. so if there's not objection, we would at some point when we close this title, close except for this amendment, and we could come back to it. are there other amendments at this point?

at the moment, let me just say, senator leahy has asked me to offer an amendment on his behalf to reflect a technical correction and a modification be included to -- excuse me. senator leahy has amendment number 5, which i believe has been agreed to, that relates to allowing s.n.a.p. benefits to be used to purchase a share in something, into the community supported agriculture program. he has modification that i would ask unanimous consent to reflect a technical correction and i would offer on his behalf -- and on behalf of senator roberts, the leahy amendment number 5.

this -- is there any objection to the -- i'm sorry. does everyone have that? the leahy amendment number 5, which would allow the s.n.a.p. benefits to be used to purchase a share in a community supported agriculture program? where folks come together and jointly purchase food? and so -- excuse me. while we are -- it is number 5. all right. it is leahy number 5, if there's not objection, we will accept the amendment. senator chambliss -- yes. do you have leahy amendment number 5? let's make sure everybody has that. >> the confusion here. is that a 5 or a 6?

>> why don't we -- let's make sure everybody has it. do you have a copy, senator chambliss? >> it's being distributed now. >> why don't we let everyone take a look at it, and we can move on, if there are other amendments, and we can come back to it every everyone's had a chance to take a look at it. >> thanks. >> madam chair -- >> yes, senator bozeman. >> i'd like to call up bozeman amendment number 4. >> bozeman amendment number 4. without objection. >> i want to commend the chair and ranking member for the provision regarding a partial closing of the loophole, at the same time i'm afraid we do not fully close the loophole. states will continue to find ways to game the system and we will never realizes the expected $4 billion in savings. s.n.a.p. recipients are allowed

to calculate their income and certain deductions similar to the way that we do our taxes. in order to determine their benefit. part of the calculation a allows them to take a standard utility allowance rather than add up all their out of pocket utilities costs similar to the way one might take a standard tax deduction. this applies people with lesser means with payments to helpry energy bills. under the current law, if someone receives this assistance, many states qualify them for the standard utility allowance even though they may not have any out of pocket utility expenses, thus increasing their benefit. furthermore, some states even provide a pro forma payment, maybe a few dollars to s.n.a.p. beneficiaries who have not utility bills at awe, for example, someone that's a renter and the utilities are included in rent, and this is done to artificially inflate their s.n.a.p. benefit. for some people this shan ximted to increase their monthly

benefit at much as $130 a month. the standard utility allowance exists to help people offset their out of pocket living expenses, not to inflate s.n.a.p. benefits and we really should close this loophole and redirect funds to other nutrition programs. this amendment fully closes the loophole, which sends approximately $13.9 billion by ending the artificially inflated payments, the amendment then reinvests $4 billion for reimbursement rates for the lurng and school breakfast programs to offset the unfunded mandated costs from new nutrition standards in schools that we have heard concerns about from municipal governments, school administrators and school nutritionists. the amendment takes the rest of the savings and puts that towards deficit reduction, approximately $5 billion. gimmicks that inflate s.n.a.p. benefits deny the ability to confront the real problem and

delay our ability to have the conversation we should be having which is how do we define the neediest among us? how much assistance, you know do they need from the government in order to have the best chance of getting back on their feet and becoming self-sufficient? madam chair, you know, we've been working with our staff and legislative council and stuff, and this is really -- i understand this is, as we've discussed this other, some of the other amendments, this is a major thing. so i'm going to withdraw the amendment, but i would appreciate and i know that i will get, you're working with us and the ranking member, as we really look to really reform these programs. again, i commend you and the ranking member for, to begin the process, and, but i do think we need to go a little further. not to disenfranchise people, but to take the money that we save and then actually get it to those that truly do need it. so with that i withdraw the

amendment. >> thank you very much for withdrawing the amendment. senator gillibrand, did you have an amendment? >> yes, but i also want to comment and i appreciate my colleague's consideration of this issue and withdrawing it and just want to give you context as to why this isn't a loophole. it's the difference of a rural community and a city community. if you live in a city and you live in a high-rise building your heating is part of your rent. so we've been able to develop a system that's says, your rent is higher, because you're paying for your utilities within your rent, and so because of nor poverty level, you're still eligible for food stamps. so it's not a loophole. people are receiving food stamps who should receive food stamps and if you unwound this under the auspices it's a loophole you are literally going to be hurting families that desperately need these kind of nutrition assistance for their families and i do think it's just a disconnect between the nature of the populations that you're serving versus other parts of the country. but it's definitely not a

loophole and i assure you that this money in new york state, there's over 300,000 families that are food insecure and it really does make the difference between kids going to school hungry and not. so i just appreciate the fact that you're considered the issue and did withdraw the amendment. >> yield for a second. i appreciate that and that's very helpful. again what i would like to do, and, again, maybe working with you and the chairman and the ranking member, just make sure that -- in the, what you cite is very well -- just to make sure that some of the other states, some of the other areas, are not gaming the system. >> agreed. >> and maybe you've got a rural community. >> go. so many rural communities in new york. >> that -- >> i'd be pleased to work with you. >> thank you. >> and i agree with your point. we don't want anyone gaming any system for any federal money especially in tough budget times. as i said earlier in my opening

remarks, the fraud for food stamps is less than 1%. it is minuscule compared to other federal programs. yes, make sure there's complete transparency and i'll work with you so the families in greatest need are getting the resources. madam chair, can i offer my amendment jnchtsz yes, proceed. thank you. >> i'd like to other amendment number 3, which is a sense of the committee. now, obviously we all care about the families that we serve in our states, and obviously no one on this committee wants to see children go hungry. but our food stamps program, our s.n.a.p. program, is one of the most important programs for helping these at-risk families and at-risk children. our nutrition assistance helps over 46 million people, including 23 million children in the united states. i have a sense of the senate that very simply states that none of us want to see children go hungry. that we all want to make sure