<DOC>
[110 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:35482.wais]
S. Hrg. 110-159
INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
MARCH 15, 2007--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-482 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
Professional Staff
Galen Fountain
Jessica Arden Frederick
Dianne Preece
Fitzhugh Elder IV (Minority)
Stacey McBride (Minority)
Graham Harper (Minority)
Brad Fuller (Minority)
Administrative Support
Renan Snowden
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statement of Senator Herb Kohl................................... 1
Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett........................... 2
Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin........................... 3
Statement of James T. Morris, Executive Director, World Food
Programme...................................................... 4
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Statement of Abass Mohamed, Former Food Aid Recipient From
Somalia........................................................ 13
Prepared Statement of........................................ 15
Statement of Daniel Kuot, Former Food Aid Recipient From Sudan... 16
Statement of Walter Middleton, Vice President, World Vision
International.................................................. 22
Prepared Statement of........................................ 24
Statement of Cynthia A. Brown, on Behalf of the U.S. Dry Bean
Council........................................................ 30
Prepared Statement of........................................ 31
Letter From.................................................. 35
Position Paper of the United States Dry Bean Council............. 36
Food Aid Program................................................. 36
Statement of Mark E. Keenum, Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture............... 41
Current Food Aid Programs........................................ 42
Food for Progress Program........................................ 42
McGovern-Dole Program............................................ 42
Public Law 480 Title I Program................................... 43
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.................................. 43
Upcoming Issues.................................................. 43
Prepared Statement of Mark E. Keenum............................. 45
Statement of James Kunder, Deputy Administrator, United States
Agency for International Development........................... 47
Prepared Statement of........................................ 49
Prepared Statement of the American Dietetic Association.......... 57
INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Durbin, Bennett, and Cochran.
statement of senator herb kohl
Senator Kohl. This hearing will come to order.
The World Health Organization reports that 25,000 people
die each and every day from hunger related causes. That's an
enormous number.
The World Health Organization further reports that of that
25,000 people who die, 18,000 are children. That means that in
less than the time that it took me to say that last sentence; a
child somewhere in the world has died of hunger. It also means
that before I finish this sentence another will have died.
According to the World Food Programme, 850 million people
are hungry or malnourished around the world on any given day.
This is one in six of the world's population, which is more
than the combined populations of the United States, Russia,
Japan, Germany, Britain and France.
The subcommittee has many important responsibilities but of
all the programs we fund there are none that literally mean the
difference between life and death on a daily basis as much as
the programs related to humanitarian food assistance.
Of the three major U.S. programs for international food
assistance, Food for Progress Program, McGovern-Dole Program
and the flagship Food for Peace Program, the last two are
directly supported by discretionary spending on the Agriculture
Appropriations Bill.
At this time the Congress is considering a supplemental
request of $350 million for the Food for Peace Program. This is
important but we should not have to rely on supplemental
spending. We should fund these programs through the annual
budget process where long term planning is more effective.
Still the President's request shows the urgency that we all
share in fighting food hunger.
Last fall, Senator Bennett and I sent our staffs on a
mission to sub-Sahara Africa to investigate first hand the
situations in refugee camps in some of the most desperate slums
in the world and efforts being made to turn around the cycle of
poverty in that region.
The purpose of this hearing is to build on the information
they brought back from that investigation. We intend for our
hearing today to achieve three major objectives.
First, this hearing will help raise public awareness of the
dire hunger conditions around the world and our moral and
legitimate responsibilities to provide assistance.
Second, this hearing will provide the Congress with a
better understanding of how food aid programs work as we will
hear from actual food aid recipients, the U.S. farmers who
produce the food that make our contributions possible and the
people in between.
Finally we will learn more about the current food and
policy issues and problems so that we can work together to
improve these programs and make them more efficient and better
able to fight hunger and to save lives.
This hearing will have three panels. First we will hear
from Mr. Jim Morris, the current director of the World Food
Programme. Mr. Morris brings with him the experience of his
years of service and his deep understanding of what works and
what does not work. His advice and suggestions will be
extremely helpful.
Along with Mr. Morris we will also hear from two very
special guests. The first one is Abass Hassan Mohamed. Abass is
from Somalia. Along with his family he had lived in the Dadaab
refugee camp just across the Somalia border in Kenya since
1992. A few years ago, Abass, his scholastic skills were
recognized. He took the SAT exam and was admitted to and is now
attending school at Princeton University on a full scholarship.
His is an amazing story of survival and success.
Also with us today is Daniel Kuot. Daniel is a member of a
group of young people who have become known as the Lost Boys of
Sudan. Daniel is currently working his way through school at
Truman College in Chicago, Illinois. This is a young man of
incredible courage, talent and determination and it is an honor
to have him with us today.
Our second panel will consist of people on the front line.
Those who produce, ship and administer the food programs and
finally we will hear from the Federal agencies that carry out
these programs.
In short, people have literally traveled from the far
corners of the world to be here today for this hearing and so
we thank each and every one of them for being with us. That
fact alone tells us how vitally important this hearing is.
We have many good witnesses here this morning. We're eager
to hear from their testimony but first I would like to ask my
good friend, the ranking member, Senator Bennett, for his
opening remarks and then Senator Durbin for what he would like
to say and then we will turn to Mr. Morris.
Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
thank you for your decision to focus the subcommittee hearings
this year on particular issues rather than just the items in
the budget. I think that's a very useful thing to do and this
hearing will educate the subcommittee and I hope, through the
press, educate some other people.
The United States is the world's major provider of
international food aid. Over the last 10 years the United
States has been responsible for 60 percent of all food aid
shipments by major donors and I think this is something that
the country should be proud of. The aid goes into the most
insecure areas of the world and it helps millions of people in
drought and war stricken places.
Now a substantial portion of that aid is channeled through
the United Nations food aid agencies, the World Food Programme,
which Mr. Morris administers. Mr. Morris, we are glad to have
you here and look forward to your testimony.
The President has requested $1.2 billion in the fiscal 2008
budget for Public Law 480 title II and an additional $350
million for title II as part of the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill that we will be dealing with here in the
Senate fairly soon and that's one of the food aid programs that
this subcommittee oversees.
Now there are many issues currently impacting the United
States' role in international food aid, from increased
commodity and transportation costs to debate over cash versus
commodities. I hope we will get some of those issues discussed
here today and get further insight into them.
So again Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing
and for your leadership in setting the agenda for the schedule
of hearings this year and I look forward to hearing our
witnesses both this panel and the panels to come. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Chairman Kohl, thank you sincerely and
Senator Bennett, thank you both.
I really appreciate this. We have hearings on Capitol Hill
about a lot of issues. When we have hearings on war, we fill
rooms with Senators and others because it's a very critical
topic and America's soldiers' lives are at risk. Our national
security is an issue.
When we have hearings on international food aid, the crowds
are not as large but I think they're very sincere and committed
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman for giving us a chance to come
down today.
My special thanks to Jim Morris. Jim, you've given, I don't
know how many years, 4 years, 5 years, of your life to the
World Food Programme. Starting with Senator Lugar and then
coming to this program. Jim has been a great leader in helping
people all around the world. I understand you may be moving to
some other station in life soon, but I can just tell you that
many of us appreciate what you've done for the World Food
Programme, representing our country and helping a lot of
innocent and helpless people around the world.
In Nairobi there is a slum known as Kebara. Kebara was
featured in the movie Constant Gardener. You might have seen a
few clips from that. I visited there. They estimate there are
about a million people living in Kebara. They're not sure. For
40 years, refugees from failed rural towns have been streaming
into this slum, just setting up lean-tos and tiny rooms and
trying to survive with limited water, almost no sanitation and
few creature comforts.
When you visit Kebara, you can't get over how many children
are there. It seems that it is alive with children, crawling
and running in every direction, next to dangerous railroad
tracks and trying to fill their day with amusements and
activities.
I visited there a little over a year ago to a school right
there in the Kebara slum and they welcomed me during their
Christmas break. They had announced to the children, who were
on break, that there was a big shot coming in from America and
they asked the kids to put on their uniforms and come to
school.
I understand they didn't get a very good reception until
they promised to give them something to eat, 150 children
showed up in uniform. They sang. They danced and then they
waited patiently in line as we ladled out this porridge type of
mixture to them in plastic cups. The kids stood in line as if
they were at Baskin Robbins in Springfield, Illinois or
Chicago, waiting for this cup of porridge that probably
represented the only real meal of the day for them. That cup of
porridge was brought to them by the World Food Programme by the
inspiration of George McGovern and Bob Dole.
It was George McGovern who 7 or 8 years ago, finally said
it's time to start feeding children around the world at school
and if we offer them a meal, kids will come to school and more
importantly, young girls will come to school. Educated girls
are less likely to become mothers too soon, more likely to
become leaders in countries that desperately need their
talents.
We are now engaged in a battle around the world, as we have
been, for many years. A battle that frankly is one which we
struggle to find the right tactics to use and I guess the
legitimate question is, what is America's future in this
troubled world, a world where many are not being educated and
some are being educated in hatred, hatred for the United States
and rejection of our history and our values.
We want to win the hearts and minds of those people, but I
think first, we have to help fill their stomachs. When they
receive food from the United States it defines us. It tells who
we are and what we stand for and that we care.
I hope, I just hope, that some of those children and their
parents in Kebara, who were fed that day will come to
appreciate and understand better who we are and I thank you Mr.
Chairman for giving us a chance to address these programs
today.
STATEMENT OF JAMES T. MORRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORLD
FOOD PROGRAMME
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin. Mr.
Morris.
Mr. Morris. Thank you very much, Senator Kohl, Senator
Bennett, Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin, I promise you that the people in Kebara
will be eternally life long grateful for the support the United
States has given them through Food for Peace and the World Food
Programme in giving their children a chance and given a chance,
the children of Kebara can do all of the great things that a
child from Chicago or Milwaukee or Salt Lake City or
Indianapolis can do. They just need to be given the opportunity
at the beginning of life and if that's compromised at the
beginning of life, no matter what the remedial action is later
on, they will never catch up. Their lives will be compromised.
I believe that the life of a child wherever he or she is, is
equally precious anyplace on the globe.
This is essentially my final; I don't want to say
performance, but my final act really, publicly as the Executive
Director of the World Food Programme. I have been in this
position now 5 years and have done it because my country asked
me to do it. People thank me, in fact, like most good things;
you get so much more out of it than you put into it. It's been
the greatest blessing of my life. Every day for 5 years, I have
been so incredibly proud to be an American. What the world
expects of America, the leadership, the entire world expects
from our country is overwhelming.
Today we have a chance to think about, to acknowledge what,
in my judgment, is the most powerful, successful, valuable,
sustained piece of American overseas development assistance of
American foreign policy in the history of our country and
maybe, likely, the most important humanitarian commitment the
world has ever known.
In the early 50's, President Eisenhower said the world will
be changed with wheat, not weapons and he put in place, Food
for Peace. In the last 50 years, this program has fed more
than, almost 4 billion people in 135 countries, providing more
than 111, 115 million metric tons of food. Many of the
countries have become our very good friends or very good
trading partners. We've changed the lives, through the
sustained effort, of billions of people.
It's been supported by agricultural interests, transport
interest, people from every State in the United States. It's
had remarkable, solid, bipartisan support in the White House
and in the Congress and when you couple it with the efforts,
the success of our land grant college program, the Peace Corps,
the McGovern-Dole education efforts, USAID and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, collectively; all of this has
changed the world, all for the better.
The World Food Programme is the largest humanitarian agency
in the world, the largest program of the United Nations. In
2004, we provided food, in conjunction with about 2,300 NGO
partners for 114 million people. We are heavily involved with
natural disasters, with conflict, with health issues. The World
Bank would tell you that in the last 30 years, there has been a
four fold increase in natural disasters in the world, 400 last
year.
The World Bank would also tell you that the most powerful
investment any country in the world, be it the United States
and Canada or Bangladesh and Malawi, can make in its future is
to be sure that children are born to healthy mothers and
nourished substantially the first 24, 36 months of life. If
that happens, they have every chance in the world.
The World Health Organization would tell you that hunger
and malnutrition, the most serious health problem in the world
and the people that deal with the HIV/AIDS issue would tell you
that food and nutrition is the single most important factor in
the fight against HIV and AIDS. 854 million hungry people in
the world, the number's increasing about 5 million a year, half
of them are children.
Mr. Chairman, you correctly stated that 25,000 people die
every day of malnutrition, 18,000 of them, children. In 2007
it's just simply not acceptable for that tragedy to be
occurring.
We talk about the tsunami. The tsunami lost 250,000 people
to death. The fact of the matter is because of hunger and
malnutrition, there are three tsunamis in the world every month
of every year. The numbers are overwhelming.
Food for Peace is the bulwark, the backbone of the work of
the World Food Programme. You made it possible for us to feed
26 million people for 1\1/2\ years in Iraq. You made it
possible for us to feed 6 million people last year in the Sudan
and Darfur, the same number in Ethiopia, overwhelming numbers
of people in the Horn of Africa, in southern Africa, but not so
far from home, in Haiti, in Guatemala.
Guatemala has the highest percentage of chronically
malnourished children. Half the kids under five in Guatemala
are chronically malnourished and if you go into the indigenous
population you will approach 60, 70 percent of the children.
Their lives are at risk. That country's at risk if the kids
aren't fed and have a chance to go to school.
Hunger is at the base of making progress on education, on
health issues, on economic issues, on prosperity. It's at the
base of making progress on the millennium development goals.
It's at the base of giving people hope and opportunity for
their lives and I simply say to you that the sustained
commitment to Food for Peace, representing the best of American
agricultural prosperity and productivity and the generosity of
the American people is extraordinary.
My hope is that as you look at title II of the Ag bill that
you would consider thinking about the Administration's request
for adding $300 million in cash. We raise every penny of our $3
billion budget on a voluntary basis every year. We receive no
core funding from the United Nations January 1, we go out to
raise the money and when I came we were raising it from 50
countries and as I leave we're raising it from 100 countries.
It's been a remarkable spreading of the base but given the
fact that the price of corn has doubled in the last 6 years.
The price of wheat and rice has increased by 60 percent the
same time frame. The cost of transport and shipping has
increased dramatically primarily because of competition for
those services but also because of the price of oil.
The same dollars buy about half as much today as they did 6
years ago. So it would be my hope that you would find a way to
increase the title II allocation. My hope would be you might
even look at a $.5 billion, that you would consider part of it
in cash, that you would consider doing it up front as opposed
to supplemental appropriations.
We know that money committed in the very beginning, the
same dollars, feed 30 percent more people if the money is
available at the beginning of a crisis as opposed to the end.
The Bill Emerson Trust, remarkably important. We would
encourage you to be more flexible, have more accessibility and
make it easier to replenish the Trust.
The McGovern-Dole program, so important, we fed 22 million
children in 70 countries in school last year, 56 million
children overall. There are 400 million hungry kids in the
world; 150 million of them have no help.
My fondest hope and I believe it's an earned and deserved
opportunity is for the United States to take the lead in saying
that we are going to eliminate child hunger in the world.
Just a few weeks ago, Iceland said we are going to feed a
child in Africa for every child we feed in Iceland. Luxemburg
has made the same commitment. Canada has made an extraordinary
commitment inspired by McGovern-Dole.
My last comment in the larger context, so important,
investment in basic agricultural infrastructure, the percentage
world wide of ODA going for simple, basic, agricultural
infrastructure has gone from 11 percent to 3 percent and the
fact of the matter investment in roads to get goods to market
and investment in irrigation and investment in implements in
seeds and fertilizer, really important. And the leverage of
these small investments is enormous.
So, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going beyond my 5
minutes. I can hardly say good morning in 5 minutes.
Mr. Morris. The record of our country, the generosity, the
sustained commitment, I believe there is no country in the
history of the world that has ever cared more deeply about
doing the right thing and making life better for every person
who is at risk.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The most powerful investment we can make is in eliminating
hunger among children, seeing they have a chance to go to
school, that they're nursed by a healthy mom, and everything
about their life changes for the better and our country's
record is extraordinary but the fact of the matter is we all
have to do more and it's just unacceptable in 2007 for 18,000
kids to die every day when we can solve that problem. We have
the food. We have the know-how. We have the good will and it's
not complicated to do. Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James T. Morris
Thank you for this opportunity to address you on an issue that is
critical to our future peace and prosperity: conquering hunger and
malnutrition among the world's poor.
I stand before you near the close of my 5-year tenure as Executive
Director of the United Nations World Food Program, or WFP--the world's
largest humanitarian organization and provider of food aid to the
hungry poor. These five years have been ones of unprecedented challenge
to WFP and other organizations fighting world hunger. We've had to
confront a rising tide of need, especially from natural disasters and
conflict, sharp increases in commodity and fuel prices--and the cold
fact that resources are simply not keeping pace. High-profile
emergencies like Darfur and the Indian Ocean tsunami have significant
costs, while chronic hunger among the poor is growing by more than 4
million per year since the mid-1990s; it persists in places as close by
as Haiti and Guatemala. We are also seeing the toll of a lethal mix of
AIDS and malnutrition, especially in southern Africa.
I am deeply proud of what WFP has accomplished. In Iraq, we fed
each and every one of 26 million Iraqis for a year and a half--the
largest humanitarian operation in history. Even at the height of the
war in 2003, we were moving 1000 tons of food an hour, 24 hours a day,
7 days a week. The devastating 2004 tsunami was also without parallel--
as was the tremendous logistical operation that followed; WFP was
distributing food in Sri Lanka within 48 hours, one of the first to
deliver to those whose lives had been ripped apart.
Africa, where one person in three is malnourished, continues to be
a major challenge. Africa has faced ever-greater waves of drought,
conflict and displacement--pushing millions of people into crisis in
Sudan, the Horn of Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger and
other countries. Worse yet, climate change now threatens to make
drought and desertification semi-permanent in many parts of Africa.
Meanwhile, the hard-won economic gains of southern Africa--once
breadbasket for the continent--are under extreme pressure from the
``triple-threat'' onslaught of HIV/AIDS, worsening drought and
declining government and civil capacity. The disease has decimated the
ranks of farmers and other productive sectors of society in that
region: some 8 million farmers have died of AIDS in the past two
decades. And while 2006 was comparatively calm--without a sudden,
headline-grabbing natural catastrophe--the number of the hungry just
keeps going up. We are also worried about prospects for the coming
cereals crop: prices are spiking as South Africa, the major regional
supplier, is expected to have a poor harvest this year.
WFP is feeding close to 100 million people a year and our NGO and
other international partners feed another 100 million. While the world
has seen significant progress made in fighting poverty, especially in
China and India, we are actually losing ground in the battle against
hunger. Foreign assistance budgets in the developed world are at
historic levels, but decreasing proportions are devoted to dealing with
chronic hunger or long-term agricultural development. This is an
untenable situation we ignore at our own shame--and risk. Especially at
a time when food and wealth are more abundant--and technology
unsurpassed--than at any point in human history.
Let me lay out a few sobering facts.
There are more than 852 million people today who go to bed unsure
of their next meal--half of them children. The World Health
Organization (WHO) describes hunger as the world's No. 1 public health
threat--killing more people than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis
combined. Few people know that 25,000 people--18,000 of them children--
die each day of hunger and related ailments. That's one person dead,
because of hunger and malnutrition, every 4 seconds--365 days a year.
At that rate, the entire population of Wyoming would be wiped out in
just 3 weeks.
Even when hunger and malnutrition don't kill, they sap the vitality
and productivity of individuals--especially children--with lasting
negative impact on their countries as a whole. Good food and nutrition
are essential for pregnant mothers, newborns and children in the first
2 years of life. Under-nutrition in those first years can permanently
stunt mental and physical growth--dropping IQ levels by as much as 15
points. A new study by WFP and the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean spotlights the economic costs of child under-
nutrition in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Panama and the Dominican Republic: it estimates combined economic
losses due to under-nutrition among children at a staggering $6.6
billion for the region in a single year (2004)--or about 6 percent of
GDP for those seven countries.
Imagine the implications for economic development in even poorer
countries like Ethiopia--where stunting rates among children exceed 60
percent--or North Korea, where the average 7 year-old is 20 pounds
lighter and 8 inches shorter than his 7-year-old peer across the border
in South Korea. Tragically, these children will never ``catch up'' with
those more fortunate. Neither will their countries, so long as we allow
this terrible misfortune to persist.
Fact is, resolving the problem of chronic hunger is fundamental to
tackling all the major challenges of the poor world--in education,
health, the socio-economic and agricultural spheres. It's self-evident
that development is simply not possible on an empty stomach. If you
look at America's own experience, the incredible post World War II boom
was accompanied by a vigorous bipartisan effort to combat malnutrition,
spearheaded by dedicated leaders like Senators George McGovern and Bob
Dole. The World Bank believes that investing in the proper nutrition
and health of a young child is the single most powerful investment one
can make in a better future for the poorest nations. Here in the United
States, we need look no further than the amply documented successes of
the Federally funded WIC program to know that this assessment is
correct.
At the turn of this century, the world's leaders sat down together
to establish the Millennium Development Goals they felt were vital to
our collective well-being and security in the future. The head of every
country voted ``yes'' to make eliminating poverty and hunger the No. 1
target--and they set 2015 as the deadline for slashing the proportion
of hungry people in the world by half. Unfortunately, that goal is
slipping rapidly from our grasp.
President Eisenhower once said you can change the world with
wheat--and not weapons. Eisenhower launched Food For Peace--which has
grown into the greatest humanitarian instrument the world has ever
known.
Initially created in 1954 to share America's rich harvests with
those in need in postwar Europe and other countries, Food For Peace has
helped more than 3 billion people in 135 countries--saving millions of
lives and transforming those of millions more. During its first half-
century, Food for Peace shipped more than 110 million tons of
commodities. Put into trucks, that amount of food would encircle the
globe, bumper to bumper, right around the equator.
Commodities that Food for Peace sends around the world come from
virtually every state of the union--engaging thousands of American
workers en route. These American working men and women range from
farmers and millers, to stevedores and freight forwarders, all guiding
an unbroken chain of production and distribution to feed the world's
hungry. The United States government--and by extension, the American
people--is WFP's most generous donor, funding more than 40 percent, or
around $1.2 billion, of our operating budget. Food for Peace provides
the lion's share of these contributions--enabling us to reach out to
countless millions of people every year. We are so grateful for your
help.
Food for Peace is a powerful expression of American generosity and
goodwill around the world. It not only saves lives in big emergencies
like Afghanistan or last year's Pakistani earthquake, but gives hope to
the millions of families living lives of quiet desperation in refugee
camps around the world. You will hear today from two extraordinary
former refugees--Abass Mohamed of Somalia and Daniel Kuot of Sudan--
eloquent testimony to the fact that a well-timed intervention of food
aid can not only rescue a life, but propel it in a positive new
direction.
Food for Peace's support for WFP programs in Sudan has done both--
providing a record $1.51 billion to Sudan emergency food operations
over the past five years. The U.S. government also has funded crucial
support operations to ensure effective delivery of food: over the past
five years, USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, for example,
has provided $41 million for air operations, surface transport fleets,
food warehousing and telecommunications facilities. Further, the U.S.
government has been the largest supporter of a unique and vital WFP
operation to de-mine and rehabilitate nearly 1,300 miles of roads in
southern Sudan--not only opening up the South to better food delivery
and commercial trade, but providing one of the first tangible ``peace
dividends'' in southern Sudan.
The United States has not only supported our humanitarian work in
Sudan with money, but has gone the extra mile to divert vessels,
expedite food procurement, accelerate apportionments and exercise
diplomatic influence around the world to ensure the food ``pipeline''
remains strong and reliable. The bottom line is: without U.S. support,
it is impossible to imagine how we would have continued to feed the
desperately hungry in one of the toughest operating environments in the
whole world.
Sudan is only one of a long list of countries where WFP operates
that would have been in deep trouble without American assistance. In
Ethiopia, home to one of our consistently largest operations, the U.S.
government has supplied nearly 80 percent of current funding. In Chad,
hard-hit by escalating conflict and displacement, the United States is
our most generous donor--supplying three-quarters of the emergency food
aid received so far. In Afghanistan--still beset by turmoil and huge
needs--the U.S. government has provided roughly half of resources
received over the past year.
Over the years, American food aid has also helped change the
outcomes for many countries. South Korea--once heavily dependent on
Food for Peace--is now a reliable, multi-billion dollar importer of
U.S. food. In the 1960s, Food for Peace dispatched millions of tons of
cereal grains to India. Today, India feeds itself and is a net exporter
of food--and a donor to WFP. This is in large measure due to food and
agricultural development assistance from the United States and the
United Nations--notably including the Green Revolution led by our own
Nobel Laureate, Norman Borlaug. Sometimes people worry about food aid
fostering dependence, but our experience is proof to the contrary. More
than 20 countries receiving food aid in the last 15 years no longer do
so.
Our Land-Grant College system is yet another wonderful example of
how Americans have worked to make a difference for those less fortunate
in the world--spreading not only knowledge, but goodwill. For decades,
Land Grant Colleges have brought in foreign students for agricultural
training; those students then returned home to implement the theories
and practices they absorbed there. For example, Iowa State granted
Masters in agricultural economics to former Sudanese Vice President
John Garang as well as former Taiwan President Lee Teng-Hui. The U.S.
Peace Corps has also deployed American skills and know-how in the field
in the developing world to great effect.
The United States has helped the hungry in other significant ways--
notably via the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program. School feeding is a simple yet incredibly
effective instrument in breaking the cycle of poverty--perhaps as close
to a ``magic bullet'' as I know. Providing a meal in school not only
attracts hungry children to school, but keeps them there: research
consistently shows how the introduction of school feeding boosts
enrollment, attendance and academic performance. For girls, often left
out of education in the developing world, school feeding offers
potentially dramatic life change: even 5 years in school means that
girl will marry later, have fewer children, while those children will
be healthier and better-educated. She will also be less likely to
contract HIV/AIDS, since education is the only vaccine we have against
that deadly epidemic.
Beyond the positive outcomes, school feeding is a bargain: just 19
cents a day, or $34 a year, provides a meal at school for a hungry
child.
School feeding is a ``win-win'' for everyone--as we have seen
through America's own experience. Senator George McGovern likes to
recount how a University of Georgia dean credited the American school
lunch program as doing more for the economic development of the
Southern States than any other Federal program. McGovern applied that
logic when, along with Senator Bob Dole, they rallied bipartisan
support for U.S.-supported school feeding abroad--winning an initial
investment of $300 million. Funding for this year's McGovern-Dole
program currently stands at $100 million.
Today, the United States has a wonderful opportunity to capitalize
on its investment in school feeding through bipartisan initiatives now
under way to significantly expand and regularize funding for McGovern-
Dole. If realized, these initiatives would ensure the continuity of
these absolutely vital school programs, so that we keep our promise to
the schoolchildren of the world. This relatively modest investment
would reap enormous benefits not only for the recipient countries--
which get a solid foundation for fighting poverty and instability--but
for all of us in the long run.
These five years have been the most meaningful, educational and,
frequently, the most heart-rending time of my life. Although foreign
assistance budgets including that of the United States have continued
to rise, there is so much more to be done. The challenges are ever more
daunting.
War and political instability continue to rage, from Darfur to
Afghanistan--while Iraq's neighbors are now coping with a rising influx
of refugees from that conflict. The latest ``Global Hunger Index'' from
the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) says the five countries with the worst rate of hunger are all
either caught up in war, or emerging from long years of conflict
(Burundi, Eritrea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Sierra
Leone). The World Bank, meanwhile, estimates that natural disasters
have risen an astronomical 400 percent over the past 30 years, while
U.N. scientists predict that climate change will cause alarming
increases in food insecurity across Africa in the next 50 years.
HIV/AIDS has taken a devastating toll on food security in places
like southern Africa, and again, resources are not meeting the needs.
In particular, we must recognize that adequate food and nutrition are
vital to tackling this epidemic. Experts predict there will be 25
million AIDS orphans by 2010 and child-headed households are growing
astronomically. These young people need food support to survive, but so
do the poor people who receive AIDS medication--but take it on empty
stomachs. This is especially true in Africa, where one in three people
are malnourished. Good food and nutrition means HIV-positive people can
continue productive and active lives, because they're able to stick to
their drug regimens, and those regimens can be successful. Drug therapy
without adequate food and nutrition simply does not make sense--but the
world has yet to grasp that reality.
On the response side, we are also facing tremendous challenges.
Fuel and commodity costs have shot up alarmingly over the past 5 years,
which means that every food aid dollar buys less. Last month, maize
cost almost double what it did in 2001. The export price of both rice
and wheat rose some 60 percent over the same period. Higher transport
costs, due to the price of oil, also mean we buy still less food with
the same amount of cash. These trends pose a great risk to our work and
to the poorest people around the world whom we serve.
As noted, foreign assistance from the developed world is at an
historic high: Bread for the World says poverty-focused development
assistance has grown from $4 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $10.6
billion in fiscal year 2006. WFP itself received record contributions
in 2006 of $2.8 billion. Yet these impressive numbers mask the rising
supply-side costs as well as the hidden costs of the significant lag
time between a pledge of food aid--and its actual materialization on
the ground. This not only means higher operational costs for WFP--since
crises often expand in the interim--but for the hungry poor at the
receiving end, these delays can mean loss of livelihoods, precious
household assets as they sell them off to survive, and in the very
worst scenarios, loss of life.
Record contributions also mask the fact that many of our programs
remain woefully under-resourced, from Guatemala--with the Western
Hemisphere's highest rate of child malnutrition--to North Korea where
mothers scour the hills for acorns and bark to feed their families, to
areas of the Philippines where conflict has pushed high numbers of
people into displacement and serious hunger. And any budget deficit for
the World Food Program is more than just an accounting conundrum.
Insufficient funds mean we face two choices: either we take some people
off our ration lists, or we give everyone less food. This is a horrific
choice at least one WFP country director faces every month. Even in a
year of record contributions, we have had to cut rations in Darfur and
halt nutritional support to some 90,000 HIV/AIDS and TB patients in
Cambodia.
The good news is that the solutions are within our reach: we have
not only the food, but the know-how to conquer the scourge of hunger
that has bedeviled us since the dawn of human history. It is also
affordable. Targeting the roughly 150 million underweight children in
the world with an ``essential package'' that would enable proper
nutrition and health practices would cost some $8 billion a year--more
or less what the American school lunch program costs per annum. That's
a cost that would undoubtedly be graciously shared, were America to
lead the way. Further, these children are not only identifiable, but
relatively contained in geographic terms: three-quarters of them live
in just 10 countries, while more than half of underweight prevalence in
Africa is in just 10 percent of administrative districts. Like school
feeding, this is not a ``pie in the sky'' concept. It is doable--
doable, that is, if we summon the political will to make it happen.
How can America demonstrate its humanitarian leadership in the near
term?
--Increase allocation for Title II by $500 million above the
administration's 2008 request for $1.2 billion, to cope with
not only the rising tide of human need--but with significantly
higher commodity and transport costs. Funding at the ``front
end'' as opposed to the supplemental process will enable these
much-needed funds to be planned and programmed--a far more
efficient and effective use of U.S. food assistance;
--Urgent review of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, to make it
more flexible and accessible, and more easily replenished. The
Emerson Trust is a wonderful, life-saving mechanism, but it may
be used in an even more effective way;
--The language of McGovern-Dole--which as I've noted should be
expanded itself--should become the template for American food
assistance across the board. McGovern-Dole provides
commodities, transport and cash where needed--underwriting
remarkable programs that can achieve lasting results--the best
use of U.S. taxpayer money;
--All donors must find a way to restore meaningful levels of longer-
term agricultural development assistance in the rural areas
that are home to 75 percent of the world's poorest and
hungriest citizens--the ones who live on less than a dollar a
day. Agricultural development aid plummeted from 11 percent of
global foreign aid 20 years ago to just 3 percent at present--a
trend that can--and must--be reversed. The World Bank estimates
that a mere 10 percent increase in crop yields would reduce the
proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day by up
to 12 percent. This is an excellent investment sure to bring an
excellent return. The United States, with its successful
history of domestic agricultural investment and education, is
uniquely equipped to lead the way on this front;
--I would like to add here that WFP supports President Bush's budget
plan that would allocate up to 25 percent of Title II funds for
cash in humanitarian emergencies. While we cannot do our work
without U.S. commodities, cash is a wonderfully flexible
instrument in crises where we can't afford to wait for pledges
to materialize on the ground. However, we and our partners
would like to see this money as additional to current Title II
levels.
--Such cash donations could, of course, be targeted to purchases only
from least developed countries so as not to influence normal
patterns of commercial trade, and we would also urge that WFP
be allowed to use U.S. cash for twinning operations. Just
recently, we were able to restart feeding programs for 90,000
people affected by AIDS and TB in Cambodia--precisely by
combining a commodity donation of rice from the Government of
Cambodia with a cash donation from the Government of Dubai.
Twinning is an incredibly efficient mechanism and encourages a
spirit of ``self-help'' in those countries receiving aid. This
is something that all Americans can value and appreciate.
Finally, thank you, Senator Kohl, for your outstanding leadership
and the dedication of you and your staff. U.S. food assistance saves
lives, builds hope and goodwill, and lays the foundation for
sustainable development around the globe. We at WFP--and the millions
of people who are reached by this assistance--are forever grateful.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Morris for that moving
testimony and for your service to our country.
Mr. Morris, food aid has been criticized for creating
dependence in certain parts of the world and not allowing
people to become food secure. A lot of food aid goes towards
emergencies and that takes away from problems of chronic hunger
and developing the local markets. What approaches are there to
deal with chronic hunger as opposed to emergency operations and
does food aid lead to food aid dependency?
Mr. Morris. Sir, I do not believe that food aid, properly
administered leads to dependency. Most people don't want to
have a dependency on anyone. They want to have the capacity to
take care of their families and be economically on their own.
Our food, in the first place, 80 percent of it, and 80
percent of the Food for Peace, responds to emergencies. Six,
eight years ago, it used to be 50-50. Given the growing number
of emergencies in the world, the world has made a decision that
it has to save the life that's at risk today.
We know that an investment in development, in mediating a
problem, preventing a problem, the leverage is 5 or 6 times. If
we spend that money to help that little town in Ethiopia get
prepared for the next drought. A very small investment can save
that community.
The impact on lives is enormous, but we work very hard.
About half of what we have to work with, we buy locally. We
work very hard at not effecting markets. We don't want to move
the price up or down. Our job, through our food for work, is to
give people the capacity to be on their own, to manage their
own productivity, but the people we worked with, they are so
completely at risk of tough health issues, of no education, of
no productivity. You invest a little bit of money in providing
a meal for a child to be drawn to school, to stay into school
and to learn. Suddenly everything about that child's life
changes and he or she is able to take care of themselves.
We have closed our office, by the way, in 25 countries that
no longer need us. We want to get out of business. We are not
trying to sustain this effort but the fact of the matter is the
numbers of hungry people so overwhelming and the lives lost and
the lives that are compromised. We know if we feed that family,
that HIV positive person, and they have the anti-retroviral
treatment, in a matter of months, their life can be almost back
to normal. That's not building a dependency relationship,
that's giving a person the opportunity to be on their own.
And you address this issue with children. You change their
lives early in life. Investment in someone my age is marginal
and the investment in a child 5 to 15 has a lifetime to pay
off.
Senator Kohl. But.
Mr. Morris. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Before we go any further I'd like to hear if
you wish, Mr. Mohamed, Mr. Kuot, any remarks you would like to
make. Mr. Mohamed.
You want to turn your mike on. Press that button.
STATEMENT OF ABASS MOHAMED, FORMER FOOD AID RECIPIENT
FROM SOMALIA
Mr. Mohamed. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name's
Abass Mohamed. I'm originally from Somalia. I currently live in
Kenya. I was born in town called Abu Aline in southern Somalia.
I'm 25 years old.
I remember being in Somalia enjoying my childhood and at
the age of 10 everything was disrupted by the toppling of the
then government of Somalia and plunging the country into chaos.
In the months that followed we had to move from town to town
looking for a place to seek refuge, a place where we can get
protection. We went to a small town called Harun Tasheirka,
which is a town regarded as holy and therefore we thought we
could be safe in that town.
When things got tougher and we couldn't even be safe in
that holy town and my fathers safety, especially, was in
danger. We decided it was time to go to Kenya where we had, the
United Nations was accepting refugees. We had to walk on foot
from that town in central Somalia for like 2 days, without food
and water. We didn't have any money. We were lucky to find some
water and food left behind by other fleeing people. We used
that to reach our next destination which was a small town in
Somalia which is closer to the Kenyan border.
In that town, my father sought monetary aid from family and
friends to use of the transport, of the fare, to get to the
Kenyan border. When we came to the Kenyan border, weak, hungry,
thirsty, we were met by staff from the United Nations Refugee
Agency and we went through vetting and registration and we were
moved to a camp in Northeastern Kenya called Ifo.
Ifo is one of three camps that are commonly known as the
Dadaab. I remember coming to the Dadaab and one of the first
things I remember was people building makeshift houses using
plastic sheets provided by UNHCR and the place was dusty. There
were storms of dust. It was very, very hot. There were barely
any trees. Also, people were trying to establish themselves, to
get food, to get water, the United Nations, with other
agencies, of providing those basic necessities.
There were no honor schools at the moment, at that time and
therefore I couldn't enroll in school at that time. I went to
school a year later when the foster school was established. I
went to school and I was the first to be enrolled and I
remember there was no blackboard, there was no chalk, there was
no classroom. We had to remember that tree, using the sun,
using the sun as the blackboard and chalk.
Interest developed and very many refugee students came and
it was overwhelming for the teacher. Then the NGOs intervened
and classrooms were built, more teachers were employed. I went
through that system and in 1997 the system of education was
changed to a Kenyan system and I had to repeat a year to
accommodate the changes.
In 1999, I sat for a national exam, which is taken after 8
years of school in Kenya, called Kenyan certificate of primary
education. I did well, so was my brother, so were other kids.
The United Nations, together with other NGOs build a secondary
school in each of the three camps and I was one of the first to
be enrolled in that secondary school in February 2000.
Those of us who graduated from primary school were 70 in
number and those who were eligible to be admitted to secondary
school were 44. The rest could not make secondary.
The school was relatively young and it was seriously under
resourced. Teachers were very, very few and they just had to
teach more than one subject because there was no one to teach.
All those subjects would go untaught. There was no lab to talk
of at the moment. At that time it was just a building with no
chemicals or with nothing inside but with time, NGOs good funds
and they started putting in stuff bit by bit, but we couldn't
do experiments because always one thing or another was missing
which was important for the experiment.
Going through that I did my national exam for secondary
school in 2003, October/November 2003 and I was lucky to have
performed well. Within that same year came a professor from
Canada, a Howard Adelman, who was also teaching in Princeton
for a year and he met the NGO heads and they discussed the
possibility of some of us who graduated from high school to get
a higher education and when Professor Howard Adelman came back
to the United States, to Princeton, in particular, I think he
just cast the possibility of some of us joining Princeton and
when the results came out, two of us were asked to apply to
Princeton.
We went through the normal admission process. In 2004, I
was interviewed by a Princeton professor in Nairobi, Kenya. In
January 2005, I did my SAT's and some time in April/May I got
my admission with full financial aid. My other friend was not
admitted. He's actually now, he got admitted to Toronto
University. He's to move to Canada to join Toronto University,
a university in Canada this fall.
I remember when we came as refugees we believe that
education is very important because when we have to go back 1
day, back to our countries for example, I being from Somalia.
We would leave all these structures behind, but what would go
back home with is education. We can't go to school without
eating food.
I remember when I was finished high school; I was a teacher
for 2 years. You would know what it means to teach hungry
students. They won't be able to pay attention. They sometimes,
some tension and it is very difficult to keep discipline in the
school when you have to deal with the students that are hungry.
Because we believe that education is important, parents,
refugee parents stress on the importance of their children
going to school. So whenever the opportunities are available,
the refugee kids go to school.
The school feeding program which was started in the primary
schools in the camps was especially very successful. My sister
who is in the standard age this year is a beneficiary of that
program and it has been very successful, but the secondary
schools are not covered by the school feeding program. I would
hope that funds could be found that the school feeding program
be extended to the secondary schools.
The kids in Somalia, at least in southern Somalia, they
don't have any education system to speak of at the moment and
therefore the Somalis and the Diaspora, especially the ones in
the camps, the sorts of hope for Somalia. I believe education
is the solution to the problem in Somalia. Therefore the
international Committee needs to prepare these young people so
that they can face the challenge of rebuilding their home
countries when they go back.
So, that's an onerous task that's facing them. What we also
need is an alternative form of leadership which can be provided
by these people. They are the only source of hope.
Senator Kohl. Your time is up.
Mr. Mohamed. Therefore I would like for example, I wouldn't
be here speaking to you today if that day when I was at the
Kenya-Somalia border trying to get into Kenya, if food aid or
if aid was not delivered to me, I wouldn't be here today
speaking to you. I wouldn't be in Princeton today seeking
knowledge and empowering myself.
There's so much that can be done to help and empower the
young people, especially in the camps. They have so much
talent, that talent is getting wasted. If someone can help them
then they will be able to help themselves and their families
and their communities and their countries.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I would especially send a personal appeal to the honorable
U.S. Senate to continue supporting, to stand by the people in
the Dadaab. They need your help. They need your help so that
they can make a better future for their children and so they
can make a better tomorrow for their countries back home.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abass Mohamed
Dadaab Refugee Camp
My name is Abass Mohamed. I was born in Bu'alle, southern Somalia
in 1982. My father worked for the government as a typist and my mother
was a self-employed shopkeeper. My family is comprised of nine members:
My paternal grandmother, my parents and 5 of my siblings and I. I
enjoyed happy childhood and was standard two when everything was
disrupted by the toppling of the then government and thus plunging the
country into civil war. My family was displaced within Somalia from Jan
1991 to Feb 1992. We were held up in a small town in southern Somalia
called Harunta-sheikha where we sought refuge for 4 months. During this
time, we were all the time on the look out for possible escape out of
the town since we were under constant fear for our safety especially of
my father. There was daily killing, looting and raping. Militias of
warring clans would from time to time force into people's homes and
interrogate them on their clan affiliation and killing anyone who
claimed to belong to enemy clan. One day, we were able to escape on
foot carrying whatever of our meager belongings we could on our backs.
We did not have food or water. We also did not have money to buy food.
Luckily on the way we found food and water left behind by other fleeing
people. Fortunately too, along the way we found a truck ferrying
fleeing people especially women and children. The truck driver agreed
to give a lift to my grandmother, my mother, my siblings and I. My
father was very thankful for this humanitarian gesture. We arrived at
the town of Afmadow where my father joined us a day or 2 later. We
stayed in Afmadow for a couple of weeks as my father looked for
monetary help from friends and relatives which we could use to reach
the Kenya-Somali border where word reached us that UNHCR was accepting
refugees. We traveled to the Kenya-Somalia border by public transport
and we passed through Dhobley, a town on the Somali side of the Kenya-
Somali border. After going through vetting and registration, HCR
transported us to the newly set up Ifo camp. I remember, Ifo, as a dry,
dusty place with people building make-shift houses for themselves using
plastic sheets provided by UNHCR. My father started to work using a
wheelbarrow he has made himself to transport people's luggage for
payment. Most of what was transported by my father was the fortnightly
food ration distributed for the refugees by WFP. After like 6 months of
work, my father used his savings to start a small business which he
used to provide for our most basic needs. I did not go to school until
a year after our arrival because there were no schools established at
the time. I was one of the first to be enrolled when the first school
was opened. With no classroom, blackboard or chalk, the teacher would
use the sand to write on. I went through the education system in the
camps and finished primary school in 1999 and then was lucky to be
admitted to Ifo secondary in Feb 2000. I graduated from Ifo secondary
school in 2003 and performed extremely well in the national exam being
the best in the Northeastern Province of Kenya and 8 in Kenya.
As refugees we believe that life in the camps is temporary and that
we will have to go back home some day. Because of this refugee parents
emphasize on their kids the importance of making maximum use of the
education and other opportunities in the camps. I believe education is
the solution to the Somali problem. There is no education system to
speak of in Somalia (at least in southern Somalia) at the moment. The
Somalis in the diaspora such as the ones in the camps are one of the
few hopes for Somalia. I believe the kids in the camps will form an
important component of the next generation of Somali leaders. The
international community needs to prepare these young people for the
onerous task of helping rebuild Somalia. The refugee kids at least go
to school even if schools that are seriously under resourced. But they
cannot go to school if they can't find food to eat. They also cannot
concentrate well in class if they are hungry or haven't eaten enough
(this was a particular problem in the schools in the camps before the
introduction of the school feeding program in the primary schools). The
food basket in the camps has been shrinking and shrinking over the past
few years. There is concern of the rise of malnutrition especially
among children under the age of 5. The school feeding program has been
a success by increasing enrollment especially of girls, providing
nutritional meals and snacks and helping children concentrate on their
studies. This has in turn led to the remarkable performance of refugee
kids in national exams in Kenya. Thankfully, one of the beneficiaries
of the school feeding program is my younger sister in standard 8 in
Midnimo primary school in Ifo camp. She will sitting for her national
exam later this year.
We as refugees have to entirely depend on external assistance. The
camps are located in an area that is a semidesert characterized by
scrubland, intense heat and very low and unreliable rainfall. These
conditions make farming almost impossible. The inability to grow our
own food is compounded by rampant insecurity. Insecurity is evidenced
by UN and other NGO staff traveling within the camps under heavy
escort. Cases of refugee women being raped and families robbed are
common with murders occurring sometimes. For example my house was
raided by bandits or ``shiftas'' as they are known in a fateful night
in 1997. They terrorized my family, pointing a gun at my father several
times and placing a sharp knife on my kneck. Thankfully, no one was
killed except that they took away clothes and some money which was my
father's modest savings.
Therefore given this unusual condition of ours as people who have
left their homes of origin and who cannot grow their own food or find
employment in their country of asylum (except for a few of the refugees
who are employed by the NGOs) it is critical that funding continues for
the food aid to the camps and the school feeding program in particular.
It would be a huge boost for the education in the camps if the school
feeding program can be extended to cover the secondary schools in the
camps as well.
I would conclude by urging the Honorable Senate of the United
States to stand by the people living in Dadaab camps and the young
people in particular so that they can realize their dreams of becoming
the source of hope and alternative leadership for their countries of
origin.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much. That was a beautiful
statement. Mr. Kuot.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL KUOT, FORMER FOOD AID RECIPIENT
FROM SUDAN
Mr. Kuot. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. My name is Daniel
Kuot. I'm a Sudanese Lost Boy. I'm one of the Sudanese who has
been fully away from Sudan since 1987. We had to way up all to
Ethiopia and we had to walk like a thousand miles all the way
to Ethiopia and at that time we were at like the age of 10 to
15 years old but there a few who were like 6 to 10. I was one
of those from 6 years old to 10 on to 15 also.
We made it like a long journey all the way to Ethiopia. We
had a tough life in Ethiopia. Incidentally at that time we went
to Ethiopia there was no NGOs at that very moment but we were
there for some months, the United Nations knew there was
refugees in Ethiopia, so most of the UNACRs, like NGOs, they
came over there and they interviewed the lead over there at
that time. They started the feedings over there that Ethiopia
like a little like 1991 and from there we went from Ethiopia
back to Sudan where Ethiopians started their revolutions
against each other.
So we came back to Sudan and in Fruscella and for that the
war was still pretty tough in Sudan. We went again on a long
journey about 400 to 600 miles. We walked by foot all the way
to Noruz which is a Sudan border. That's the location of
Sudan's border to Kenya. We tried to settle down a little bit
there but we couldn't make it. The war was still intensive so
we run all the way to Kenya.
We made it to Kaukoma and that was 1992, I mean end of
1991, so our life in Kaukoma for almost 3 years until 1993. The
United Nation's situation was very critical over there. In
Kenya and Kaukoma the life was very hard. It was a dry location
where we were. It was very dry, no water. You can't cultivate.
You can't grow anything.
There was like about 87,000 people in refugee camp in
Kaukoma. Life was so tough. You can't do anything. There was a
lot of deaths. It was same as desert exactly. Life was critical
so the United Nations came over there and there was a lot of
different organizations who showed up over there.
UNACR was one of the first people who came over there and
they tried to help a little bit but there was a lot of people
from Sudan, especially large population from Sudan and some
Burundis and Rwandans and Somalis and Ethiopians. By this time
a lot of refugees come to Kaukoma, so their lives become more
critical.
The UNACR said it can't take the situation so the World
Food Programme is able to show up over there and the NGOs and
they show up over there to assist our UNACR for the back up.
The situation was getting worse and until World Vision show up
and also at the end it was still tough. There was like 16,000
boys from Sudan who can't do anything for themselves at all,
they have to have some teachers or some elder people to be
around them so they can show them what to do for their living,
especially I was one of them.
So we had 24 zones at schools exactly for the minor groups
at the age of 16 to 17 so we tend to that age at that time and
their lives were so critical but more so hard to focus about
education exactly. Even though with the loss of our families,
where we belong, our country, exactly, more of us were thinking
that education was a basic. That was a way that we could make
it, our future lives and we were having a hope to go back to
Sudan. We didn't even know that get enough to come over here or
the rest of the people.
So the World Food Programme show up like 1994, exactly
because the situation was worse and it was really tired and
most of the time they were thinking about going back to school
and try to do better so the World Food Programme exactly, they
did a lot of, they opened the feeding centers. There was no
schools and there was no rest of the everything, no hospitals.
So the World Food Programme they showed up and build some
clinics, hospitals and then they opened some schools. They
changed the schools from the mud schools that we tried to go
to. They changed them to concrete and with the iron sheets.
They tried to keep the plastic sheets so we can build our own
houses where we can live in a minor group.
So the life was tried to change better a little bit. The
problem was still on the side of the food exactly. So the World
Food Programme exactly still working hard. They do a great job
on the side of the food. They open feeding centers and also
distribution centers in each area zone. They have a
distribution center and also a feeding center in every school,
in each zone.
So most of us, we thinking about going back to school
because there was no-where to go so the feeding centers,
exactly bring us back to school or like a bowls of whatever you
get from the schools. It can keep you doing whatever you're
doing in school so the life gets better until we went to school
in 1996 in Kenya primary schools. That was called KCP, exactly.
We tried to get acquainted with the area but the area was
so hostile. There was a lot of winds and a lot of hangers all
over especially we minors, we didn't give up like a lot of
people were really suffering a lot. They been bolstered by the
community, they took them to the community, especially the
younger. Some teachers took care of them in the community. UNCR
tried to give them, do some feeding to them and also the World
Food Programme.
The situation seemed to be getting better a little bit and
after that we made it up all the way with most of us through
primary school was like one to eight. The situation was getting
better for the foods. The World Food Programme decides to build
some more secondary school, like three. They opened three
secondary schools so we can go to finish high school, exactly,
which is for four, so most of us went to high school that was
from 1996 to 1997. Most of us that did very well and some of
them they being sponsored went to London and some they went to
Canada. The population did increase and increased all the time.
The situation of the minors group was getting worse. They
tired to lose some hope especially when you finish from form
four which is secondary schools. You've got nowhere to go and
you can't do anything at all. So they give us a scholarship to
come over here and the United Nations they read about it and
the World Food Programme, they these kids that they seem to be
thinking about their future to make their way up.
So we had an interview with the UNCRs and some of the
American Congress, they come over there. They say that we have
to take care of these kids to America. At that time, I think
Bill Clinton was the one at that time so he approved everything
and most of the minor groups; they came over here to America,
about 3,000 kids. Most of them were in foster care and that was
during 1999 to 2001, most of them in groups and then they bring
them over here to the United States and after that the rest of
the minor group that comes over one by one.
We made it all over and we've been traumatized by all the
situations and the happenings exactly in Sudan. We tried to go
where the safety and hope to be comfortable and most of the
time we were thinking about having a hope to go back to Sudan.
That's all what most of us were thinking. The majority of us
didn't have a family at all. Most of us were orphans.
That's why a majority of us came over here to the United
States of America. I'm glad to be here in America and to myself
sometime I can say I'm really glad but also I feel sorry about
the rest of my fellow school kids back in the refugee camp in
Kaukoma but I hope they will do better and through the help of
the World Food Programme and the same time I hope there will be
a real help and do better and I can do my part like Mr. Morris.
I didn't even know he's the one in charge of the World Food
Programme at that time.
I'm real thankful for the World Food Programme and for the
Americans for the situation I've been through and they helped
most of the Lost Boys of Southern Sudan.
Thanks to all, everyone.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Daniel. That was a very fine
statement. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morris, I'm concerned about distribution. We provide
food. We can provide food. Do we make sure the water gets to
the end of the ditch, to use a phrase that comes out of Utah's
irrigation background? Particularly governments where there is
a history of corruption.
I remember when Yasser Arafat died and he presided over one
of the poorest organizations or countries, call it what you
will, the Palestinians. The press reports were that he had made
off with a billion dollars and I asked the Palestinian Finance
Minister if that could possibly be true and he said well, we've
recovered $600 million so far and we're still digging.
Now you deal with some cash as well as commodities, give us
an understanding of how. And you deal in parts of the world
where quite frankly, the level of corruption in government is
very, very high. Just give us a view into that world and what
you do to try to deal with corruption to go around it, to
prevent it from drying up food or siphoning off any of the
cash. Help me understand that whole challenge.
Mr. Morris. Thank you, Senator. I could look you straight
in the eye and tell you that our pilferage rate, our loss rate
would be less than the large grocery store chain in the State
of Indiana. We generally do not distribute food through
governments. We distribute food through non-governmental
organizations like World Vision or CARE, or the Salvation Army,
the Red Cross, the Mormon Church. We have 2,300 partners who do
much of the actual food distribution on the ground.
Our strength is assessing where a problem is, targeting
those who are most in need, figuring out how to get food to
people, wherever they are, in distress in a country, being sure
that we tell the people who are receiving the food, who paid
for it. Every bag of wheat we give from America has a flag of
the United States on it and then we're very careful to monitor
and evaluate every penny, every bushel we distribute and we
come back and tell the government of the providing country what
it made possible.
Our policies, we, Zimbabwe might be a place that we could
talk a bit about. I've had nine meetings in this 5 year period
of time with President Mugabe. My second meeting with him and
I'm an Indiana businessman. I was not prepared for this kind of
diplomatic conversation but I said, sir.
Senator Kohl. You're very diplomatic to describe it as
diplomatic.
Mr. Morris. I said, sir, I just need to have a good
understanding right off the bat. We're not going to interfere
with the politics of your country. We're here to see the people
here who are hungry are fed, that women and children who are
starving have food and nutrition available to them. We'll have
no tolerance whatsoever for any political interference or any
guidance on your part as to how we do our work. We expect to
have universal access to every part of the country and we care
the same about any person at risk regardless of any other
criteria and we've been able to do our work. We fed 5.5 million
people in Zimbabwe last year and by and large with no political
interference.
The issue in North Korea is more difficult because there
are no NGOs in North Korea. The only choice we have in this
very difficult place to work is to work through the government.
Our work is with the most at risk, people in orphanages and
kindergartens, in hospitals, the elderly. We do the best job
that we can in terms of monitoring and evaluating and trying to
be accountable for the distribution in North Korea.
It would be my strong feeling that the elite in North Korea
have no interest in the food we have to distribute. We would be
at the low end of the food chain and that wouldn't be of
interest to them for their diets. It might be of economic
interest to them but we work very hard and I should tell you
that it's also very difficult to work there but when you think
that the average 7 year old boy in North Korea, at age 7, is 8
inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than his South Korean
counterpart, the humanitarian mandate imperative requires us to
be there.
I have a great deal of confidence that the water gets to
the end of the ditch, that we really work hard at targeting
those who need it the most and we have extraordinary partners
that we work with. We don't have the luxury, in Pakistan, of
taking the food to Islamabad and leaving it there. We have the
responsibility, when you have an earthquake to go to the top of
the mountain peak where the person is most at risk and we're
really good at that.
We are also the United Nations. We have responsibility for
logistics for transport, for information technology, for
communications, for much of the U.N. community, humanitarian
community and much of the NGO community.
My friend from World Vision behind me in Lebanon when we
were feeding 830,000 people during and after the conflict, we
provided the air transport to deliver the food and products
that World Vision had to take into Lebanon.
Where we work, it's not like working in Palm Springs. These
are very difficult places to work but you would be overwhelmed
with the commitment, the tenacity, the brain power, the focus
of the people who do our work and they're there to see the
people who are hungry and at risk are helped.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much for that. That's very
encouraging and reassuring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. We thank the first panel. You've all been
terrific by way of what you've brought to us. Before we move
onto the second panel, I'd like to ask Senator Cochran if he
wishes to say a word.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I came
by to compliment Mr. Morris on the great leadership he has
provided to the World Food Programme. I had the opportunity to
visit him, with him most recently in Rome where I've had the
benefit of wide ranging discussion of the challenges that the
agency has faced and the successes it's had in the years and
also I have to say that Judy Lewis, a former member of my staff
has been a source of information and inspiration too.
Inspiring because of the challenges and dangers that people
like her have faced all over the world in distributing food and
making sure we save lives through our generosity and our
commitment of our Congress to support these efforts and I'm
confident that we'll continue to provide generous support for
the World Food Programme.
We thank you especially for bringing the witnesses you have
today and keeping us up to date on the challenges that the
World Food Programme faces. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Yes, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. If I could just respond to Senator Cochran.
Thank you for your extraordinary support of us for so long, no
way to say thank you adequately.
I just want to conclude with a second or two to put in
context what my two colleagues have told you. The World Food
Programme, anytime there are more than 3,000 or 5,000 refugees
in a country, we take on the responsibility for providing food
for them. The good news is the number of refugees in the world
has been decreasing yet we fed about 3 million refugees last
year, something approaching 10 million internally displaced
people. This would be 230,000 people from Darfur who have gone
into Chad. This would be 150,000 Western Sahara refugees in
Southern Algeria. This would be a huge number of refugees in
Tanzania, the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, the same in Sierra Leone,
Siberia.
The life of a refugee is extraordinarily difficult. The
camp where Mohamed was living, the Dadaab, 220,000 people
there, we provide food for 220,000 refugees and the feel good
for you is that much of it comes from the United States through
Food for Peace.
So profoundly grateful to you as leaders of our country,
profoundly grateful to the citizens of this extraordinary place
we're fortunate to call home, the generosity, the caring, the
ingenuity that has made the prosperity possible to have the
food to work with. The fact of the matter is costs have gone up
dramatically and the number of hungry people in an absolute
notion have gone up substantially and we just all have to do
more, as individuals, as a country. We have to solve this
problem. It's at the base of making progress on the
humanitarian agenda and we have the potential, the know-how,
the wherewithal to do it. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Morris, we couldn't agree more.
Mr. Morris. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. We thank the first panel. We appreciate you
being here.
Mr. Morris. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Our next panel includes Walter Middleton,
World Vision International's Vice President for food resources
management group.
Mr. Middleton, we know you've come all the way from South
Africa to be with us today and we thank you and we look forward
to hearing from you.
We're also grateful to recognize Ms. Cindy Brown from my
home State of Wisconsin. Ms. Brown is a farmer and dry bean
producer from Menomonie, Wisconsin. Ms. Brown is also President
of the U.S. Dry Bean Council and we thank Ms. Brown for being
here.
Mr. Middleton, we'd be delighted to take your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WALTER MIDDLETON, VICE PRESIDENT, WORLD
VISION INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Middleton. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to testify before the subcommittee today. My name is Walter
Middleton. I am World Vision Vice President for the food
resource management group based in Johannesburg, South Africa.
World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization
dedicated to helping children, families and their communities
worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of
poverty and injustice.
My testimony today is on behalf of World Vision and the
other members of the alliance of Food Aid, which is comprised
of 14 private, voluntary organizations that conduct food aid
programs overseas.
It is also a privilege as well to be here as well with Jim
Morris. World Vision is one of the major partners with World
Food Programme and is pleased to have endorsed the WFP UNICEF
End Child Hunger Incentive.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you and the subcommittee for your
unrelenting support for food aid over the years. On a personal
note I have a long history with food aid, when I was about 8 or
9 years old, I attended primary school in a small railway town
in Rajasthan, India. One day our principal announced that we
would receive a daily snack donated by America. Even though the
railway employed my father, we were poor. Most days I went to
school only on a slice of bread and a cup of tea. The milk and
porridge provided by the United States was a great blessing and
that I will never forget.
The school feeding programs in India lasted 20 years or
more. After which many were taken over by local governments or
associations. Private voluntary organizations implement
emergency and developmental Public Law 480 title II programs
through agreements with U.S. aid. We implement food for
progress, agricultural development programs and McGovern-Dole
food for education programs through agreements with USDA.
In my written remarks I review several issues that are
important conservations as you prepare the fiscal year 2008
Food Aid appropriations. I would like to call your attention to
three in particular.
First, we ask the Committee to provide at least $1.6
billion for the Public Law 480 title II program. If you look at
the history of appropriations in recent years, this is the
average appropriations for title II after supplemental
appropriations are passed. Providing the funding at the
beginning of the fiscal year, rather than piecemeal will allow
better program planning and the orderly procurement and the
delivery of commodities.
Second, of sums appropriate for title II, we ask that $600
million be made available for nonemergency developmental
programs.
And third, we ask the committee to provide at least 100
million for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program which provides an incentive for poor and
hungry families to send their children to school.
I would like to explain why we seek $600 million for the
title II nonemergency programs. Making a lasting impact on food
security is a difficult task. Areas where poverty and hunger
endemic are often buffeted by multiple setbacks such as
droughts, floods, disease and war, therefore programs need to
be tailored to local needs and given enough time, often 4 to 5
years, to have a lasting impact.
Title II allows PVOs to double up multi-year programs to
improve food security, working in cooperation with local
communities. They are called nonemergency programs and they
give us the greatest chance to have a lasting impact.
The law sets a minimum tonnage for title II nonemergency
programs, however due to the loss of section 416, surplus
commodities and budget pressures. In recent years most title II
resources have been shifted to emergency needs, displacing
longer term developmental programs.
Nonemergency programs are being phased out in 17 countries
and cutbacks in others and the amount provided has frozen at
$350 million. We believe this is counterproductive as
developmental food aid helps improve people's resilience to
drought and economic downturns. Giving people the means to
improve their life also provides hope for a better future and
helps stabilize vulnerable areas.
Let me give you an example of World Vision title II program
in Kenya targeted 1,528 postulate families in the Tonkana
region, an arid environment that is plagued by recurring
droughts. Before our program, these families were dependent on
emergency food aid yearly every year. Over a period of 6 years
we used a combination of monetization and distribution. The
funds generated from commodity sales supported food for work
projects that improved irrigation and infrastructure,
cultivation techniques and land management.
As a result income increased from a baseline of $235 per
year to $800 per year. Families could afford to send their
children to school and the communities no longer depended on
relief. In fact, the program was turned over to the
participants and they have spread their knowledge to 475 farmer
families.
We were hoping to replicate the success for models in other
areas of Kenya where postulates are still dependent on
emergency rations yearly every year. However, U.S.A. is phasing
out nonemergency projects in Kenya as part of a larger effort
to limit the scope of developmental food aid programs.
Meanwhile Kenya remains a recipient of emergency food aid.
Report language in previous appropriations bill called on
the Administration to meet the minimum tonnage for title II
non-emergency programs. While we believe this might help stop
the decline in non-emergency programs, it has not increased the
availability of resources, thus we ask that of the sums
available for title II, $600 million be made available for non-
emergency programs.
I am one of the fortunate ones who received help through a
U.S. food aid program, completed my education and advanced my
career, first, at CARE and now at World Vision. The
continuation and expansion of Food Aid programs will provide
the opportunity for a healthy productive life to others.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Hunger is a solvable problem. It has been my passion and
career focus. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your support of these
life giving programs. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Walter Middleton
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today on U.S. food aid programs. My name is Walter
Middleton, and I am World Vision International's Vice-President for the
Food Resources Management Group based in Johannesburg, South Africa. My
testimony is on behalf of World Vision and the other members of the
Alliance for Food Aid, which is comprised of private voluntary
organizations and cooperatives (jointly called ``PVOs'') that conduct
international food assistance programs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, ACDI/VOCA,
Africare, American Red Cross, Counterpart International, Food for the
Hungry International, Joint Aid Management, International Relief &
Development, Land O'Lakes, OIC International, Partners for Development,
Project Concern, United Methodist Committee on Relief & Development,
and World Vision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to
working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to
reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and
injustice. Our overseas staff is familiar with and thankful for the
work of this Subcommittee. Your efforts to provide adequate resources
and to support developmental and humanitarian programs are humbling. We
are most grateful.
As practitioners, PVOs focus on identifying the needs of poor
communities and working in concert with local organizations and
institutions to make improvements in people's lives that will last for
the long run. For example, World Vision's overseas staff is primarily
indigenous. Over 90 percent of all World Vision staff work in the
countries in which they are citizens. Thus, through our food aid and
other programs we aim to build local capacity and leaders, making
lasting behavioral and institutional changes.
Making a lasting impact on food security is a difficult task and it
often requires five or more years to ensure that changes take hold.
Areas where poverty and hunger are endemic are often buffeted by
multiple setbacks, such as droughts, floods, disease and war. In
addition, when the economy of a developing country catches a cold, the
poor people living in that country catch pneumonia. And when developing
country governments institute regressive economic and social policies,
more people fall under the poverty line and the poor suffer the most.
As you consider funding for food aid in the fiscal year 2008
appropriations bill, we seek your support for--
--At least $1.6 billion for the Public Law 480 title II program, of
which $600 million shall be made available for implementation
of non-emergency programs, as required under title II of Public
Law 480 [section 204 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954, as amended].
--At least $100,000,000 for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program;
Personal Note on School Feeding Programs and Title II
As a personal note, I have been associated with title II food for
the past 46 or 47 years. I was about 8 or 9 years old when I first
tasted title II food through my primary school in Phulera, a small
Railway town in the State of Rajasthan, India. One fine day the
Principal, Mrs. Allen informed the children that we were going to start
receiving a snack at school every day as they had received food
donations from ``Amereeka.''
We had little at home, and for us this was a great blessing. Even
though my father was employed by the railway, his monthly salary was
not more than $35 per month. Most days I went to school on only a bland
slice of bread and a cup of tea. The milk and porridge were a life line
for those of us who sought education, but lived with hunger.
After a few months of receiving the title II snacks, I became
involved in its preparation and helped serve, entitling me to one extra
cup of milk and small extra portion of porridge. Sometimes we would
scrape the pots to get the last remains.
As a reminder to all of us of the unplanned and additional benefits
of food aid, I remember that 1 day I had the courage to ask Principal
for the empty milk powder bags--the brown paper bags. I used it to put
around the wire mesh of our poultry pen, providing protection for the
winter months.
Public Law 480 Title II--the Core U.S. Food Aid Program
Overall funding level
Administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), the title II program provides food aid donations for
development programs and emergency needs through PVOs and the UN World
Food Program. This is America's main contribution toward the Millennium
Development Goal of cutting hunger in half by 2015. Just to maintain
minimal levels of food intake in 70 needy countries monitored by the
USDA Economic Research Service, annual worldwide food aid needs are
15,200,000 metric tons (MT). The $1.6 billion title II program would
provide almost 20 percent of these annual needs.
Public Law 480 title II focuses on eliminating hunger and its
causes through a variety of programs that are developed in cooperation
and collaboration with local organizations, institutions and
governments. The emphasis is on ``non-emergency'' programs that improve
the food security of recipients in the long run--not just short-term
emergency response. From 1999 through 2002, most emergency food aid was
provided through the Section 416 surplus commodity program, allowing
title II to focus on its primary developmental goals. However, as the
attached funding chart shows, availability of Section 416 surplus
commodities has diminished since 2001. While title II funding has been
increased since fiscal year 2001, this increase is insufficient to make
up for the loss of Section 416 and cannot maintain adequate levels for
both emergency and non-emergency requirements.
Because Title II funding levels have not kept pace, there have been
cutbacks in developmental food aid programs and increased reliance on
supplemental appropriations to fill gaps in emergencies. Providing
adequate funding in the regular appropriations process would allow the
orderly planning and delivery of commodities throughout the year,
without program disruptions. Moreover, commodity prices are escalating
and with straight-lined budgets, this makes it even harder to maintain
food aid levels.
We also support efforts to assure continuation and completion of
the food aid product quality and enhancement project, which was
authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. Ensuring that products we deliver are
safe and appropriate is important, particularly for vulnerable groups
such as children under the age of two, women of child-bearing age and
people living with HIV/AIDS. Formulations for the value-added products
targeted for these groups have been static for decades and food aid
distribution overseas has sometimes been disrupted due to quality
concerns.
Non-Emergency Funding Level
A consequence of trying to provide all emergency food aid out of
the title II budget is a reduction in non-emergency food aid programs--
both the funding level and the number of eligible countries. Section
204 of title II states that 1,875,000 MT of title II commodities shall
be made available for non-emergency programs, which are multi-year
programs that address underlying causes of chronic hunger and
vulnerability. They include mother-child health care, agricultural and
rural development, food as payment for work on community infrastructure
projects, school meals and take home rations as incentives for poor
families to send children to school, and programs targeting HIV/AIDS-
affected communities. Chronic hunger leads to high infant and child
mortality and morbidity, poor physical and cognitive development, low
productivity, high susceptibility to disease, and premature death.
The non-emergency minimum tonnage level can be waived by the
Administration after the start of the fiscal year if there are
insufficient requests for these programs, or if there are extraordinary
emergency needs. However, this waiver is assumed before the beginning
of the fiscal year and the Administration does not seek proposals for
programs to meet the 1,875,000 MT requirement. Instead, USAID has
limited the non-emergency programs to about 700,000-750,000 MT, or $350
million for the cost of commodities, ocean freight, delivery costs
(called internal transportation, storage and handling, or ``ITSH'') and
related support costs (called ``section 202(e) funds''). This downward
trend must be stopped or Public Law 480 will lose its most important
objective: to promote food security in the developing world.
Concentrating food aid resources in areas where there is high
prevalence of food insecurity and vulnerability is appropriate and is
also anticipated in the USAID Food for Peace Strategic Plan, 2006-2010.
However, USAID's decision in 2006 to reduce the number of countries
covered by title II multi-year non-emergency assistance from 32 to 15
was budget driven and eliminated too many areas where chronic hunger is
prevalent and was driven by the decision to reduce the budget for non-
emergency programs. Many poor, vulnerable populations will be excluded
from receiving food aid, even though their needs are as compelling as
those populations that will be served.
The capacity of PVOs to serve populations in non-eligible countries
will be lost, making it more difficult to respond effectively at the
early signs of an emerging food crisis, which runs counter to the
intent of the Strategic Plan. As more programs are pushed into fewer
countries, areas within priority countries may be targeted that are
less food insecure than areas in non-selected countries.
We thank the Committee for supporting report language in
appropriations bills emphasizing the importance of the non-emergency
programs and the need for the Administration to take steps to meet the
section 204-tonnage level. Unfortunately, this has had no perceivable
effect on the management of programs. Therefore, we seek a specific
level in the bill for title II non-emergency programs. Ramping up non-
emergency programs to the level required by law will take more than one
year. Requiring the Administration to make $600 million available in
fiscal year 2008 would be a step in the right direction, increasing the
amount provided to about 1,100,000 to 1,200,000 MT.
Link Between Title II and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
Administered by USDA, the funds and commodities in the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust (BEHT) are needed to supplement Public Law 480 title
II when there are urgent humanitarian food aid needs. The commodities
are provided by the Trust and CCC covers the ocean freight and delivery
costs. The Trust can hold up to 4 million MT or cash equivalent, but
currently only holds about 900,000 MT of wheat and $107,000,000 (which
is available to buy commodities when needed). The BEHT has two
weaknesses that need to be addressed so it can more effectively serve
as a contingency fund for emergencies: the ``trigger'' for releasing
commodities and the level of reimbursement.
First, the commodities and funds in the Trust should be made
available for emergencies before the title II minimum tonnage for non-
emergency programs is waived. Otherwise, as we have seen in recent
years, there is disruption to and depletion of resources for
developmental title II programs. Second, a method for regular and
higher levels of replenishment is needed. Currently, up to $20 million
of Public Law 480 reimbursement funds in any one year may be used to
replenish the BEHT. We thank this Committee for ensuring that no more
than the $20 million is reimbursed in any fiscal year and requiring
these funds to be deposited into the Trust as replenishment. However,
$20 million per year is not sufficient to refill the Trust and higher
levels of reimbursement are needed on a regular basis.
Monetization
Monetization is an important component of food aid programs, and we
support its continued use where appropriate, based on market analysis
and a coherent strategy to strengthen food security. Monetization is
the sale of commodities in net food-importing, developing countries and
the use of proceeds in projects that improve local food security. It
can have multiple benefits and is appropriate for low-income countries
that must depend on imports to meet their nutritional needs. Limited
liquidity or limited access to credit for international purchases can
make it difficult for traders in these countries to import adequate
amounts of foodstuffs and amortization is particularly helpful in such
cases. Amortization can also be an effective vehicle to increase small-
scale trader participation in the local market and financial systems,
can be used to address structural market inefficiencies, and can help
control urban market price spikes. In all cases, the proceeds are used
to support food security efforts or the delivery of food in the
recipient country.
Administration's Request for Local/Regional Purchase for Emergencies
In-kind food aid continues to be the most dependable and important
source of food aid. The commitment of commodities sourced directly from
donor countries, which have more than adequate production to meet their
domestic needs, is required to ensure that sufficient levels food aid
are available each year. However, there are situations in which
purchases closer to the area of need could provide more timely
response, diversity of the food basket, and benefits to local
agricultural development.
While PVOs have experience using privately-raised funds and, to a
limited degree, USAID International Disaster and Famine Assistance
account funds for local purchases, information from these programs has
not been systematically collected and therefore is inadequate to use
for developing appropriate methodologies and best practices for future
programs. Thus, as part of the 2007 Farm Bill we are recommending a
field-based, pilot program for local purchases for famine prevention
and relief--
--Within recipient countries or nearby low-income countries,
--In cases where the procurement is likely to expedite the provision
of food aid,
--Where the procurement will support or advance local agricultural
production and marketing, and
--Conducted by PVO implementing partners that have experience with
food aid programming in the recipient countries.
To ensure that accepted practices for food aid programs are
followed and to identify appropriate methodologies and best practices
for future programs, each PVO implementing a pilot program shall--
--Prior to implementing a local purchase program, conduct an analysis
of the potential impact of the purchase on the agricultural
production, pricing and marketing of the same and similar
commodities in the country and localities where the purchase
will take place and where the food will be delivered;
--Incorporate food quality and safety assurance measures and analyze
and report on the ability to provide such assurances;
--Collect sufficient data to analyze the ability to procure, package
and deliver the food aid in a timely manner;
--Collect sufficient data to determine the full cost of procurement,
delivery and administration; and
--Monitor, analyze and report on the agricultural production,
marketing and price impact of the local/regional purchases.
McGovern-Dole Food for Education
The McGovern-Dole Program provides incentives for poor families to
send their children to school. Requiring an appropriation of no less
than $100,000,000 each year will give certainty that funds are
available for multi-year programs. These types of programs used to be
included in title II, but with the establishment of McGovern-Dole in
2002, such programs under title II are being phased out. Increased
funding would allow more multi-year programs, which would improve
program impact, and would allow broader use of the authority in the law
to support both educational programs and programs for children under
the age of five, which is when malnutrition can have its most
devastating impact on child development.
Loss of Title I Funds Impacts Food for Progress
The Food for Progress Act directs USDA through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) to provide a minimum of 400,000 metric tons of
commodities each year to developing countries that are introducing
market reforms and supporting private sector development. These
programs may be implemented by PVOs, the World Food Program and
recipient country governments. The amount actually provided through CCC
falls short of 400,000 metric tons because there is a cap on amount of
funds that CCC can provide for delivering the commodities and
administering the programs overseas. USDA has authority to use Public
Law 480 title I funds in addition to the CCC funds to implement Food
for Progress programs. In fiscal year 2006, about 75 percent of title I
funds were used for this purpose. This has augmented CCC funding and
allowed the program to reach 500,000 MT. As no funds were appropriated
for title I in fiscal year 2007, and the Administration seeks no
funding in fiscal year 2008, this means a cut in funding for Food for
Progress programs.
Many poor, developing countries are undergoing economic reform and,
therefore, the demand for Food for Progress programs is great. Forty-
six different PVOs apply for Food for Progress programs. For fiscal
year 2007, 100 proposals were submitted by PVOs and 16 by governments,
but only 11 new proposals were approved and 3 other programs were
provided second year funding. We will seek additional funding through
CCC as part of the Farm Bill to ensure that a minimum of 500,000 MT
will be available each fiscal year and emphasizing the importance of
providing assistance through PVOs.
PVOs implement Food for Progress programs in partnership with local
communities, cooperatives and agricultural associations, increasing
American visibility and assistance among the rural poor in countries
that are transitioning to market-based systems. Food for Progress
programs have been innovative, improving and expanding food processing,
internal trade of processed products, livestock health and production,
and creating agricultural financing mechanisms. While each program is
fairly small, they introduce methodologies that can be adopted more
broadly and provide a base for further growth and development of
private cooperatives, farmer associations, farm credit, and local
agricultural and fisheries related businesses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am one of the fortunate ones, who
received help through a U.S. food aid program, completed my education
and advanced in my career first working for CARE and now as a Vice
President for World Vision. I can see the many benefits U.S. food aid
programs are creating for poor communities, improving incomes, living
conditions and nutrition and sowing the seeds for a promising future.
Along with my colleagues at World Vision and other PVOs, I deeply wish
to see the continuation and expansion of food aid programs so the
opportunity for a healthy, productive life can be offered to others.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for supporting these life-saving and life-
giving programs. Attached are a few examples of the programs PVOs
implement and the results. I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II: APPROPRIATIONS COMPARED TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES IN U.S. DOLLARS AND SECTION 416 EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2001-2008
[Updated: February 5, 2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008
Fiscal year 2001 Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 (est.) (admin. request)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title II Appropriations................. $835,200,000 $945,000,000 \1\ $1,809,575,00 $1,185,000,000 \1\ $1,415,000,00 \1\ $1,632,000,00 \2\ $1,595,000,00 $1,219,000,000
0 0 0 0
Title II Actual Program Level \3\....... 925,900,000 1,039,100,000 1,881,000,000 1,670,100,100 1,668,000,000 1,773,000,000 1,655,000,000 .................
Sec 416(b) \4\.......................... 1,103,000,000 773,000,000 213,000,000 173,000,000 147,000,000 20,000,000 ................. .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2003 includes supplemental of $369 million; fiscal year 2005 includes supplemental of $240 million; fiscal year 2006 includes supplemental of $350 million.
\2\ Fiscal year 2007 Final Continuing Appropriations of $1,215,000,000 and assumes fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations request of $350,000,000.
\3\ Actual levels include appropriations, maritime reimbursement and carry-in funds and represent the amount actually reported as expended by USAID.
\4\ Section 416(b) is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation and is not subject to fiscal year appropriations. It is shown because until fiscal year 2003, the commodities were often
used for emergencies, supplementing title II funding.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Middleton. Ms. Brown.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA A. BROWN, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S.
DRY BEAN COUNCIL
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
my purpose in testifying is to support the continuation of in-
kind.
Senator Kohl. Is your?
Ms. Brown. Maybe I just need to bring it closer, there we
go, I'm sorry.
My purpose in testifying is to support the continuation of
in-kind U.S. commodity donations and to oppose transferring
scarce program funds to overseas purchasing, to support
maintaining the structure and delivery of existing food aid
programs and to ask for funding levels that will maintain
historical tonnage volumes.
I am the President of the U.S. Dry Bean Council which is
the trade association representing farmers, processors and
canners and all others involved in the U.S. dry bean industry
and prior to having that position I had the opportunity to
chair the Food Aid Committee for the U.S. Dry Bean Council and
in that capacity I worked with all the partners within the food
aid community from growers to government program administrators
to PVOs in the field and I had the opportunity to visit various
food aid programs throughout the world and of all of the
programs that I saw, school feeding had the greatest impact
upon me.
Growing up in a household where my mom was a teacher and my
dad, a farmer, helped me understand the importance of both food
and education. By providing a meal in school we help fight
hunger and give children a chance at an education which we know
is the key to breaking out of poverty and which we've heard a
lot about today.
By using United States in-kind commodities in these school
feeding programs we multiply the value of those commodities
many times over because again, as we've heard, the benefits of
school feeding go beyond fighting hunger and promoting
education.
Over the last few years the administration has proposed in
one form or another, the aspect of transferring scarce
resources to overseas purchases and I'm very opposed to the
elimination of 25 percent of title II funding for that reason.
We don't know the consequences of all of the overseas
purchases. We haven't seen them studied enough. We don't know
about restriction of local supplies, about market prices going
up and about other people having enough money to buy food, the
normal people that would buy food in that market. So we're very
concerned about that and we're concerned that this proposal is
unlikely to feed more hungry people.
I brought along a prop. This is the bag that we use to pack
our dark red kidney beans in when we put them into the Food Aid
Program. That bag represents the pride of our American
taxpaying public, our farmers and agribusiness. The food in
that bag and our country's name on it is what food aid means to
most Americans. It represents our commitment to sharing our own
good will and fortune with our very less fortunate neighbors.
When dollars are substituted for food the donation is no
longer food aid, it's foreign aid and our public support will
diminish. There is not a one to one tradeoff for cashing out
food aid.
Now we can't argue that the current system might have some
inefficiencies, but it seems to make sense that we could fix
this delivery system and make it work better because again, if
we substitute dollars for U.S. commodities, we will lose the
resources.
We need to heed the lessons of what's happened in Europe.
Ever since they switched to cash, they've been donating far
less to fight hunger and their budget has dropped quite
dramatically. Our annual donations exceed the donations of all
other countries combined and it's important for us to make sure
that we meet our historical obligation in providing food to the
world's less fortunate.
In summary I would like to ask for this committee's
continued support on in-kind food commodities from the United
States and to oppose the cashing out of food aid dollars. To
make sure adequate funding is available to support the title II
budget and maybe consider raising it to $2 billion a year,
given all the things that we've heard today about the ongoing
need within the world, that's not out of the question when we
look at what the United States should be capable of doing.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I also think that McGovern-Dole is such an important
program and has been so successful that we might consider
taking it up to $300 million as it was originally proposed.
One final comment, I know that budgets are limited and I
know that resources have to come from one spot or another but
on the basis of taking care of hungry people, I think we could
spend less on homeland security if we made sure that we reached
the people overseas and they weren't so concerned about being
hungry all the time. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia A. Brown
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Cynthia
Brown. I am a farmer, processor, and a dry bean dealer from Menomonie,
Wisconsin. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and to submit this
statement for the record of this hearing regarding our international
food assistance efforts.
My purpose in testifying is to strongly support continuation of
time-tested and effective in-kind United States produced commodity
donations; to strongly oppose the ill-conceived proposals that would
diminish our present programs by transferring scarce program funds for
the purpose of overseas commodity purchasing; to strongly support
maintaining the structure and delivery of our existing food aid
programs; and to ask that they be funded at levels, which, at a
minimum, will maintain historical tonnage volumes.
By way of personal background, I am proud to note that my family
has continuously farmed on our land in Menomonie since 1858. We
presently farm about 4,000 acres, of which about 3,300 acres are
devoted to dry bean production. My family started growing dry beans in
the late 1960s, and has operated the Chippewa Valley Bean Company since
the early 1970s. Chippewa Valley Bean Company processes dry beans,
primarily kidney beans, and sells dry beans in both the domestic and
international markets. We have been a supplier of dry beans to our
international food assistance programs for a number of years.
Also, I currently serve as President of the U.S. Dry Bean Council,
the trade association representing farmers, processors, canners,
dealers, distributors, and others involved with all aspects of growing,
processing, marketing, and distributing of dry beans produced in the
United States. USDBC is composed of state and regional grower and
dealer associations from all major U.S. production areas, as well as
individual companies involved in all aspects of the domestic dry bean
industry. I should note that about 20 different classes of dry beans
are grown in the United States, including pinto, navy, kidneys, black,
great northern, small red, pink, lima, and other dry beans in about 20
States, including Wisconsin. In 2005, USDA statistics indicated that
harvested U.S. dry bean acreage was nearly 1.57 million acres,
producing about 1.37 million tons of dry beans. And, about 30 percent
of annual U.S. dry bean production is exported with major importing
countries being Mexico, the UK, and Japan.
I also serve as the Delegate to USDBC from the North Central Bean
Dealers Association, and as a Member, appointed by Governor Doyle, of
the Citizen's Advisory Board of the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present
views on our international food assistance programs, from the joint
perspective of a grower, processor, and shipper of dry beans. I take
today's testimony very seriously because international food aid is a
personal passion and commitment of mine. Prior to my current service as
President of USDBC, I served for a number of years as Chair of the
USDBC Food Aid Committee. hi that capacity and since, I have had the
privilege to work with all partners that make up our humanitarian food
aid delivery system--from the grower through the government program
administrators to the private voluntary and other organizations that
deliver our lifesaving and life-sustaining commodities to recipients
around the world. As such, I have traveled to Haiti, South Africa,
Ghana, Ethiopia and Kenya and have seen U.S. commodities being
distributed in a number of PVO programs ranging from food for work to
school feeding.
School feeding programs have had the greatest impact on me. Growing
up in a household where my mom was a teacher and my dad a farmer helped
me understand the importance of both food and education. By providing a
meal in school, we help fight hunger and give children a chance at an
education--which is the key to breaking out of poverty.
Over 300 million children in the world suffer from hunger. Over 100
million of these children, most of them girls, do not attend school.
School feeding programs provide food directly to children suffering
from hunger. Many times a free meal in school is the only reason that
parents send their children to school. This is especially true for
girls. When school feeding is available, enrollment and attendance
rates increase significantly; students stay in school longer and
perform better. Girls that have the opportunity to come to school have
fewer children, have them later in life and make sure their children
receive an education.
The benefits of school feeding programs go beyond fighting hunger
and promoting education. By bringing more children into the classroom,
school feeding also helps expand the reach of a number of other
programs. For example, more children and their families can receive
education on HIV/AIDS prevention and proper nutrition. By using U.S.
commodities in school feeding programs, we've multiplied the value of
those commodities many times over.
Continue In-Kind Commodity Donations
Mr. Chairman, I would initially like to address two food aid issues
that have received a lot of attention recently. First, is the matter of
in-kind commodity donations for food aid. We know that there are those,
particularly the European Union and certain international
organizations, who have advocated that the United States move away from
in-kind food aid donations. These critics allege that in-kind food aid
is inefficient and can lead to wasting food aid resources, and they
propose using cash only for local purchasing to recipients. While
seemingly well-intended, such views. are misguided, have not been
clearly demonstrated in practice, and have great potential for
diminishing the effectiveness and scope of our food aid programs.
Though much of this advocacy has been emotionally driven, a very
thoughtful and comprehensive study of cash versus in-kind food aid was
recently conducted by Dr. Joel Toppen. In his resulting paper he
concluded ``Because the proposed policy shift would likely result in
significantly fewer food aid dollars due to a loss of political
support, there is little if any reason to expect more hungry people to
be fed and/or long-term food security to be enhanced. While local and
regional purchase can often bring cost savings, the contention that a
U.S. shift to cash-based food aid would actually increase the amount of
resources transferred to food-insecure populations rests on wishful
thinking, not sound social science.'' Moreover, Toppen observed that
the PVO community is not generally supportive of this radical change in
food aid programming by noting the position of the Alliance for Food
Aid, a major PVO coalition, when he stated ``Meanwhile, the AFA
observes that food aid needs are immense and not likely to decrease any
time soon and contends that to address those needs, `In-kind food aid
continues to be the most dependable and important source of food aid'
(AFA 2006).'' (Toppen, Joel J. (2006). Should the U.S. End In Kind Food
Aid? Assessing the Case for Cash. Hope College, Holland, MI.).
Further, in some instances, such as the ongoing WTO negotiations,
it Would appear elimination of in-kind food aid donation is advocated
for purposes of negotiating strategy, rather than for improving
international food aid. Indeed, it is ironic that the European Union
has been the major advocate for replacing in-kind commodity donations
with cash, especially since the EU's ``cashing out'' of its
international food aid commitment has resulted in a sharp drop in
tonnage attributed to it in such food aid. Recipients have been the big
losers as a result--a circumstance we do not want to replicate with the
U.S. continuing food aid program commitment.
In-kind commodity donations have been at the core of our very
successful food aid programs since their inception. Historically and to
this day, we have an unmatched agricultural bounty that, through the
hard work of the American farmer and related agribusinesses, and the
generosity of the American taxpayer, has literally fed much of the
world's hungry, and its victims of natural disasters and other
emergency situations. Humanitarian donation of U.S. grown, processed,
and inspected agricultural products have insured that safe and uniform
foodstuffs reach disaster victims, refugees, and recipients in ongoing
programs, such as mothers, children, and the elderly. Annual commodity
availability determinations by USDA and in-country determinations to
avoid commercial displacement insure that little, if any, commercial
market impact occurs due to the use of U.S. grown and processed
agricultural products for in-kind humanitarian donation. Farmers,
processors, shippers, and the taxpaying public have long strongly
supported the United States being the leader in international
humanitarian food aid, in large part because of the visability of our
in-kind donations. There is something comforting in seeing the. U.S.
marking on our in-kind commodity donations and knowing that it
represents delivery of both safe and wholesome food and our commitment
as a people to sharing our general wellbeing with our less fortunate
world neighbors.
As a consequence, U.S. farmers, processors, shippers, and
taxpayers, continue to strongly support our in-kind commodity
donations. Congress has reflected this support through the years, and
we would request that the subcommittee continue this support by
requiring that funding provided be utilized to maintain the in-kind
commodity donation character of our international food aid programs.
Resist Transfer of Scare Food Aid Resources for Overseas Purchasing
In the last few years, a most disturbing matter to U.S. farmers,
processors, shippers, and others who are committed to the continued
success of our international humanitarian food aid programs, has been
several Administration proposals to transfer or utilize significant
amounts of the Public Law 480 title II budget for purchasing
commodities overseas for program use. In their various forms, the
proposals would take a percentage (as much as 25 percent) or a dollar
amount (as much as $300 million) of the appropriated title II annual
budget and devote it to overseas purchasing. In past years, Congress
has wisely rejected out of hand such proposals. This year, the budget
proposal again proposes to allow the AID Administrator unfettered
discretion to use up to 25 percent of title II dollars to buy program
commodities overseas. This latest attempt to use scarce food aid funds
for purchasing overseas remains unsubstantiated, is ill-advised, and
should again be summarily rejected by Congress. Although, I can only
speak for myself, I believe it would be fair to say that there is near
unanimous opposition among farmers, processors, and shippers to this
year's variation on this proposal. Among the many reasons to strongly
oppose this proposal are:
--First and foremost, as a number of commodity and processor groups
(including the U.S. Dry Bean Council) recently stated in a
joint letter to Congress urging reauthorization of our current
food aid programs, ``We believe that U.S. food aid funds,
provided by the American taxpayer, should purchase only U.S.-
produced commodities for the nation's food aid programs.
Therefore, we do not support the use of Public Law 480 title II
funds for local commodity purchases overseas.''
--There is a basic question whether, in the absence of statutory
amendment, title II program funds can legally be used to
procure for program donation an ``agricultural commodity'' that
has not been produced in the United States. Throughout the
title II statute, authority is provided to use and donate an
``agricultural commodity'' for the specific humanitarian
purposes of the program. Yet, and appropriately so,
``agricultural commodity'' is defined to be ``any agricultural
commodity or the products thereof produced in the United States
. . .''. (7 CFR 1732(2)). The meaning of the statutory language
is clear and unambiguous. So clear that general waiver
authorities of the statute or justifications based on
emergencies should not be allowed to override the language. The
subcommittee should resist providing any appropriated funds for
overseas commodity purchases, based on the lack of specific
authority for such purchasing in the Title II statute.
--As discussed earlier, Title II resources are already inadequate to
meet normal emergency and non-emergency needs of the program.
Title II can ill afford a transfer of 25 percent of total
annual funds for AID discretionary spending.
--AID has not made a case with sufficient evidence that justifies the
proposed overseas purchasing. In the past, AID has utilized
funding from its own accounts to make overseas commodity
purchases for limited time periods. Rather than decimate base
funding for the Title II program, AID should first set out the
need for, and circumstances under which, overseas commodity
purchasing would only be utilized, and then propose funding in
its own budget for that limited purpose.
--Traditional Title II in-kind delivery of U.S. commodities can be
made in a timely fashion, accommodating most circumstances.
When conditions warrant, government agencies can also invoke
expedited tendering and shipping procedures that in many
instances can cut delivery times in half. USDA and AID have
effectively and efficiently diverted commodities that are in
route for other programs to destinations where emergencies have
arisen. AID' s implementation of ``prepositioning'' commodities
in strategic locations, both in the United States and overseas,
has developed a stockpile of foodstuffs that can be rapidly
sent to emergency destinations. Efforts should be undertaken to
expand prepositioning, both in terms of locations and volume of
tonnage stored, and to invoke other appropriate actions and
procedures when expedited commodity delivery is required.
--The consequences of overseas purchasing have largely been ignored
and/or not analyzed. Local overseas commodity purchasing
presumes that sufficient commodities exist to be purchased.
Yet, that logic seems counter intuitive. Rather, it would seem
that such purchases would likely cause hording, further
restrict scarce local commodity supplies, and cause price run
ups and other market disruptions for the remaining commodity
supply. Such results may occur locally, may be felt in
different areas within a country, or may cause regional
disruptions. Indeed, commentary from a representative of a
major commodity trading company at a public session of last
year's USDA/AID international food aid conference indicated
that these types of targeted local purchasing had caused major
commodity supply shortages and excessive price increases that
distorted commercial markets on a regional basis in Africa.
--Overseas commodity purchasing runs the distinct risk of turning our
accepted and widely supported international food aid programs
into just another form of just as widely unaccepted ``foreign
aid''. Taxpayer acceptance, as well as support of many Members
of Congress, can be traced to our highly visable and understood
in-kind commodity food aid programs. The same can not be said
generally for many taxpayers or many Members of Congress when
it comes to ``foreign aid''. As an individual who is personally
passionately committed to the continued success of our
international food aid programs, I fear that implementing the
overseas commodity purchasing proposal would be the first step
in the demise of this very effective and very valuable program.
--Beyond erosion of general taxpayer support, overseas commodity
purchasing would greatly diminish support for these food aid
programs among farmers, processors, and shippers, and other
active program participants. Rightly viewed as a form of
``cashing out'' of the program, such loss of support would
likely result in much lower program funding levels over time.
Maintain Present Food Aid Programs at Effective Levels
The United States has long been the world leader in providing
international humanitarian food assistance. Typically, U.S. commodity
donations under the 1954 Food for Peace legislation and our other food
aid programs annually exceed donations of all other donor countries
combined. This commitment, in the form of annual U.S. produced
commodity donations under Public Law 480 Titles I and II, Food for
Progress, the McGovern/Dole Food for Education Program, and Section
4.16(b), is a source of pride to the American farmer and agribusiness
community who are able to see the good our agricultural abundance
provides in emergencies and to the chronically hungry of the world.
Unfortunately, contrary to well intentioned goals set by international
agencies, estimates of the number of starving and chronically hungry
populations in the world have continued to rise in recent years. At the
same time, we have seen overall U.S. food aid tonnage declining, for
example, from nearly 6 million, tons in fiscal year 2002 to less than 4
million tons in the past fiscal year. Further, non-commodity costs of
the food aid programs have risen significantly in recent years, and we
fully expect that commodity costs across the board will continue to see
a substantial increase this year. And, given a largely static funding
level for our collective food aid programs in recent years, even when
emergency supplemental food aid funding has been included in most
years, we are left with erosion in the volume of donated commodities
and reductions in the number of programs that can participate in our
food aid efforts.
Given this situation, it is most important for Congress, through
its Appropriations Committees, to take the lead in addressing this
matter to see that adequate funding is available so that these
outstanding U.S. food aid programs can continue to operate at levels
that insure that we meet our historical obligation in providing food to
the world's less fortunate. Although, it is recognized that the budget
is tight, these humanitarian programs are so important that they should
be acknowledged as a budget priority to insure that adequate funding is
provided to them to secure annual minimum tonnage donations. The recent
shortage of food aid program budgetary resources, and its reduced level
of commodity tonnage available for donation, has disrupted our ability
to adequately provide for emergencies, while maintaining multiyear non-
emergency programs. These shortages have, unfortunately, resulted in
having to choose between meeting commodity needs for emergencies, or
for continuing successful non-emergency food aid programs that have
been in existence for years. Certainty of an annual minimum tonnage
availability would allow for greater forseeability and continuity in
maintaining valuable non-emergency programming. In an effort to achieve
this goal, it is respectfully requested that the subcommittee consider:
--Maintaining flexibility in funding provided under Public Law 480,
Title I, so that maximum utility can be achieved by allowing
transfer of unutilized funds to Food for Progress for
programming;
--Establishing annual Title II funding at a level that is predictable
and sufficient enough to address needs for both emergencies and
non-emergencies--a level of $2 billion has been advocated by
PVOs and other thoughtful food aid stakeholders, and I would
urge the Subcommittee to give serious consideration to
establishing it as the annual Title II funding floor;
--Maintaining Food for Progress allocations at least at current
levels--in this regard, it is recommended that the
Administrations proposal to decrease FFP funds by an amount
projected to be transferred from Title I be rejected;
--Strengthening the McGovern/Dole Food for Education program. It has
been a huge success, and certainly should be funded at least at
its present level ($100 million), and every effort should be
made to increase its funding to the $300 million level
originally envisioned at the program's inception; and
--Funding provided under Title II should be sufficient to meet all
statutory annual minimum tonnage requirements, i.e. the general
overall annual minimum requirement of 2.5 million metric tons,
the non-emergency programs subminimum tonnage requirement of
1.875 million metric tons, and the value-added requirement that
75 percent of non-emergency annual tonnage be in the form of
processed, bagged and fortified commodities.
Mr. Chairman, in sum I commend the subcommittee for holding this
hearing to address the important issues facing our international food
aid programs. Again, I ask the subcommittee to strongly support
continuation of in-kind U.S. produced commodity donations; to strongly
oppose ill-conceived proposals that would undermine our present
programs by transferring scarce program funds for the purpose of
overseas commodity purchasing; to continue your strong support for
maintaining the structure and delivery of our existing food aid
programs; and to fund the programs at levels which will maintain
minimum historical tonnage volumes.
Attached to my testimony are copies of the commodity and processor
letter to Congress on food aid programs reauthorization that I referred
to earlier, and the current food aid position paper adopted by the U.S.
Dry Bean Council. I ask that they be included as a part of the record
with my testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
letter from cynthia a. brown
March 13, 2007.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Harkin: As you proceed with your Farm Bill
discussions, we bring to your attention the U.S. Public Law 480 Title
I, Public Law 480 Title II, McGovern-Dole Food for Education, Food for
Progress, and the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust food aid programs.
Serving as a compassionate bridge between the United States and
developing countries, the safe and nutritious U.S. food provided to
starving populations abroad through these programs is a source of pride
to American farmers, food processors, and agribusinesses.
We believe that U.S. food aid funds, provided by the American
taxpayer, should purchase only U.S.-produced commodities for the
Nation's food aid programs. Therefore, we do not support the use of
Public Law 480 Title II funds for local commodity purchases overseas.
In light of the importance of these humanitarian U.S. food aid
programs to their recipients overseas and to the U.S. agricultural
community, we request Congress to:
--Reauthorize Public Law 480 Title I.--This government-to-government
program provides U.S. agricultural commodities to developing
countries on credit or grant terms. Concessional credit sales
are available to those eligible countries that choose to
participate in them for food aid purposes. In addition, Title I
funds are a major funding source for Food for Progress, which
is discussed more below.
--Reauthorize Public Law 480 Title II.--This program provides for the
donation of U.S. agricultural commodities to meet emergency and
non-emergency food needs in other countries, including support
for food security goals. We support a program that is
predictable and sufficient to address growing global needs for
both emergencies and non-emergencies.
--Reauthorize Food for Progress' (FFP) Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) Funding.--The FFP program provides for the donation or
credit sale of U.S. commodities to developing countries and
emerging democracies to support democracy and to assist with
the expansion of private enterprise. In addition to its CCC
funding, FFP also has received as much as 40 percent of its
funds from Public Law 480 Title I. In the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget proposal total FFP funds have been decreased
by the amount received from Title I, leaving only CCC as the
program's funding source.
--Reauthorize and Give Permanent Authority for Administration of the
McGovern-Dole Food for Education (FFE) Program to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.--The FFE program helps support
education, child development, and food security for some of the
world's poorest children. It provides for donations of U.S.
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are
committed to universal education. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the
President has the authority to designate the administering
Federal agency. We believe this authority should be given to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture permanently.
--Reauthorize the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT).--This
program provides for a reserve to meet emergency humanitarian
food needs in developing countries. We believe the BEHT should
be a more effective and timely tool for use in emergencies.
Thank you for your continued support for our industries and for the
support of these programs.
Regards,
American Farm Bureau Federation: American Soybean
Association: California Association of
Wheat Growers: Global Food & Nutrition
Inc.: Illinois Soybean Association:
International Food Additives Council: Iowa
Soybean Association: Kentucky Soybean
Association: Minnesota Soybean Growers
Association: National Association of Wheat
Growers: National Corn Growers Association:
National Oilseed Processors Association:
Nebraska Soybean Association: North
American Millers' Association: North Dakota
Soybean Growers Association: Tennessee
Soybean Association: United States Dry Bean
Council: USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council:
and USA Rice Federation.
______
position paper of the united states dry bean council
food aid program
Summary
Sixteen million metric tons of food are needed each year to meet
minimum food assistance requirements of the 60 poorest countries in the
world. To meet these critical minimum humanitarian and nutritional
needs, the United States Dry Bean Council urges the continuation of in-
kind U.S. commodity donations, full funding of our highly successful
food aid programs--specifically Public Law 480 Title II, Food for
Progress, and the Global Food for Education Initiative, and a return to
historical levels of thy bean utilization in the programs. USDBC also
opposes any proposals that would further reduce or transfer the present
base level of funding for these valuable programs.
Background
These programs have historically met several important objectives:
to utilize the bounty of U.S. agriculture and the humanitarian goodness
of the American people to provide U.S. agricultural commodities for
humanitarian relief to the world's hungry and starving people during
emergencies; and to provide those commodities for use as a tool in
developmental assistance programs that will lead, over time, to
allowing less developed countries to achieve meaning improvements in
health, education, welfare, and their economies to join in being
productive members of the worldwide society.
In recent years, however, we have seen a disturbing trend that is
shrinking the scope, funding, and commodity tonnage of U.S. food aid
programs, all to the detriment of the American humanitarian commitment,
the American farmer, and the starving and downtrodden overseas
recipient. Unfortunately, there still remain more than 850 million
hungry people in the world with their needs and numbers growing greater
each day. Consequently, USDBC is greatly concerned continued
Administration proposals that would take as much as $300 million, or as
much as 25 percent, from the base Title II account that would have been
utilized to supply U.S. origin commodities for donation, and would
transfer such amounts to AID for spending at the discretion of the AID
Administrator on overseas commodity purchases. USDBC is also concerned
by increasing efforts of other countries, especially those of the
European Community to attempt to utilize food aid as a negotiating tool
in international trade agreements.
U.S. Dry Bean Council Position
USDBC favors policies that maximize food assistance to those in
need. As such, USDBC strongly supports overall increases in funding for
food aid programs, and specifically opposes funding reductions or
transfers of base funding levels of these programs. USDBC could,
however, support establishment of a separate discretionary AID fund for
more rapid initial emergency response, provided that AID demonstrate
the need for such a fund, that AID requests such funding as an original
AID budget request, and that the base level of Title II and other food
aid programs is not reduced as a result of such a fund.
USDBC supports an increase in annual tonnage for all food aid
donations to a minimum of 7.5 million MT.
USDBC supports funding for the Global Food for Education Initiative
of at least the original proposed level of $300 million. Per the World
Food Program, it only costs 19 cents per day to feed a child lunch.
USDBC believes that food aid is humanitarian assistance and should
not be used as a negotiating tool in the WTO or other trade
negotiations. As such, USDBC strongly supports the efforts of the U.S.
Trade Representative to exclude food aid from such negotiations; to
reject the ``cash only'' approach of the European community to food
aid; to maintain the world leading United States in-kind commodity
donation food aid programs as they have been successfully developed and
delivered for years; and to continue the dual objective of U.S. food
aid programs--to provide in-kind commodities for humanitarian relief
for emergencies and for continuing development relief efforts.
USDBC is also concerned with the significant fall off in
utilization of dry beans, both in overall volume and as a proportion of
the donated food package, that has occurred in recent years. This trend
is disturbing, especially at a time when the United States government
and private researchers continue to affirm the superior nutritional
qualities of dry beans. USDBC urges USDA and AID in managing the food
aid programs to return dry beans tonnage to historical proportional
commodity levels in the programs, so that the full nutritional impact
provided by dry beans can continue to be realized by recipients.
USDBC encourages enforcement of the statutory mandate that 75
percent of Title II development donations be in the form of processed,
bagged or fortified commodities Enforcing this provision will enable
domestic food processors and handlers a greater opportunity to
participate in food aid programs.
USDBC encourages full funding for transportation so the program can
utilize all the funding that was authorized for food aid purchases.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Beautiful statement. Mr.
Middleton, in order to break the cycle of poverty and hunger,
people have to be helped to develop their own food systems as
we know, but more and more emergencies are using up the
available, emergencies are using up the available funds. If
this problem continues we will do more emergencies and less
development as we move into the future.
In your testimony you addressed a problem of decreased
funding for development programs. Can you explain how shifting
the focus to funding emergencies has disrupted non-emergency
development programs in recent years?
Mr. Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the needs of
emergencies has been rising and the governmental assistance for
the Government programs has been going down and we are really
concerned about it because we have seen that through
Governmental activities there's been a lot of improvements
funding agriculture, health and infrastructure Government
projects, using proceeds for teachers creating a HIV counseling
and catering monetization as well. There's also been the
terrible causeway.
We have enhanced food security and agriculture production
for that and we have seen this decline, especially in
Bangladesh where we had a big development program and that
program has now come to an end and some of the great capacity
that we helped to build over there has diminished
significantly.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Middleton, as you know the actual cost of
food in some cases is only a small part of the total food aid
costs. Things like transportation, logistics, handling and
security are very expensive and we need to find ways to reduce
those costs in order to make the programs more efficient and
more productive.
How do you prioritize delivery of food aid among emergency
and chronic hunger settings and to what extent does logistics
such as transportation effect where you target aid?
Mr. Middleton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is
important to make sure that the emergency food aid that we get
gets to the right people at the right time and yes, I do agree
that transportation needs are rising but there's always ways of
finding how we can address those needs because we use proper
assessments of transport facilities and try to get the best
quotations to make sure that the food is delivered in a timely
manner and in the most appropriate way.
One region has been doing big food programs in Mozambique
and Somalia and Ethiopia and Kenya and we have used local
transporters, small transporters to make things happen. We've
also used monetization proceeds to supplement some of those
costs. Like in Mozambique when we did a monetization program,
we used some of the proceeds to transport, purchase food in
surplus areas and move it to deficit areas where we were
feeding these people with their own food grown in their country
and we gave money to local transporters to buy spare parts and
start the trucks up and running and they were able to transport
the food from the surplus areas to the deficit areas.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Middleton.
Ms. Brown, as I've said, you are a farmer as we know and
you're a dry bean dealer from Menomonie, Wisconsin and your
family has farmed the same land since 1858 and started the
Chippewa Valley Bean Company in the 1970s. As I've said you're
also President of the U.S. Dry Bean Council.
How do you see your role as a farmer in alleviating
worldwide hunger?
Ms. Brown. Thank you for the question. I see my role as a
farmer in continuing to advocate for very hungry people and for
being here today to express agriculture's strong support for
making sure that people with less opportunities are taken care
of. As this country has become more and more productive in
agriculture over the last number of years, we've had ample
supplies of food to share beyond our borders and I think in the
aspects of advocating and making sure that food is available,
that's how the American farmer can come forward to help.
Senator Kohl. Ms. Brown, U.S. food aid programs have been
criticized for dumping U.S. commodities in foreign countries
and displacing commercial transactions. It has become a major
issue in the WTO negotiations. In your statement you say that
little if any market impact occurs when U.S. grown foods are
used as opposed to cash purchases. Now do you have any evidence
of that, if there is no serious commercial displacement? Why do
you think our trading partners like the EU are so determined to
move food aid into a cash-based program?
Ms. Brown. Well, I believe if I can reference Dr. Joel
Toppen's paper that I talked about in my statement. As we look
at the analysis of the criticisms over using U.S. donated food
instead of cash, I don't think that there has been enough
analysis done and that there have been very small studies that
haven't looked at the broader picture and actually haven't
taken studies within the title II program and compared them
back to what our critics are saying.
I think too, that the aspect of taking U.S. commodities and
having the EU come talk about them displacing local food comes
back to a trading factor and the point of comparing the levels
of subsidies between one country and the United States and
Europe because in trying to negotiate within WTO there's a lot
of concern over who will lower what subsidies and what will be
pointed out as a market distortion.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brown, I
agree with you that a lot of the criticism goes back to local
politics in their own countries and their own subsidies for
their own farmers and it has to do more with protectionism than
it does with actually feeding people on the ground who need it
and I think Americans have demonstrated that our purpose is not
to affect the trade policies but to feed people.
None the less, I am a little troubled by the idea that
there should be no cash activity involved in this which you've
proposed. The administration has suggested 25 percent, which
may or may not be the right number, but as I understand their
rationale, it's not to be a standard thing; it's to be an
emergency thing.
For example, Mr. Middleton has pointed out, Mother Nature,
who is never stable, however much the Sierra Club would like
her to be, Mother Nature is always changing things and always
throwing us new challenges and right now we're in a period of
increased earthquake activity to a level that has not been seen
for centuries previously.
When an earthquake happens it cannot be budgeted for in
advance, it can't be planned, it can't be scheduled and there
could be a time where people hit by the earthquakes desperately
need food right now and the food that is on the dock in the
United States in one of your bags which is scheduled for a
planned, understood, predictable kind of pattern, is not going
to do them any good. But there may be some food available for
purchase much closer to the focus of the earthquake and the
United States should have the flexibility.
This is the argument: the United States should have the
flexibility to say, in this instance, in this emergency,
instead of waiting for the food to arrive from the United
States, the United States will take the money that it would
have spent for that food and spend it in a manner that can get
it to the emergency challenge immediately and then as the
standard supply lines are rebuilt as things come back into
normal, we'll withdraw the purchasing pattern and go back to
supplying commodities. That's the rationale that has been given
for this and quite frankly to me, it seems logical.
Can you comment on it? You made the statement there are not
enough studies done on this.
Ms. Brown. Right, well.
Senator Bennett. And do you have studies that have done
that and show that that argument is not legitimate?
Ms. Brown. I can't argue with that, but the one point that
I would make, Senator Bennett, is that rather than raiding or
taking the money out of title II. It seems that USAID could use
and develop a fund for local purchases.
The other thing that has been beneficial in the past has
been our pre-positioning of commodities in various locations
either here in the United States or throughout the world and it
seems that that may be an option to help in some of the very
short term, immediate need for emergencies and when the tsunami
hit, we actually saw a ship that was headed elsewhere diverted
and taken into that immediate need. So there are some other
factors that can be employed at the same time.
Senator Bennett. I think the crux of your statement, that
we need to look at the whole thing a little more carefully, is
probably where we will come down.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Mr. Middleton
would you like to say something or?
Mr. Middleton. I don't know if the Senator would like me
also to give a response to that.
Senator Kohl. Go right ahead.
Mr. Middleton. Well, I have had some experience with local
purchase and one region does support a pilot program on local
purchases. It is important to start small and then scale up
based on evidence.
I have a personal experience in Mozambique trying to do a
local purchase at the same time I was also receiving title II
food aid in Mozambique and it was quite a challenge because you
have to know the markets. We had placed orders with
transporters who claimed that they had trucks and could deliver
right away but when I actually placed the order, they had no
trucks and they were not able to deliver and they were assuming
we were going to get trucks from others.
We were given low tenders and the prices seemed very low so
I thought suspicious so I said let us do some investigation and
I found out that the maize that they were trying to sell us was
actually stolen maize. Had we purchased that we would have been
in some serious trouble and they also didn't want the
consignment of about 2,000 metric tons of pure shock weight
bags that weighed from 44 to 49 kilos instead of the standard
50 kilos and we had to redo the whole batch. So by the time the
whole process, it took about nearly 4 to 5 months to get all of
the food in and start distributing it.
At the same time I had also placed an urgent, gone forward
with the U.S. Government of title II food and that came within
1\1/2\ months. So there are circumstances, evidence that we
have to look, depending on the surrounding situations so we
have to just be careful with that.
In closing I just want to say a big thank you to each one
of you, a big thank you to the people of America for the
contributions to the world you make, especially to my country,
India which was a big recipient of food aid and I was a
beneficiary and today I would not have been sitting here
enjoying making this testimony and being the Vice President of
World Vision food programs worldwide if I was not a beneficiary
of the title II food program. So thank you very much from the
bottom of my heart.
Senator Kohl. That's very good, Mr. Middleton and let me
thank you and we thank you, Ms. Brown. You've done a great job.
Mr. Middleton. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. We'll now move on to our last panel and it
includes Dr. Mark Keenum, who is Under Secretary for Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services at USDA and Mr. James Kunder,
Deputy Administrator at USAID.
We thank you both for being here and if you are ready,
we're prepared to take your statement.
STATEMENT OF MARK E. KEENUM, UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM
AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. Keenum. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Dr. Keenum.
Dr. Keenum. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Bennett, members of the committee. I'm very pleased to
come before you today to discuss the food aid programs operated
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
One of the most significant and compelling challenges the
world faces is chronic hunger and malnourishment. The United
States continues its efforts to confront this challenge. We're
the world's leading food producer, and provider of food aid.
Through government programs, U.S. citizens supplied around 60
percent of total food aid assistance over the past 10 years.
These programs strive to alleviate hunger and provide
developmental assistance to lift millions of individuals out of
poverty.
CURRENT FOOD AID PROGRAMS
Three food aid programs administered by USDA are making a
difference in the lives of poor, hungry people--the Food for
Progress program, the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program and the Public Law 480,
title II program. These programs support international
assistance and developmental activities that alleviate hunger
and improve nutrition, education, and agriculture in some of
the world's poorest countries.
FOOD FOR PROGRESS PROGRAM
During the past 2 decades the Food for Progress program has
supplied over 12 million metric tons of commodities to
developing countries and emerging democracies. Commodities
purchased totaling nearly $3 billion over this period have been
handled through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
During fiscal year 2006, the Food for Progress program
provided more than 250,000 metric tons of CCC funded
commodities valued at $131 million in 19 developing countries.
More than 2 million people in 11 countries, including in
Afghanistan and throughout Africa and Central America will be
fed by this program this fiscal year and we expect to spend
$151 million.
In fiscal year 2008, the President's budget provides an
estimated program level of $163 million for the Food for
Progress grant agreements carried out with CCC funds.
MC GOVERN-DOLE PROGRAM
Another highly successful program is the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
It helps support education, child development, food security to
low income, food-deficient countries that are committed to
universal education. This year we will feed over 2.5 million
people in 15 developing countries including Cambodia, Guatemala
and Malawi, with the $99 million appropriated funding level.
We appreciate the strong support this program has received
from members of Congress. In fiscal year 2008 we're requesting
$100 million for the McGovern-Dole program. This amount will be
supplemented by an estimated $8 million to be received from the
Maritime Administration for cargo preference reimbursements.
In the last 5 years the McGovern-Dole program has helped
feed more than 10 million children in more than 40 countries.
In addition, proceeds from the sales of commodities are being
used to improve school sanitation repairs and also to improve
the skills of teachers.
The project also includes a maternal and child health
component which provides take-home rations to needy mothers
with young children. By providing hot daily meals, the
McGovern-Dole program is permitting students to remain in the
classroom and learn for longer periods. Multi-year dimensions
of this program are vital to address the comprehensive issue of
chronic hunger. Moreover providing meals both at school and
through take-home rations provides a powerful incentive for
children to remain in school.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM
The Public Law 480 title I program has historically been
geared primarily toward countries that experience shortages of
foreign exchange and difficulties in meeting their food needs
through commercial channels. Assistance has been provided on a
government-to-government basis by selling U.S. agriculture
commodities on credit terms. In recent years the demand for
food assistance using credit financing has fallen, mostly
because worldwide commercial interest rates have been
relatively low.
For example in 2006, we signed only three government-to-
government credit agreements compared to seven in 2002. As
recently as 1993, 22 title I agreements were signed followed by
a continuing decline in the use of this program in the last 14
years.
We're not requesting any additional funding for Public Law
480 title I in 2008. However the budget recommends using the
savmaping from title I to boost title II donations.
BILL EMERSON HUMANITARIAN TRUST
USDA also manages the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust which
serves as a commodity reserve for the Public Law 480 program.
This reserve is available to meet emergency, humanitarian food
needs in developing countries relying on the United States to
respond to unanticipated food crises with U.S. commodities.
We currently have 915,000 metric tons of wheat in the trust
and $107 million in cash. Cash provides the flexibility needed
to purchase appropriate commodities based on availability and
the specific need. In holding commodities we incur storage
costs; holding 915,000 metric tons of wheat is costing more
than $9 million each year or about $10 per ton. Cash allows us
to respond much more quickly to a food crisis because we can
easily purchase commodities whereas swapping what we have in
the trust for what we need to provide consumes precious time
and risks the loss of lives to hunger and starvation.
UPCOMING ISSUES
This year several food assistance issues will come to the
forefront of the domestic and international arenas. I chair the
Food Assistance Policy Council, which is composed of senior
representatives from USDA, USAID, the State Department and the
Office of Management and Budget. Over the years this group has
made significant progress in ensuring policy coordination with
food assistance programs.
At our last meeting we discussed several issues including
food aid quality, the administration's 2007 farm bill proposals
and the challenges faced in the World Trade Organization. One
of the topics addressed was whether current food aid
formulations and product manufacturing processes address the
needs of at risk recipients and reflect the best available
science. We share the concerns of many stakeholders interested
in the performance of these food aid programs, most notably the
quality of commodities provided under the programs.
Some of the shared issues or concerns include delays in
updating existing contract specifications, whether the use of
current contract specifications will result in the acquisition
of desired products and adequate testing procedures designed to
ensure purchased products meet contract specifications.
In order to address these concerns, USDA is taking the
initiative to do an in-depth review of the types and quality of
food products used in the administration of U.S. food aid
programs.
We also plan to continue our efforts of reviewing the
existing contract specifications used to obtain food aid
commodities and improving our post production commodity
sampling and testing regime based on sound scientific
standards.
Recently I had the opportunity to meet with some of the
leadership in the PVO community. We share the belief that both
the quality and formulation of food aid products are crucial to
delivering safe, wholesome products to undernourished
populations, particularly vulnerable groups including infants
and young children, women of child bearing age and people
living with HIV/AIDS. Currently, we are reviewing our options
for the nutritional quality and cost effectiveness of
commodities being provided as food assistance.
Our goal would be to have consultations with nutritionists,
scientists, commodity associations, the World Food Programme,
the PVO community, SUSTAIN, and congressional committees to
make sure that all viewpoints are heard. We want to ensure that
the food aid we provide is the highest caliber and meets the
nutritional requirements necessary to address chronic hunger.
On January 31, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
unveiled the administration's 2007 farm bill proposal. This
proposal recommends a significant policy change in food aid
programs by providing the ability to use up to 25 percent of
Public Law 480 title II funds each year to purchase commodities
grown in the region experiencing an emergency situation.
The change would provide the flexibility needed to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. food aid assistance
efforts. As you are aware, food aid is a subject of discussions
in the WTO negotiations. In the negotiations, the United States
continues to strongly defend our ability to use food aid in
emergency and non-emergency situations. Cash and in-kind food
aid should be treated equally and face the same operational
disciplines and transparency provisions.
A variety of programming options must remain available to
ensure that food aid programs can be tailored to local needs
and that sales do not disrupt local markets or displace
commercial imports. The monetization of food aid to create
funds for supporting projects that result in increased economic
activity and thereby directly confront poverty should also
continue. As the United States has repeatedly stated, we seek
to help lift poor families out of poverty by helping
governments design projects that are self sustaining.
As you see, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bennett, there are a
number of outstanding issues in the year ahead but through all
of the discussions and debate we must remain focused on our
primary goal, to ensure that food needs of poor, hungry people
are met with the long-term goal of helping needy countries help
themselves through capacity building and economic development
activities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
USDA is proud of the role it plays in helping developing
countries overcome hunger and malnutrition. Again thank you,
Mr. Chairman for allowing me to present USDA's budget and
policies for food aid. I look forward to any comments or
questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark E. Keenum
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to come
before you today to discuss the food aid programs operated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
One of the most significant and compelling challenges the world
faces is eradicating chronic hunger and malnourishment. The United
States continues its efforts to confront this challenge. We are the
world's leading food aid provider. Through our government programs,
U.S. citizens have supplied around 55 percent of total foreign food
assistance over the past 10 years. These programs strive to alleviate
hunger and provide development assistance to lift millions of
individuals out of poverty.
Current Food Aid Programs
Three food aid programs administered by USDA are making a
difference in the lives of poor and hungry people--the Food for
Progress Program, the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program, and the Public Law 480, Title I (Public
Law 480, Title I) Program. These programs support international
assistance and development activities that alleviate hunger and improve
nutrition, education, and agriculture in some of the world's poorest
countries. By using direct donations and concessional sales of U.S.
agricultural commodities we are able to accomplish much. With our
budget request for 2008, we plan to accomplish more.
Food for Progress Program
During the past two decades, the Food for Progress program has
supplied over 12 million metric tons of commodities to developing
countries and emerging democracies committed to introducing and
expanding free enterprise in the agricultural sector. Commodity
purchases totaling nearly $3 billion over this period for Food for
Progress programming have been handled through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC).
During fiscal year 2006, the United States provided more than
215,000 metric tons of CCC-funded commodities valued at about $125
million under this program. This effort supported 19 developing
countries that were making commitments to introduce or expand free
enterprise elements in their agricultural sectors. Again this year,
more than 215,000 tons of commodities will be provided. More than 2
million people in 11 countries, including in Afghanistan, throughout
Africa, and in Central America, will be fed by this program this fiscal
year. In fiscal 2008, the President's budget provides an estimated
program level of $163 million for Food for Progress grant agreements
carried out with CCC funds.
McGovern-Dole Program
Another highly successful program is the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. It helps
support education, child development, and food security in low-income,
food-deficit countries that are committed to universal education.
This year we will feed nearly 2.5 million people in 15 developing
countries, including Cambodia, Guatemala, and Malawi, with the $99
million appropriated funding level. We appreciate the strong support
this program has received from members of Congress. In fiscal year
2008, we are requesting $100 million for the McGovern-Dole program.
This amount will be supplemented by an estimated $8 million to be
received from the Maritime Administration for cargo preference
reimbursements.
In the last 5 years, the McGovern-Dole program has helped feed more
than 10 million children in more than 40 countries. For example, last
year, USDA awarded Counterpart International (CPI) a grant to provide
more than 9,000 tons of commodities for use in Senegal. This McGovern-
Dole project is using vegetable oil, textured soy-protein, and barley
to feed nearly 18,000 primary school children and 1,800 pre-school
children over a 3-year period. The proceeds from the sale of soybean
oil are being used to improve school sanitation, repair schools, and
improve the skills of teachers. The project includes a maternal and
child health component, which provides take-home rations to needy
mothers with young children. It also provides a growth monitoring and
promotion program, along with a health education and assistance
campaign. The leader of one of the villages in which the school feeding
project is being conducted told the visiting U.S. Ambassador to Senegal
that, ``We have already seen immediate results from this program as
students are able to stay in school longer and learn more each day.''
This McGovern-Dole school feeding program provides hot daily meals to
students, permitting them to remain in the classroom and learn for
longer periods.
The multi-year dimension of this program is vital to address
comprehensively the issue of chronic hunger. Moreover, providing meals
both at school and through take-home rations provides a powerful
incentive for children to remain in school. Government-to-government
partnerships coupled with the important resources provided by the PVO
community are vital to sustain these programs and ensure success.
Public Law 480, Title I Program
Historically, the Public Law 480, Title I program has been geared
primarily toward countries with a shortage of foreign exchange and
difficulty in meeting their food needs through commercial channels.
Assistance has been provided on a government-to-government basis by
selling U.S. agricultural commodities on credit terms. In recent years,
the demand for food assistance using credit financing has fallen,
mostly because worldwide commercial interest rates have been relatively
low. For example in 2006, we signed only three government-to-government
credit agreements compared to seven in 2002. As recently as 1993, 22
Title I agreements were signed, followed by a continuing decline over
the past 14 years. We are not requesting any additional funding for
Public Law 480, Title I for 2008. However, the budget recommends that
all Public Law 480 assistance be provided through Title II donations.
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
USDA also manages the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which serves
as a backstop commodity reserve for the Public Law 480 program. This
reserve is available to meet emergency humanitarian food needs in
developing countries, allowing the United States to respond to
unanticipated food crises with U.S. commodities. We currently have
915,000 metric tons of wheat in the Trust and $107 million in cash.
Cash provides the flexibility we need to purchase appropriate
commodities based on availability and the specific need. With
commodities, we must pay storage costs. Holding the 915,000 metric tons
of wheat is costing more than $9 million each year or about $10 per
ton. Finally, cash allows us to respond much more quickly to a food
crisis because we can easily purchase commodities, whereas swapping
what we have in the Trust for what we need to provide consumes precious
time and risks the loss of lives to hunger and starvation.
Upcoming Issues
This year several food assistance issues will come to the fore in
the domestic and international arenas. I chair the Food Assistance
Policy Council, which is composed of senior representatives from USDA,
USAID, the Department of State, and the Office of Management and
Budget. Over the years, this group has made significant progress in
ensuring policy coordination of food assistance programs under the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act and the Food for
Progress Act. At our last meeting, we discussed several issues,
including food aid quality, the Administration's 2007 Farm Bill
proposals, and the challenges facing food aid policy in the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
One of the topics addressed was whether current food aid
formulations and product manufacturing practices address the needs of
at-risk recipients and reflect the best available science. For more
than 40 years, USDA and USAID have provided micronutrient fortified
food commodities to vulnerable, food-insecure populations. We share the
concerns of the large number of stakeholders interested in improving
the performance of these food aid programs, most notably the quality of
commodities provided under the programs. Some of the shared issues of
concern include delays in updating existing contract specifications,
whether the use of current contract specifications result in the
acquisition of desired products, and adequate testing procedures
designed to ensure purchased products meet contract specifications.
In order to address the concerns, we are taking the initiative to
do an in-depth review of the types and quality of food products used in
the administration of U.S. food aid programs. We would also continue
our efforts of reviewing the existing contract specifications used to
obtain food aid commodities, and improving our post-production
commodity sampling and testing regime based upon sound scientific
standards.
Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the leadership
in the PVO community. We share the belief that both the quality and
formulation of food aid products are crucial to delivering safe,
wholesome products to undernourished populations, particularly
vulnerable groups including infants and young children, women of child-
bearing age and people living with HIV/AIDS. Currently, we are
reviewing options to review the nutritional quality and cost-
effectiveness of commodities being provided as food assistance. Our
goal will be to have consultations with nutritionists, scientists,
commodity associations, the World Food Program, the PVO community, and
SUSTAIN to make sure all viewpoints are heard. We want to ensure that
the food aid we provide is of the highest caliber to meet the
nutritional requirements necessary to address chronic hunger.
On January 31, USDA Secretary Johanns unveiled the Administration's
2007 Farm Bill proposal. The Farm Bill proposal recommends a
significant policy change in food aid programs--providing the ability
to use up to 25 percent of Public Law 480, Title II, annual funds to
purchase commodities grown in the region experiencing an emergency
situation. The change would provide the flexibility needed to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. food aid assistance efforts.
As you are aware, food aid is a subject of discussion in the WTO
negotiations. In the negotiations, the United States continues to
strongly defend our ability to use food aid in emergency and non-
emergency situations. Emergency food aid should not be disciplined
because flexibility must be maintained to respond to people in crisis.
Non-emergency food aid should only be disciplined to ensure that it
does not displace commercial sales. Cash and in-kind food aid should be
treated equally in operational disciplines and transparency provisions.
A variety of programming options must remain available to ensure
that food aid programs can be tailored to local needs and that sales do
not disrupt local markets or displace commercial imports. The
monetization of food aid to create funds for supporting projects that
result in increased economic activity and thereby directly confront
poverty should continue. As the United States has repeatedly stated in
these negotiations, we seek to help lift poor families out of poverty
by helping governments design projects that are self-sustaining.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of outstanding
issues in the year ahead. But through all the discussions and debate,
we must remain focused on our primary goal--to ensure that the food
needs of poor and hungry people are met, with the long-term goal of
helping needy countries help themselves through capacity building and
economic development activities. USDA is proud of the role it plays in
helping developing countries overcome hunger and malnutrition.
I want to thank you for allowing me to present USDA's budget and
policies on food aid. I look forward to any comments or questions you
may have. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you for a fine statement, Dr. Keenum.
Mr. Kunder.
STATEMENT OF JAMES KUNDER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED
STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Kunder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, Senator
Bennett, on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, we very much appreciate your
interest in this topic.
We have one of the toughest jobs, but one of the best jobs
in the U.S. Government and that is to work in 90 of the world's
most difficult environments both on the front lines of U.S.
national security, and to project the humanitarian instincts of
the American people. Food aid, we believe, is central, both to
protecting our national security and projecting those
humanitarian instincts.
The administration is requesting $1.2 billion under title
II, and also is requesting authority to use up to 25 percent
for local or regional purchase. In my statement today, sir,
what I'd like to emphasize is the centrality of food assistance
to our work at USAID.
We have an objective, as part of our food aid strategy: ``A
world free of hunger and poverty where people live in dignity,
peace and security.'' And food aid assistance, especially the
title II program is central to that.
In my statement, which I'd like to briefly summarize, I
make six basic points. Number one, the biggest challenge we
face, as Senator Bennett was just mentioning, is the
unpredictability of the disasters we face around the world.
There are an increasing number of hungry people in the world
and those natural disasters and conflicts make the delivery of
food assistance to them particularly difficult.
Number two, we focus our assistance on what we believe are
the most immediate, pressing emergency situations. I've tried
to describe in my statement the difficulty, including the long
supply line, of getting a ton of food from the Mississippi
Valley to, for example, Darfur province, and the many steps
along the way to do that.
Number three, we do take very seriously the statutory
requirements to deliver a substantial amount of non-emergency
food assistance so we can be looking over the horizon and
trying to head off the next wave of hunger and famine around
the world.
Number four, and this is one point I want to leave clearly
with the committee, is that we take seriously the maximization
of non-food resources towards ending hunger. For example, we
use foreign assistance dollars provided by the Congress that
are non-title II funds to directly address hunger problems
around the world, such as through a very effective famine early
warning system that allows us to target our food aid to the
areas of greatest need.
That famine early warning system is not funded through the
title II resources provided by the Congress. The many other
programs that affect hunger around the world, such as HIV/AIDS
prevention activities, and vaccinations for children who may be
suffering from malnutrition, also come from non-title II
resources.
Number five, we try to coordinate very carefully with our
colleagues at USDA. We have an excellent relationship, working
closely on issues such as food quality. I just came back from
Afghanistan where I saw some of our USDA colleagues working
with our USAID colleagues in provincial reconstruction teams
out in the most isolated portions of Afghanistan helping to
fight the war on terror there.
Number six, and my last point, is that I believe we need to
make some critical changes to make food aid a 21st century
program. We believe that local purchase is critical in this
regard.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I know there's been some discussion about whether we need
further study of this. While we have not done local purchase
with the title II provided resources, the World Food Programme
and Non Governmental Organization (NGOs) we work with, have
substantial experience in local and regional purchase. So I
would be glad to provide additional information to the
committee but this is something on which there is a wealth of
experience among those organizations.
Those are the points that I tried to make, sir. I'd be glad
to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Kunder
Chairman Kohl, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the Administration's
request for fiscal year 2008 funding for Public Law 480 Title II food
aid.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff
for supporting the Title II program, which has been critical in the
battle against hunger around the globe. Title II provides food aid in
response to emergencies and disasters through Private Voluntary
Organizations (PVOs) and the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) as
well as through PVOs for development-oriented programs to address the
root causes of food insecurity.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an
independent Federal Government agency that receives overall foreign
policy guidance from the Secretary of State, provides economic,
development and humanitarian assistance to over 90 countries around the
world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States.
Last year, Ambassador Randall Tobias was named as both the USAID
Administrator and the first Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance. In
this latter role, he has authority over all Department of State and
USAID foreign assistance funding and is charged with ensuring that
foreign assistance is used as effectively as possible to meet broad
foreign policy objectives.
The security of the American people depends on global stability and
prosperity. The foreign aid reform process that Secretary Rice and
Ambassador Tobias have launched has resulted in an fiscal year 2008
budget request that aims to make more effective use of taxpayer's money
in helping meet these goals. The budget request was a collaborative
effort that drew extensively from the expertise found across agencies.
It is focused on maximizing country progress by addressing specific,
critical gaps in their development and to help recipient countries move
from a relationship defined by dependence to one of partnership.
The Administration's fiscal year 2008 request for Title II food aid
reflects this focus. The Administration has requested $1.219 billion in
Title II food aid, along with the authority to use up to 25 percent of
appropriated funds for local and regional procurement in emergency and
other food security crisis situations. This request continues our
commitment to addressing the most severe and critical emergency food
aid needs, while increasing funding predictability for non-emergency or
development food aid programs.
Although the request is similar to previous years in many respects,
I would like to use this opportunity to describe--in six points--our
perspective on the changing context of food aid; our past practices
using appropriated Title II funding; and our proposal for the use of
the requested fiscal year 2008 funding. Integration is the common
thread running throughout these remarks--integration of emergency and
non-emergency resources, integration of food aid and other development
resources, and integration of the efforts of USAID with other
departments and agencies involved in development programming.
First, the greatest challenge we face is the unpredictable nature of
emergencies and their increasing frequency
Devastating wars and natural disasters have often brought in their
wake an emergency food crisis. However, over the last 5 to 10 years, we
have seen a significant increase in the numbers of people affected.
Take drought, for example. There have been droughts periodically
for thousands of years. But now droughts in Africa are affecting
communities increasingly characterized by a deep and widespread
poverty, an anemic agricultural base, a lack of access to markets, and
poor governance and policies. Over the last decade, we have seen large
population groups--pastoralists in East Africa, poor farmers in the
Sahel, HIV/AIDS-affected populations in southern Africa--whose lives
and livelihoods are at severe risk. These groups are increasingly
unable to cope with recurring droughts that used to cause major food
crises once every 10 years, then every 5 years, and now, possibly as
little as every 2 or 3 years. The cumulative effect is that more and
more people are becoming chronically vulnerable to major food crises
now triggered by relatively small changes in rainfall. What represented
a minor dearth of rainfall in the past now may trigger a food crisis.
Additional contributing factors include numerous continuing
conflicts and poor governance. Entire generations in some countries
have grown up in an atmosphere of civil unrest, if not warfare.
Conflict-ridden societies such as Sudan and Somalia currently require
food aid to sustain populations disrupted by insecurity and war.
Second, we will continue to focus emergency food aid on preventing
famine and saving lives where the need is greatest
USAID puts considerable effort throughout each year into
prioritizing the countries that receive emergency food aid. This is a
difficult task because the situations in each country cannot easily be
compared. A number of relevant factors come into play, including:
--Overall need, as measured by objective assessments of required
rations and tonnage;
--Severity of the need, as measured by malnutrition rates and other
factors;
--Ability of populations affected to cope with the emergency using
resources at their disposal;
--The amount that other donors are planning or are likely to provide;
and
--Ability of aid organizations--PVOs and WFP--to reach those most in
need and monitor distributions, both of which may be hampered
by insecurity, government actions or logistical constraints.
It should be underscored that emergency food assistance is extended
to people in need regardless of the political regime they live under
and the actions of their countries' leaders, provided that adequate
access and monitoring of the food aid is allowed. Such a policy is a
long and proud American tradition that spans administrations and one
that this administration holds dear. For example, the United States was
the largest food aid provider to Afghanistan during Taliban rule, and
this is remembered by the people of Afghanistan.
To grasp the complexity of USAID's emergency food aid operations,
consider Darfur and our efforts to deliver sorghum to over three
million beleaguered people in numerous camps spread across an area
about the size of Texas.
--In the United States, sorghum is grown primarily in Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and California.
--Harvested sorghum is either stored by farmers or sold to grain
traders.
--When WFP or a PVO identifies a specific need, such as in Darfur
where people traditionally eat sorghum, USAID asks USDA's
office in Kansas City to put out a tender for bids.
--Traders, or farmers themselves, bid to supply the sorghum, and USDA
signs a contract to buy it on the open market.
--USAID and USDA jointly contract for the transport of the sorghum,
frequently using rail and river barges, to U.S. ports, often to
the Gulf coast.
--USAID, WFP and PVOs contract for shipping, the vast majority of
which is on U.S.-flagged vessels, to deliver the food to Port
Sudan.
--When the food arrives in Port Sudan, WFP takes possession and
contracts Sudanese companies to truck it for thousands of miles
to warehouses in the three Darfur states.
--From that point, WFP and PVOs, with their own fleet or local
commercial truckers, carry the food through often dangerous
areas to camps or other distribution sites, where it is
provided to people who have received ration cards stating their
family size and quantity of ration.
Geographically, El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, is
literally in the heart of Africa, further from any ocean than any other
city on the continent. This operation is a complex, critical lifeline
from farmers in the United States to the heart of Africa--fragile at
certain points, and subject to disruption--that spells the difference
between life and death for over three million people. As an operation
in what the State Department's recently released Human Rights Report
calls the worst human rights situation in the world today, our
operation in Darfur is of critical importance to the United States.
In 2008, it is likely that some of the current food crises could
still be with us. For example, there are likely to be continuing
emergency food aid needs in Sudan and elsewhere due to conflict, and in
the Horn of Africa due to the lingering impact of drought in the
context of extreme poverty. We do not know at this stage how large the
needs will be. In addition, the needs for Southern Africa are
particularly uncertain due to flooding in some parts of the region and
poor rains in other parts.
Third, we will continue to focus non-emergency food aid in the most
food insecure countries
In 2005, USAID issued a new Food Aid Strategic Plan. This plan
seeks to make the best use of Title II food aid resources by allocating
resources to the most vulnerable people in order to help build
resiliency, enabling them to withstand the next drought or flood and,
therefore, decrease dependency on food aid in the future.
We are focusing the food aid resources available for non-emergency
programs on the most food insecure countries. Resources that were
historically spread across over 30 countries are now being
concentrated. This will allow us to address the most pressing food
security needs on a scale that will have a greater impact (especially
in the countries that continue to need emergency food aid) and to
reduce the need for emergency food aid over time.
To avoid abrupt changes and disrupting on-going programs, the
initial focus of the prioritization effort was limited in scope to
countries with ongoing PVO programs. In 2006 and to date in 2007,
grants for programs that were not in the most food insecure countries
were not renewed, and funds were shifted to support programs in the
most food insecure countries.
In 2008, under the new Foreign Assistance Framework and reform
process, we anticipate taking the next logical step, reviewing the most
food insecure countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance (not just
Title II non-emergency funding) and considering, for example, where and
how to implement non-emergency food aid programs that would be highly
effective, regardless of whether they originally had ongoing PVO
programs. In this way, we can take advantage of opportunities to assist
people in the most food insecure countries at crucial turning points--
for example, the transition from humanitarian relief to development in
post-conflict situations--where concentrated food aid efforts could
play a critical role.
The prioritization process has given us the ability to make a much
stronger and tighter justification for the use of food aid resources in
countries that have received priority designation. Since this
prioritization effort started, the steady decline in funding levels for
non-emergency programs has been reversed. We are confident that
prioritization, coupled with increasing integration into country
operational planning in the Foreign Assistance Framework and increasing
emphasis on performance, will strengthen non-emergency food aid
programs across the board.
In 2008, we anticipate our largest non-emergency food aid programs
will be in Haiti, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Mozambique.
Fourth, to have the greatest impact, we will increasingly seek to
integrate food aid resources with other funding resources, to
address both emergency situations as well as chronic needs
Despite the investments and the progress made over the past 50
years, nearly 850 million people are still food insecure. And though
the Administration sees itself as playing a critical role in addressing
short-term food needs and saving lives, it recognizes that simply
feeding people from one day to the next is not going to end hunger.
While Title II provides funds for transport and distribution of
commodities, we and our partners also need cash to fund other
components of development food aid programs. PVOs monetize some of our
food aid, selling locally and using the proceeds to implement
activities that are part of the broader Title II program, such as
training agricultural extension workers. But there are limits to the
extent this can be done and we need to be careful not to have negative
effects on local markets and production.
USAID therefore draws upon funds from other accounts to complement
Title II resources. To improve our emergency response, for example, we
use non-Title II resources to:
--Manage a worldwide Famine Early Warning System, which has been
instrumental in identifying those places likely to need food
aid and helping us target that assistance within those
countries; and
--Provide non-food assistance for those in need, such as
vaccinations, health care, potable water, shelter and other
necessities.
To forestall potential food crises in Ethiopia, we have used
International Disaster and Famine Assistance funds designated for
famine prevention and relief to help link pastoralists who had animals
that were dying due to a drought to traders who were willing to
purchase the animals that were still in a relatively healthy State. In
this way, we were able to help prevent the pastoralists from becoming
destitute and becoming dependent upon food aid for their survival.
To address the underlying causes of food insecurity in our non-
emergency programs, we often seek to integrate Title II and other
funding sources in the same programs, joint-funding PVOs. In Haiti, for
example, we use Child Survival and Health funds to train health care
workers to monitor the growth of young children who are receiving food
aid under the Title II component of the program. In Mozambique,
Development Assistance funds are used, in conjunction with Title II
funds, to support road rehabilitation and help farmers get their
products to market more quickly and get fair prices.
As mentioned above, under the new Foreign Assistance Framework,
USAID and the State Department will work to integrate all foreign
assistance resources toward a number of objectives designed to help
host countries sustain their efforts at advancing development.
We anticipate that we will also accelerate the integration of Title
II non-emergency programs with other resources that will improve the
predictability of funding levels. While this is new and still a
developing process, we have high hopes that over time we can
significantly increase the impact of Title II programs.
Fifth, USAID works closely with the State Department, USDA, and our
implementing partners in every aspect of the program
Under the foreign aid reforms, USAID continues to work closely with
the State Department in focusing resources on important foreign aid
goals.
USAID and State have begun to strengthen the coordination between
the Office of Food for Peace and the Office of the Global AIDS
Coordinator as linkages between food and HIV/AIDS have become clearer,
and we will accelerate these efforts in the coming year. Our task is to
find ways to integrate food aid and related resources into HIV/AIDS
programs, and to adapt food security programs so that HIV-affected
households participate in and benefit from activities aimed at reducing
food insecurity at the community level.
We also continue to work closely with USDA to approve commodity
specifications, purchase commodities, arrange ocean discharge surveys
and investigate commodity quality issues. When unanticipated needs for
emergency programs exceed available funding levels, USAID also works
with USDA to access the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust.
Because we share the common objective of feeding the hungry and
saving lives, we have a long tradition of close collaboration with the
PVO community. This extends to technical issues as well as on
monitoring and evaluation. We support PVO efforts directly through
institutional capacity building grants totaling several million dollars
each year.
In terms of emergency food aid, we have been focusing our efforts
on encouraging other donors to increase their food aid contributions.
We do this through extensive diplomatic discussions, bilaterally in
capitals, in the field and through the Food Aid Convention, an
agreement among 22 countries to commit to minimum levels of food aid.
We are working closely with other food aid donors under the Convention
to improve food aid assessments, and to help sharpen donor attention on
the importance of reaching a consensus on food-related commitments that
will reduce specific threats to vulnerable populations.
In addition, we strongly support, and are especially pleased with,
the efforts of WFP to expand its donor base beyond its strong reliance
on the United States.
--Over the past 5 years, the number of WFP donors has grown from 60
to 97, an increase of 62 percent.
--In 2006, 12 new donors provided support to WFP operations, making
the majority of donors now non-OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development) countries.
As a result, while U.S. funding for WFP has increased in absolute
terms, the U.S. share of all WFP contributions has decreased from 63
percent in 2001 ($935 million out of a total WFP budget of $1.81
billion) to 44 percent in 2006 ($1.22 billion out of a total WFP budget
of $2.8 billion).
Sixth, to allow us to address the challenges of the 21st Century, we
will need reform of the food aid system
While we are currently undergoing a thorough review of all food aid
reform issues in anticipation of the Farm Bill, and look forward to the
full findings of a soon-to-be completed GAO review of food aid, there
is one issue that is so important that we have been seeking it in
recent appropriation requests and will seek it in the Farm Bill this
year--the authority to use part of Title II as cash for local
procurement to address emergency needs.
The long lead-time required to order and deliver U.S. food aid--
normally up to 4 months--means that we often need to make decisions
well before needs are known. In some cases, the need is sudden, such as
during a flood or an outbreak of fighting. In other cases, there is an
unanticipated pipeline break, or even a short-lived cease fire allowing
aid agencies to enter places previously inaccessible because of
security issues where, typically, we find people that have been cut off
from food for some time.
Even in the case of drought we are challenged to get food to people
on time. There have been great advances in the ability to predict and
track rainfall, undertake post-rains harvest assessments, and follow
changing prices, resulting in better early warning. While we can often
predict the impact of poor rains on crops, it is difficult to predict
its impact on the ability of people to purchase enough food to eat. In
the Sahel in 2005, for example, merely below-average rains and a
marginally weak harvest, known well in advance, resulted in an
unexpected major crisis because these conditions were compounded by
unpredictable trade flows among neighboring countries. This drew food
away from regions with very poor populations, causing price spikes
there and an urgent need for food aid.
While it is impossible to predict the location and extent of
emergencies that would require local procurement each year, the
Administration would have considered using this authority for the
immediate response to Iraq in 2003, to the Asian tsunami in 2004, in
southern Africa and Niger in 2005, in Lebanon in 2006 and in East
Africa in 2006 and 2007. We anticipate that purchases would occur in
developing countries (in accordance with the OECD Development
Assistance Committee List of Official Development Assistance
recipients).
Let me assure you that our U.S-grown food will continue to play the
primary role and will be the first choice in meeting global needs. If
provided this authority by the Congress, we would plan to use local and
regional purchases judiciously, in those situations where fast delivery
of food assistance is critical to saving lives.
We ask that you seriously consider our proposal and the critical
role this authority could play in saving lives of the most vulnerable
populations. We are willing to work with you to address your concerns
and move forward to provide the needed flexibility.
As we look ahead, let me assure you that the Administration remains
committed to its role in supplying food aid to vulnerable people. We
have fought and won many battles in the fight against hunger and
malnutrition. Our programs have saved millions of lives, averted
famine, and helped countries lift themselves out of poverty and
dependence.
We at USAID are very proud to have played a part in the
extraordinary story of U.S. food aid, and we are committed to making
still more progress, with the support of the Congress and our partners,
in achieving greater food security in the years to come. I would again
like to thank you for the support that your Subcommittee has given to
assist the Administration in addressing food security needs abroad,
demonstrating to the world the great heart of the American people as
well as furthering our national security at home.
Senator Kohl. Thank you for a very good statement, Mr.
Kunder. Dr. Keenum, McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program helps promote education,
child development and food security for some of the world's
poorest children, provides for donations of U.S. agricultural
products as well as financial and technical assistance for
school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low
income countries and nearly seven million children were fed
from 2001 to 2003.
What effect has the McGovern-Dole program had on school
attendance, especially for girls?
Dr. Keenum. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
There's been a review of the status and the progress that
has been made on the McGovern-Dole program. A study that was
conducted last April and was actually submitted to Congress,
reviewed the program since implementation, and it showed that
attendance of schools that were participating in the program,
increased by 14 percent and for girls, the increase was 17
percent. So we've seen a pretty significant increase in
attendance in schools as a direct result of the McGovern-Dole
program.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. What is being done to make sure
that the levels of enrollment are sustained and are the
recipient governments helping?
Dr. Keenum. Yes sir. We're working very closely with our
implementing partners. The McGovern-Dole program works with
local communities, parent-teacher organizations, and the
Federal Governments of recipient countries. When the
applications are made for the McGovern-Dole program, the way I
understand it, the applicant has to lay out a plan for how
they're going to sustain themselves and not be continually
dependent on the U.S. Government for this program. The
organizations lay out a plan that shows how they are going to
sustain themselves and graduate from the McGovern-Dole program.
In fact, recently, we've had four countries who were
participating in the McGovern-Dole program who have graduated--
Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and Vietnam. USDA continues to go
back and monitor these countries, in particular, Lebanon, which
had graduated before the war episode happened this past year.
So we're going back and we're looking to see if Lebanon
needs to be re-enrolled in the McGovern-Dole program based on
the circumstances in their country now. So yes, sir, we're
working very closely with the local leaders that are involved
in this program.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Dr. Keenum, a question on food aid
quality. People with HIV/AIDS, the elderly and other vulnerable
populations need food with special nutrients. The 2002 farm
bill requires the establishment of a program to study food aid
quality to make sure that the food is culturally appropriate
and also nutritious.
We've had requests from members to study this issue. How
important are nutrient fortified foods for improving our food
aid programs?
Dr. Keenum. I think very important, Mr. Chairman. I've been
in this current job for about a little over 2 months and I've
been learning a great deal about food aid and I'm asking a lot
of questions.
The Farm Service Agency, has an office in Kansas City and
it is responsible for procuring all the commodities that we use
for international food aid. I've talked to leaders in the PVO
community who have a concern about the quality of our products
and I've asked our staff to put together a plan on what we can
do to evaluate our food procurement programs both on our
contract specifications, and having an adequate audit and
testing provision in place. This will ensure that the products
that we order are what we ordered. We want to test them and
ensure that a sound system is in place.
There's also a third component of this that we're going to
pursue and we're going to work with our colleagues in USAID to
talk about the quality of the actual products for these
different groups who are at risk as you mentioned. People
dealing with HIV/AIDS, expectant mothers, the elderly, or young
children, they all have different nutritional needs, and we
need to develop the product that's cost effective and efficient
to deliver and meets their unique nutritional needs.
That's one of the things that I'm going to be committed to
working towards in my position. I've talked with members of the
committee staff and even informed them of what we're doing and
we're going to look to see if we can reallocate any funds
within USDA to start this process. We will work with the
stakeholders, SUSTAIN and other PVO leaders, work with
academics to address this issue and I've committed to keep this
committee fully apprised of what our plan will entail on this
very important issue of food quality.
Senator Kohl. Alright. Dr. Keenum, in your opinion will
eliminating the requirement that food must be purchased in the
United States and shipped on U.S. flagships, would that effect
the support in our country for food aid programs?
Dr. Keenum. Well, Mr. Chairman, I try to put things in
perspective. I wear a lot of hats at USDA. One of the other
hats I wear is working with our promotion programs for
exporting U.S. agriculture commodities. We export 200 million
metric tons of U.S. grain and oil seed products in the
commercial export market.
United States programs only contribute and I shouldn't say
only because it's quite a bit, but we contribute only 2.8
million metric tons of grains and oil seeds through food aid.
If you do the math, that's less than 1\1/2\ percent of all the
grains and oil seeds that we export.
I think Senator Bennett described it very well. The
administration's position is there for emergency purposes and
if we need to go in and we need to respond immediately to save
lives then we have another tool in our tool box to do that. If
we can't find the commodities in the local community then we're
going to buy U.S. commodities. If we use the 25 percent in a
given year then that's only affecting 25 percent of less than
1\1/2\ percent of all the grain and oil seeds that we export in
the commercial channels. So, in the scheme of things it's
pretty small as far as an impact on our commodity industries.
Senator Kohl. Okay. Mr. Kunder, the President's budget
proposes to allow up to 25 percent of food aid to be provided
in cash for local in-country purchases. The budget has included
similar language over the last few years and that has been
rejected soundly by Congress.
If cash is used for local or regional purchases, how do you
ensure that food is available for purchases and food purchases
are safe, nutritious and proper for food aid assistance? Would
local households manage cash better than they would actual
food?
Mr. Kunder. As we envision how this would work, the local
purchase would still involve dealing with the NGOs or the
highly competent international organizations, such as the World
Food Program, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
They would be the people managing the pipeline.
So that the experts who are now ensuring access by the most
disadvantaged groups and ensuring quality control would still
be the ultimate distributors of the food assistance to the
people who need it the most. It would just be where that food
is coming from that differs. Also, we would require both local
market analysis and quality control, as we would expect from
these highly competent organizations who have been doing this
for a long time.
I completely agree with everything Under Secretary Keenum
just said. We do need to take a look at ways we can improve
quality control but I do not believe that local purchase
authority, up to 25 percent, would affect either quality or
access by the poorest people in the country.
Senator Kohl. That's good to hear. Thank you, Mr. Kunder.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've asked some
of the questions that I would have asked as well. So let me
stray into a different area but I think it's related to what
we're talking about and certainly it is long term.
Dr. Keenum, you talk about the importance of teaching
someone to become self sufficient rather than just providing
food, particularly in the areas where we're talking about in
Africa, one of the major ways that they could become more self
sufficient would be if they adopted the use of genetically
modified organisms.
A plant, with changing a single gene, as I understand it
the average plant has about 50 genes which means it's very
simple compared to the human genome project. By changing a
single gene you can make it drought resistant. I think we're
facing very significant drought conditions in the relatively
short term.
Our European friends call this ``Frankenfood.'' They've
managed to scare the Africans into believing that their
population will be poisoned if they allow this in and yet
25,000 people a day are dying and they could raise their own
food that would be drought resistant or predator resistant, you
change a single gene and the bug that eats this particular
plant no longer likes it and you don't have to use pesticides
because the pest is no longer there.
The implications of being able to feed those 25,000 people
without major budget increases here, without some of the
challenges we face, are enormous. Is USDA doing anything to try
to convince somebody, somewhere that the introduction of GMOs
into their local growing procedures could solve their problem
and give us a poster child that we can point to in sub-Saharan
Africa and say to the other people, look, nobody's dying,
nobody's growing up with three heads or only two fingers, or
any of the rest of kinds of scare stories that we hear about
``Frankenfood.''
Can't we find some partner somewhere to try drought
resistant or pest resistant food genetic changes and then
produce a harvest that can save these 25,000 people per day?
Dr. Keenum. Well, I think you outlined the situation
excellently, Senator. There's no doubt improvements in
technology and production of agricultural commodities is
remarkable. We see it here in the United States in our
bountiful production capabilities and what we can do and it's
directly, in a large part, attributed back to genetically
modified improvements and developments we've made in the crops
that we produce.
The USDA does do outreach work in developing countries in
Africa and other parts of the world on technologies that we
have available and I'll be honest with you, I'm not real
familiar with all of the intricate details and what all we're
doing in an outreach standpoint in that regard, but I do know
it is ongoing. We do this type of work.
I think that the more examples as you described where we
can show successes, I think it will catch on. We are seeing
other countries that we compete with that are adapting to these
new varieties and they're becoming more and more apt at it and
we're having to be more competitive. Countries where there had
been resistance in the past are seeing the light, as you say
and are making these significant transitions.
We will continue our efforts. I do know in some of the food
aid activities through Food for Progress when we can provide
commodities to PVOs, who are working to help sustain local
communities, part of that can also be monetized for economic
development initiatives to address local needs. I'm hopeful
that some of the activities involve training and educating
farmers to be more productive. Then they can sustain themselves
and not be dependent on a bag of beans, as was presented here
earlier, but they can be shown the techniques and technologies
that we have available, using the existing tools that we
provide through the monetization process.
These are some of the things that are ongoing and I applaud
what you say and I could not agree more with your thoughts.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I don't want to stop sending
the bag of beans.
Dr. Keenum. No, sir.
Senator Bennett. I think there will always be a need or
sufficient demand.
Dr. Keenum. There will be a need for that, no question.
Senator Bennett. We can do that, it's an important part of
our foreign policy.
Dr. Keenum. No question.
Senator Bennett. Aside from our humanitarian activity but
we're still seeing 25,000 people a day die, regardless of how
many beans we send them and we should send them our technology
as well.
Dr. Keenum. I agree.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. The subcommittee has received a statement
from the American Dietetic Association that will be placed in
the hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Dietetic Association
It is appropriate for the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee to hold this hearing on International Food Assistance.
Hunger is intolerable in a world of plenty. Still, more than 1 billion
people worldwide currently live in poverty, earning less than $1 per
day.\1\ As a result of poverty and the related problems in obtaining
adequate, nutritious food, about 820 million people in the developing
world are undernourished.\2\ Hunger and malnutrition have negative
effects on cognitive development, growth, and health which then lead to
negative effects on labor productivity and a nation's development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ World Bank. 2006 World Development Indicators. Washington, DC:
World Bank; 2006.
\2\ State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For decades, the United States has played an important role in
addressing hunger around the world and our efforts have made it
possible for millions of people to have survived famine (more often
fanned by civil strife than crop failures). In addition, our food
assistance contributions help save lives, lead to the education of
children, create pluralism, build societies and forge friendships in
our complicated world. International food assistance is far more than
providing food--it is the connection of life and opportunity--from
those in a position to give to those in a position of need. The
benefits to everyone are incalculable--well beyond monetary
measurements, although the monetary benefits are significant.
The American Dietetic Association (ADA) commends the committee for
considering what our role can and should be in advancing nutrition and
health, as well as addressing hunger. ADA is the largest organization
of its kind and it is guided by a philosophy based on sound science and
evidence-based practice. ADA members are sought-out participants in
domestic and international discussions as they work on nearly every
aspect of food, nutrition and health.
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that it is
a human right to have access to adequate amounts of safe, nutritious,
and culturally appropriate food at all times. The Association supports
programs and encourages practices that combat hunger and malnutrition,
produce food security, promote self-sufficiency, and are
environmentally and economically sustainable.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Addressing World Hunger, Malnutrition and Food Insecurity. J Am
Diet Assoc. 2003;103:1046-1057.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this farm bill, ADA recommends food should not be used as a
sanction against other nations. The American agricultural community has
led the fight against ``food being used as a weapon.'' ADA joins them
in that stance.
ADA supports the continuation of emergency humanitarian food
assistance. Donations should not undermine local food production or
marketing systems or distort trade. Similarly, the structure of U.S.
domestic programs should not undermine food production or marketing
systems outside the United States or distort trade.
ADA supports the Dole-McGovern International Food for Education
Program for its role in feeding children and encouraging education, and
encourages its full funding.
We also bring to the committee's attention that currently, there is
no international initiative to deal with the most costly form of
malnutrition--that is from ages 0 to 2. In all other stages of life,
people can recover from malnutrition, but the impacts of nutrient
deficiencies on children in the womb and up to age 2 can never be
overcome. They include low birth weight, impaired cognitive
development, impaired immunity and reduced earning potential and
compromised life expectancy.
World Bank and others are proposing a global campaign to encourage
breast feeding, to educate parents about nutrition and to make certain
that every child--from womb to age 2--has the necessary nutrients to
live and grow to full potential. As these discussions move forward, ADA
encourages this committee to support efforts targeting those most
vulnerable to malnutrition. The socio-economic effect of addressing
malnutrition in the very young (and in their mothers) is greater than
the whole impact of global trade liberalization.
Clearly, there is significant potential benefit in addressing
international hunger, nutrition and health issues now, before
circumstances deteriorate, and to ameliorate human as well as economic
costs. We also encourage the Senate Appropriations Agriculture
Subcommittee to support and fund U.S. international food assistance
programs.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett and we
want to thank Dr. Keenum, Mr. Kunder and all of our witnesses
who've come here some from long distances to make your
statements, answer questions and offer us your wisdom and your
experience.
We plan to take the information that you've presented us
today and use it as we craft the fiscal year 2008 bill and
again, thank you so much for your contributions. This hearing
is recessed.
Dr. Keenum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at noon, Thursday, March 15, the hearing was
concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-