to chank the senator from north dakota. usually he gives me the third degree. >> we would be willing to take a voice vote on the amendment. >> again, as a state that has a very big biofuel market i want to make every one realize, it's 10% of our fuel supply right now and that's why this incredibly important to move forward. i want to thank senator conrad and i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. >> thank you very much. i'm very pleased we've been able to get to this point and thank senator conrad and all the cosponsors of the amendment. we have accepted the cham bliss secretary degree. those say aye. those opposed, nay. the ayes have it. thank you very much. are there any other amendments to the energy title? senator hoeven?

>> i do have an amendment i'd like to offer to the energy title. through the reap program, the secretary of agriculture, and often this as hoeven one, but through the reap title, 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 e-10 blend, all the way up to an e 85 blend which is 85 percent 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 reap program, the secretary can already provide this funding. the 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, senator. this authority does in fact exist for the secretary. he has exercised this. i think you raised some really splent points but certainly, if you would be willing to not proceed with this, i believe that your intent was there. >> thank you, madam chair. ranking member? >> senator roberts. and let me 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 four, 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 dpol ar is spent responsibly, goes to every person who needs it and in addition to supporting important efforts with the supplemental nutrition assistance program, we also strengthened food bank efforts and we want to also indicate that we've increased resources to investigate trafficking and stop abuse. and at this point we are open for -- madam chair.

>> substitute amendment to the filed amendment. its cosponsors are gillibrand and lehey. i introduced the amendment, senator casey did roughly the same time. the amendments are consolidated under his name. he asked me to carry it tod if he can't get back here. i it's listed as casey background gillibrand. >> is this brown amendment number four? >> it's casey five. >> casey five amendment. without objection, the senator may proceed. >> thank you, madam chairman. we know that today under tfap, we have all seen in our states and probably each of us has met somebody who used to give food or money and their time to food banks and now are maybe still volunteering there but still asking for food from those banks we know what kind of pressure

they're under that's what the chair and senator roberts and others did on the whole issue of tfap in increasing that. that made such an important difference. we need to do more to address the incredible ongoing needs that food banks that each of our states are trying to meet. the amendment is pretty sample, it grants a secretary the ability to not just consider commodity prices and purchase and distribution decisions but also to take into account current need in those communities in those states. so it just gives the secretary mor flexibility, which i know secretary johan, when he was there, dealing with those issues, how flexibility matters to them and gives to the secretary that flexibility in making these decisions on tfap. and as i said senator gillibrand, senator casey and senator lehey are responsers of this. >> i'd like to assoc myslf

with the rorks of senator brown and also explain why this is so urgent. in new york state alone, we have over 700,000 families who are at risk and food insecure. that means that that family may not know where the next meal comes from. we have so much need across any food pantry, every soup kitchen, 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. and they said the group that is most affected by these terrible times is children. and i can not emphasize enough how important it is to give the secretary flexibility to say that these are communities that need this little extra money. this is something that can go a very long way to making sure kids do not go to bd hungry in this country. >> thank you very much.

>> yeah. here is what i would say about this. the way the secretary's authority has been established to date is its authority to, it gives the secretary purchasing authority and basically to provide agricultural support. and the whole concept here, especially coming from this committee, was to go out there and try to look at 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 and i've got an amendment that i decided not to bring up at this committee that

illustrates 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 a very different view of that. and i'm inclined to think it's probably going to be your large population states. and at the end of the day, they're going to build a program that we're going to look back in five or ten years and we're going to say what happened here? 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 or five big states are using the

mo and my aendment would literally uble 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 original states, i think we need somebody to take a long, hard look at this, at usda or somewhere and give us some advisor 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 and ten years from now. >> senator brown? >> yeah, i respectfully disagree. i was not the secretary of agriculture, so i understand the argument he makes and the platform from which he makes it. but this is not -- first of all, it's not a big state/small state or any kind of competition this way. this doesn't -- this is not about discretion of the statestor the states to decide what kind of programs they want, this is giving more flexibility. we just passed an amendment on the credit title to give them more flexibility. they 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 determineses. 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 why, the need of those states, the need of those communities. and that's why so many food banks all over the country, not just in big states, 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, the usda and this gives the secretary one more consideration, doesn't force him to take into account any one of these. it just says they can consider the commodity prices, consumer preferences and need and that's why the amendment makes sense. >> senator conrad? >> i'm told, and i'm just asking the question of senator johanns and senator brown that the bush administration claimed that they already had this authority but the current administration argues that they don't.

is that the case? >> i'm not entirely certainly about that, because, at lease 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. they 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 to work with senator brown, senator casey to try and solve this issue. but i would just hesitate to jump to an amendment here without really understanding the implications here. and at the end of the day, the best way to answer your question is to ask for a legal opinion. as to whether that authority does or does not exist.

>> just to clarify, from answering a question. staff has indicated that in fact the under president bush they did indicate they had that authority at one point. the current administration is questioning and would like clarification. senator chambliss. >> just very quickly. i can 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 is all of a sudden going to be picking winners and loosers. have we got nen anything from the secretary with respect to this? do we have anything from the secretary asking for this? >> i don't believe -- certainly if you're looking -- i don't

think we have anything. >> i know they don't -- this came originally from conversations -- i don't speak for senator casey, it came from discussions i had with food banks in big cities and small towns in ohio. we ran it by the usda, they did not object to it. i don't know if they've written anything that says they support it. that's as far as i can go. >> i am sympathetic with the issue, and we've got a real problem with this regard, particularly with the atlanta food bank where we have been besieged with applications in these tough times. and i wonder if i can maybe suggest that we try and 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 not some kind of cost the secretary is going to have to put people in the field out

there to figure out who needs the help and who doesn't. maybe a minimal cost, but we really ought to know that. and i'm not, as i say, opposed to the concept whatsoever. but i think we need to make sure we're doing it right. >> in response to that very thoutful question, the secretary does administer the foot stamp program, so he already has information readily available. so 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 in urgent times, whatever they may be and even just the bad economy, 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 that 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 them weighing on this. line 10 says the secretary may consider the needs of the state. so this puts no burden on them it just gives them flexibility. can we ask -- there is the -- the undersecretary is here can we ask their opinion on this? >> would someone from the usda like to address 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. >> we do have a podium with a microphone. >> good afternoon. i'm the associate general council of the usda that handles in part of the nutrition programs. looking at the amendment, i think we understand generally what the amendment is trying to do. we are a little bit concerned about some of its breadth, particularly if we're talking about this or any other act. and also the placement in terms of how this relates specifically to section 32. i think on behalf of the administration, the office of general counsel will be happy to provide drafting assistance to try to address those concerns if they are reflective of the concerns of the committee. >> senator brown, be wear of asking the question. thank you very much. >> i said i know it's a

danger -- i'm not trained as a lawyer, but i know in law school that's one thing they learn. madam chair, on behalf of senator casey and senator gillibrand, we will work with senator chambliss and johans this is important, i want to ask they have the authority to deal with natural disasters but also just the persistent problems of hunger and we will work on something as quickly as we can and hope to get an answer -- >> madam secretary may we delay the consideration of this amendment to give the usda and secretary personally the opportunity to assess this and decide what he would like? >> 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, we will do that.

we will hold it and if you find there's a way to come back to it at a later point and proceed -- >> madam chair, if we can't come to an agreement during the course of this hearing, i would like to ask you see to come back to this amendment before final passage for a vote if we can't come to an agreement. i hope we can, but if we can't. >> i think without objection 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 the 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 it 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 lehey has asked me to

offer an amendment on his behalf to reflect a technical correction and a modification be included to -- excuse me. senator lehey has amendment number five, which i believe has been agreed to, that relates to allowing snap benefits to be used to purchase a share in something and to the community supported agriculture program. he has a 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 lehey amendment number five. this -- is there any objection

to the i'm sorry. does every one have that? it's lehey amendment number five, which would allow snap benefits to be used to purchase a share in a community-supported agriculture. where folks come together and jointly purchase food. excuse me. while we are -- it is number five. lehey number five. if there's not objection, we will accept the amendment. senator chambliss, do you have lehey amendment number five? let's make sure everybody has that. >> we have some confusion here. >> why don't we -- let's make sure everybody has it. do you have a copy? >> why don't we let every one

take a look at it. and we can move on if there are other amendments and we can come back to it after everyone has had a chance to take a look at it. >> thanks. >> madam chair i'd like to call up boseman amendment number four. i want to commend the chair for regarding the provision for closing a loophole. at the same time i'm afraid we do not fully close the loophole. we will never realize the expected 4 billion in savings. snap recipients are allowed to calculate their income certain deductions similar to the way that we do our taxes in order to

determine the benefit. part of the calculation allows them to take a standard utility allowance rather than add up all their out of pocket utility costs, similar to the way one might take a -- under the current law, if someone receives lie heap assistance, even though they may not have any out of pocket utility expenses -- frt more, some states even lie heap payment, maybe a few dollars who have no utility bills at all, that would be for example someone who is a renter and this is done to artificially inflate their snap benefit. for some people this is being estimated to increase their monthly benefit as much as 130 a month.

the standard allows people to offset their living expenses not to inflate snap benefits and we really should close this loophole and redirect funds to other programs. this amendment fully closes the loophole which saves approximately $13.9 billion by ending the artificially inflated payments. it reenvironments money to reimburse lunch for school breakfast programs in order to offset the unfunded mandated costs for new nutrition standards in schools that we have heard concerns about. the amendment takes the rest of the savings and puts that toward deficit reduction, approximately a $5 billion. gimmicks that inflate snap benefits denies the ability to confront the real problem and delay our ability to have the conversation we should be having which is how to define the

needest among us. how much assistance do they need from the government in order to have the best chance of getting back on their feet. madam chair, we're been working with our staff, and this is really -- i understand this is a, as we've discussed this 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 to begin the process, but i do think we need to go a little further. not to disenfranchise people but to take the money that we save but to get it to those that truly need it. so with that i withdraw the amendment. >> thank you very much. did you have an amendment? >> i also want to comment.

i appreciate my colleague's consideration of this issue. and withdrawing it. and i just want to give you some 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 says your rent is higher because you're paying for your utilities within your rent so because of your poverty level, you're still eligible for food stamps. it's not a loophole. and if you unwound this under the auspices that it's a loophole, you are literally going to be hurting families that desperately need this kind of nutrition assistance for their families. and i do think it's 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 can assure you this money in new york state,

there's over 300,000 families that are food insecure. i appreciate your considering the issue and that you withdrew the moment. >> i appreciate that and that's very helpful. and again, what i would like to do is, 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. >> maybe you've got a rumor community where that is not the case -- >> we do. we have so many rural communities in new york. i'd be pleased to work with you. >> thank you. >> and i agree with your point. we don't want niven gaming any system for any federal money. but as i said earlier, the fraud for food stamps is less than 1%.

it is minuscule so yes, make sure there's complete transparency and i will work with you on that so the families at greatest need are getting the resources. madam chair can i offer my amendment? >> yes. proceed. thank you. >> i'd like to offer amendment number three 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 snap program is one of the most important programs for helping these at risk families and at-risk children. our nutrition assistance helps 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 that nutrition assistance is available to those who need it. that this is a shared value that

we all support. oi'm not going to be offering it in committee but i'm going to be offering it on the floor and i hope fly colleagues will consider it as a statement of those shared common bipartisan values. >> thank you very much. we will proceed back to the lehey amendment number five. and i would ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the roberts number two amendment. and i believe you have that now, the lehey amendment, and senator roberts' modifications. roberts and i are supporting this amendment that would give a little more flexibility for people to be able to get fresh fruits and vegetables by participating in community-supported agriculture. so is there any decision about senator leahy's amendment? if not, all those in favor say