    [Senate Hearing 111-779]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-779

        PROMOTING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY: NEXT STEPS FOR CONGRESS AND THE
                                 ADMINISTRATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 22, 2010

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    63-233                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                    COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

                 JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut     RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin       BOB CORKER, Tennessee
    BARBARA BOXER, California            JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
    ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
    ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    JIM WEBB, Virginia                   ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
    KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
                   Frank G, Lowenstein Staff Director
            Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director

                                  (ii)

    ?

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Bertini, Hon. Catherine, former executive director of the United
      Nations World Food Programme, cochair, Global Agricultural
      Development Initiative, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs,
      Cortland, NY...................................................    35

        Prepared statement (joint statement with Secretary Glickman).    39

    Glickman, Hon. Dan, former Secretary of Agriculture, cochair,
      Global Agricultural Development Initiative, the Chicago Council
      on Global Affairs, Washington, DC..............................    37

        Prepared statement (joint statement with Ms. Bertini)........    39

    Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.............     1

    Lew, Hon. Jacob, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
      Resources, Department of State, Washington, DC.................     6

        Prepared statement...........................................     9

    Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana................     3

    Shah, Hon. Rajiv J., Administrator, U.S. Agency for International
      Development (USAID), Washington, DC............................    11

        Prepared statement...........................................    14

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Prepared statement of Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr., U.S. Senator
      from Pennsylvania..............................................    53

    Responses of Rajiv Shah to questions submitted by Senator
      Christopher J. Dodd............................................    55

    Wall Street Journal article submitted by Senator Richard G. Lugar    56

    Letter from the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities    57

    Letter from International Relief and Development Organizations...    58

    ``Farm Futures: Bringing Agriculture Back to U.S. Foreign
      Policy,'' Catherine Bertini and Dan Glickman, Foreign Affairs,
      Volume 88 No. 3................................................    59

                                     (iii)

                        PROMOTING GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY:
                          NEXT STEPS FOR CONGRESS AND
                               THE ADMINISTRATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in
    room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Shaheen,
    and Lugar.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
        Thank you all. Welcome.
        I want to thank Senator Lugar, who has been a passionate
    and committed advocate for a long time now, many decades
    really, for--on behalf of the world's hungry. And we all
    appreciate his leadership on this issue very, very much.
        We're also pleased to welcome, today, two officials who are
    the leading edge of our efforts to enhance food security,
    Deputy Secretary Lew and USAID Administrator Shah, and an
    outstanding panel of private witnesses.
        We have long viewed global hunger as one of our great,
    moral challenges. And all of us have been moved, at one point
    or another, by the stark images of hunger, of desperation, and
    particularly on the faces of the young children in many parts
    of the world. Food insecurity also poses a challenge to our
    broader development efforts, and yes, it is also a challenge to
    our national security. A lack of access to food leads to
    malnutrition, instability, and even violence. Food riots, 2
    years ago, in Cairo, Port-au-Prince, and other capitals, showed
    how food insecurity can drive conflict. And because as much as
    70 percent of the world's population is involved in agriculture
    activities, food security also has to be a cornerstone of our
    development strategy.
        As we gather here, on what is also Earth Day, we need to
    recognize that this already urgent challenge is poised to
    explode in the years ahead as climate change creates new
    strains on food supplies everywhere. I just point out to people
    that there are currently tribes fighting each other and people
    being killed in the Sudan because of desertification and
    because one tribe moves into another tribe's territory and
    tries to access the water, and there are struggles over those
    wells, and over that access to water. And it is a challenge to
    culture and to history and to tribal rights.
        The Obama administration has taken significant steps
    forward, including pledging $3.5 billion over the next 3 years,
    and establishing the Global Hunger and Food Security
    Initiative. Last year, this committee passed the Global Food
    Security Act, sponsored by Senators Lugar and Casey and myself,
    and it authorized a multiyear assistance to promote food
    security and rural development.
        To address this challenge, we need to reconnect with our
    decades-long record of success in improving agricultural
    productivity and feeding the world. We need to use our
    technology and expertise to help connect farmers with new
    possibilities and new markets. And alongside our food aid, we
    need to focus on longer term efforts designed to empower people
    in countries to meet their own food needs. That means, quite
    simply, investing in capacity-building, mechanical/technical
    assistance, improving local governance. And because small
    investments in women farmers can help feed entire villages, we
    need to make sure that our food security efforts reach the
    women, who make up 40 percent of all agricultural workers and a
    majority of the farmers in Africa.
        Taking on global food insecurity ultimately will
    significantly benefit our national security. We all understand
    that, in Afghanistan, our efforts to help farmers cultivate
    legitimate crops are crucial to rolling back the poppy
    cultivation that helps to fund the Taliban or other insurgent
    activities. And in Somalia, we've seen the World Food Programme
    forced to cut off aid to much of the country, due to threats to
    its workers and the demands of al-Shabaab. And we've also seen
    alarming reports of assistance being diverted into the hands of
    militants and corrupt contractors.
        So, this hearing comes at a moment when our international
    affairs budget is, regrettably, once again being challenged.
    Even in a tough budget environment, short-changing programs
    like these, in our judgment, will deliver little budget relief,
    at enormous negative consequence to our global efforts. The
    Defense Department budget is about $708 billion, the State
    Department budget is about 58. It totals about 1.4 percent of
    the total budget of the United States of America and one-
    sixteenth of our national security budget. And it seems to me
    that it is wrong, and we will fight against any efforts to
    reduce the President's request for a small increase, which is
    essential to the transformation of our foreign policy efforts,
    and, frankly, to the recalibration of the allocation of
    resources between defense and diplomacy in humanitarian
    efforts.
        Dr. Shah, we are very pleased to welcome you back to the
    committee. I might remind people that 1 week after Dr. Shah
    took office as Administrator of USAID, the devastation of
    Haiti's earthquake presented his agency, and him, with one of
    the most severe humanitarian disasters our hemisphere has ever
    seen. And we're all grateful for his efforts, and for those of
    his team, and for the State Department.
        In the days ahead, I plan to join with Senator Lugar and
    other colleagues in introducing a comprehensive assistance bill
    that will address Haiti's food insecurity as part of our plan
    to rebuild in a better way.
        We're also very, very pleased to have with us Deputy
    Secretary Jack Lew. I think all of us know that he is one of
    our real experts in the management and in analyzing the
    resource challenges that we face, in addressing global hunger
    and global poverty.
        On our second panel, we'll hear from two very knowledgeable
    experts: Catherine Bertini, who served as executive director of
    the World Food Programme from 1992 to 2002, and in 2003 she was
    awarded the World Food Prize for her efforts to combat hunger.
    She recently cochaired a Chicago Council on Global Affairs
    report on renewing American leadership in the fight against
    global hunger and poverty. And also, Dan Glickman, the
    Secretary of Agriculture, an old friend of this committee and
    of the Congress, a former member himself. He was Secretary of
    Agriculture from 1995 to 2001, and the Congressman from the
    Kansas 4th Congressional District for 18 years, before that.
        So, we have a lot of expertise to draw on today, and we
    look forward, very much, to this testimony.
        Senator Lugar.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Lugar. Senator Kerry, I join with you in welcoming
    our witnesses, and I thank you very much for scheduling this
    timely hearing.
        We look forward to the testimony from Secretary Lew and
    Administrator Shah, who keenly understand the role that
    alleviating hunger and poverty plays for U.S. national security
    and global stability. I look forward to their presentations of
    the administration's Global Hunger and Food Security
    Initiative.
        I also welcome Dan Glickman and Catherine Bertini, who will
    testify on the second panel. It was my privilege, when I was
    chairman of the Agriculture Committee, to welcome Secretary
    Glickman on a number of occasions, in previous life, and it's
    delightful to have him back in the Foreign Relations Committee
    today. Through their work with the Chicago Council on Global
    Affairs and other endeavors, they have elevated our
    understanding of the causes and consequences of hunger, and
    have made valuable recommendations to policymakers in the
    executive and legislative branches.
        We live in a world where more than 1 billion people suffer
    from chronic food insecurity, a figure that has increased by
    nearly 100 million people since Senator Casey and I introduced
    our legislation just last year. An estimated 25,000 people die
    each day from malnutrition-related causes. Experts advise us
    that chronic hunger leads to decreased child survival, impaired
    cognitive and physical developments of children, and weaker
    immune-system functions, including resistance to HIV/AIDS.
        These grave humanitarian consequences are sufficient cause
    for us to strengthen our approach to global food security. But,
    we have an even bigger problem. A dangerous confluence of
    factors threatens to severely limit food production in some
    regions as the world's population continues to expand. Between
    1970 and 1990, global aggregate farm yield rose by an average
    of 2 percent each year. Since 1990, however, aggregate farm
    yield has risen by an annual average of just 1.1 percent. These
    trends threaten the fundamental welfare of a large share of the
    world's population. Here are the basic parameters of the
    problem:
        First, the world's population is projected to increase to
    about 9.2 billion people by 2050. Growing affluence in China,
    India, and elsewhere, is increasing demand for resource-
    intensive meat and dairy products. As a consequence, it's
    estimated the world's farmers will have to double their output
    by 2050.
        Second, food security is closely tied to volatile energy
    costs. Farming is an energy-intensive business. Energy price
    spikes in the future may hit with even great ferocity than the
    spike in 2007-2008.
        Third, water scarcity will worsen in response to population
    growth, urbanization, land-use pressures, and the effects of
    climate change. There could be 4 billion people who suffer from
    chronic water shortages by 2050.
        Fourth, climate change is challenging farmers on every
    continent that deal with altered weather patterns, novel
    agricultural pests, and new water conditions.
        Despite these alarming trends, investments in agriculture
    have tumbled since the 1980s. In 2007, rich countries devoted a
    mere 4 percent of their foreign assistance to agriculture. In
    Africa, which has severe food problems, donor aid to the farm
    sector plunged from $4.1 billion in 1989 to just $1.9 billion
    in 2006. Africa's per capita production of corn, its most
    important staple crop, has dropped by 14 percent since 1980.
        Equally troubling are sharp cutbacks in research into new
    technologies, farming techniques, and seed varieties that could
    increase yields, cope with changing climate conditions, battle
    new pests and diseases, and make food more nutritious. Trade
    policy of both developed and developing countries has too often
    focused on protecting domestic farmers, rather than creating
    well-functioning global markets.
        These trends have troubling implications for national
    security and global stability. Hungry people are desperate
    people, and desperation can sow the seeds of radicalism.
    Without action, the frequency and intensity of food riots may
    increase. We almost certainly will have to contend with mass
    migration and intensifying health issues stemming from
    malnutrition.
        Our diplomatic efforts to maintain peace will be far more
    difficult wherever food shortages contribute to extremism and
    conflict. Our hopes for economic development in poor countries
    will continually be frustrated if populations are unable to
    feed themselves.
        In short, overcoming hunger should be one of the starting
    points for U.S. foreign policy.
        With these factors in mind, Senator Bob Casey and I
    introduced, with the support of the chairman, the Global Food
    Security Act of 2009. We believe the bill has served as a
    practical starting point for the administration's initiative
    and as a rallying point for those who agree that food security
    should play a much larger role in our national security
    strategy.
        The bill would make long-range agricultural productivity
    and rural development a top development priority. The Lugar-
    Casey bill, which was passed by the Foreign Relations Committee
    on May 13, 2009, is the product of extensive study involving
    numerous foreign-country visits and consultations with
    agriculture and development experts.
        Over the course of the last year, the administration, under
    Secretary Clinton's leadership, has undertaken its own
    intensive study of food security. As we have compared notes
    with administration officials, it has become clear that the
    Secretary's Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative has
    reached many of the same conclusions as we reached on the most
    efficient ways to expand food production and to address hunger.
        Both the Lugar-Casey bill and the Global Hunger and Food
    Security Initiative both focus on increasing agricultural
    productivity and incomes, promoting research and technology,
    being attentive to the special role of women farmers, and
    emphasizing the nutritional needs of children. Both initiatives
    would construct partnerships with host-country governments,
    indigenous organizations, institutions of higher learning, and
    the private sector.
        I am particularly pleased that discussions with the State
    Department have progressed so that we will soon be able to
    unveil a bill that represents a consensus among the
    administration, House, and Senate sponsors, and nongovernmental
    partners.
        As a farmer who has seen agriculture yields more than
    triple during my lifetime on my own family farm in Marion
    County, IN, I have faith that human ingenuity can avert a
    Malthusian disaster. But, we need to focus resources for
    innovation to take root, we have to apply all the agricultural
    tools at our disposal.
        Some take positions that effectively deny African countries
    advanced biotechnologies that could dramatically improve farm
    yield. Such positions failed to grasp the enormity of a global
    hunger threat, or the difficulty of doubling global farm yields
    in the next four decades, despite the complications that could
    result from water shortages, climate change, and many other
    unpredictable factors.
        We should partner with nations in research pursuits, based
    on their own country-led strategies: We should neither dictate
    nor withhold technological innovations from which they could
    benefit.
        I believe the the food-security challenge is an opportunity
    for the United States. We are the indisputable leader in
    agricultural technology. A more focused effort on our part to
    join with other nations to increase yields, create economic
    opportunities for the rural poor, and broaden agricultural
    knowledge, could strengthen relationships around the world and
    open up a new era in U.S. diplomacy.
        I thank the chairman, again, for holding this important
    hearing, and look forward to the discussion with our witnesses.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lugar, very much.
        Mr. Secretary, would you lead off, please, and then the
    Administrator? And we look forward to hearing from you.
        You can summarize your testimonies. The full testimony will
    be placed in the record as if read in full. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB LEW, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
     MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Lew. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar,
    members of the committee. It's really a pleasure to be here to
    have the opportunity to speak with you about the Feed for the
    Future Program, the administration's Global Hunger and Food
    Security Initiative.
        We applaud the committee, and members of this committee and
    the leadership, for the work you've done on food-security
    legislation. It's really laid a foundation, and it began well
    before our efforts on food security were undertaken. We look
    forward to continuing to work with you as we go forward and
    implement the program effectively.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments on the budget in
    your opening remarks. It's obviously a subject of deep
    importance to us. And it's central to our ability to accomplish
    all the goals that we're talking about here today, to
    accomplish our goals in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. And
    it's really a central national security priority for the
    administration. So, thank you for your leadership on that, as
    well.
        President Obama and Secretary Clinton have committed the
    United States to a new vision for development, one that
    embraces development as a strategic, economic, and moral
    imperative as central to solving global problems and advancing
    American national security as diplomacy and defense. Our goal
    is to balance, align, and leverage these three D's as we pursue
    our national objectives in accordance with our fundamental
    values. This is a core characteristic of smart power and a
    guiding principle of our work around the world.
        The strategy for Feed the Future exemplifies our new vision
    for development, more broadly. It starts with the recognition
    that food security is not just about food. It's also about
    security--national security, economic security, environmental
    security, and human security.
        In too many places, agriculture is so deteriorated that
    people cannot grow enough food to feed their families, to
    earn--or to earn an income from selling their crops. As a
    result, cities and villages throughout the developing world--
    it's often the case that food is scarce and that prices are
    volatile, and the prices are beyond what people can afford to
    pay.
        This broken system fosters hunger and, too often, poverty,
    which leads to violence and political instability. Since 2007,
    when global food prices skyrocketed, there have been food riots
    in more than 60 countries. Food insecurity also contributes to
    tensions between nations, and restrictions on exports during
    the food price crisis limited the flow of food and sent prices
    even higher in neighboring countries.
        Through the Feed the Future Program, we seek to make
    strategic, long-term investments that address the root causes
    of hunger and poverty by increasing agricultural productivity,
    boosting rural incomes, and improving household nutrition. As
    we have seen in country after country throughout history,
    agriculture can be a powerful engine for broad economic growth.
    The Green Revolution that began in the 1960s led to soaring
    productivity rates in India and other countries in Asia and
    Latin America. By improving agriculture and nutrition, the
    United States has the chance to help a significant number of
    people around the world, and, in doing so, to protect our own
    security, and lay the foundation for a more peaceful and
    prosperous world.
        Earlier this year, Secretary Clinton set forth a vision
    that reflects our strong commitment to development. Feed the
    Future reflects that vision.
        First, we're concentrating our work in specific sectors
    where we, the United States, have a comparative advantage. In
    the past, we've invested in many programs across many fields,
    often spreading ourselves too thin and reducing our impact.
    Through Feed the Future, we will target our investments and
    develop technical excellence in agriculture and nutrition to
    help catalyze broad and sustainable change in countries.
        Second, this initiative integrates our diplomatic and
    development efforts. Feed the Future will require the best of
    our development efforts in each country, and will also require
    strong, diplomatic support to coordinate with other donors and
    work with host countries.
        With that in mind, Secretary Clinton has recently named two
    very senior Foreign Service officers to lead this initiative.
    Ambassador Patricia Haslach will serve as Deputy Coordinator
    for Diplomacy, and Ambassador William Garvelink will serve as
    Deputy Coordinator for Development.
        Third, as we work to connect development and diplomacy to
    get better results, we've adopted an expansive whole-of-
    government approach. It's led by a joint team at the State
    Department and USAID, and it's my honor to be testifying here
    today with my colleague and friend, Administrator Shah.
        In addition to State and USAID, we're bringing in the
    expertise from the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the
    U.S. Trade Representative, the Treasury Department, the
    Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Department of Health and
    Human Services, and a number of other agencies. It's a
    challenge to organize across government, and we have to
    demonstrate our ability to manage this program as one, with
    many areas of expertise.
        Fourth, our commitment to partnership extends not only to
    the countries where we work, but to other countries and
    organizations working there, as well. Treasury Secretary Tim
    Geithner is announcing, today, our investment in the World
    Bank's Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. Our
    initial contribution of $475 million includes $67 million which
    was appropriated in FY 2010. And it's already helped encourage
    $400 million in investments from Spain, Canada, the Republic of
    Korea, and from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The
    diversity of these donors reflects a growing engagement in
    foreign assistance and the vital role that other stakeholders--
    including foundations, NGOs, and the private sector--will play
    in this initiative as we move forward.
        Fifth, and perhaps most critically, Feed the Future applies
    a model of development based on partnership, not patronage. Our
    new approach is to work in partnership with developing
    countries that take the lead in designing and implementing
    evidence-based strategies with clear goals that address their
    unique needs. One of the best lessons we have learned from past
    aid programs is that clear country ownership and commitment are
    absolutely critical to long-term success.
        Women and girls are at the heart of this initiative. A
    majority of the developing world's farmers are women, and it
    will simply not be possible to make significant progress in
    enhancing food security and improving nutrition and fighting
    poverty without creating more economic opportunities for women.
        There's a proverb that speaks to a central lesson in
    development: ``Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but
    teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.'' Secretary
    Clinton has offered an addition to that proverb: ``If you teach
    a woman to fish, she'll feed her whole village.''
        Through Feed the Future, we will also increase our
    investment in innovation. Given the potentially enormous return
    on investment, we will invest in approaches that confront
    significant threats to food production, such as crop and
    livestock disease, the decline in soil fertility, and the
    challenges of climate change.
        Sixth, our approach will focus on results and on progress
    that can be sustained over time. We are working with countries
    to develop approaches that strengthen the entire agricultural
    chain, from the lab to the farm to the market, and, finally, to
    the table. At each link in the agricultural chain, we will work
    with our partners to strengthen in-country capacity, create
    sustainable practices, and put in place accountability
    mechanisms that measure the impact of our investment. We will
    scale up efforts that yield strong results, and learn from
    those that indicate that improvement is necessary. And we will
    share evidence of our progress, or underperformance, should
    that be the case, with the public.
        For too long, developed nations, including the United
    States, have believed that food aid alone was the right
    response to hunger. This approach fell short of creating
    sustainable solutions, and inadvertently created a sense of
    dependency that has held countries back.
        I want to be clear that Feed the Future will not supplant
    emergency food aid. As we all saw in Haiti so recently,
    emergency food assistance is a vital tool for saving lives, and
    it will continue to be so. But Feed the Future offers a
    different approach. It takes the next critical step: investing
    in our partners' futures by spurring long-term economic
    progress.
        Today, the United States has a unique opportunity. Our
    country, and many others around the world, have made
    significant commitments to this issue. We have learned
    important lessons from the past which we are applying today.
    And the need for our leadership is greater than ever.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, and Senate members of
    the committee, again, I want to thank you for your tireless
    work to combat global hunger, and your leadership on this issue
    of food security. We look forward to the hearing today, and to
    continuing to work together on this critical issue.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lew follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary of State for
         Management and Resources, Department of State, Washington, DC

        Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar and members of the committee,
    thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about Feed the Future,
    the administration's global hunger and food security initiative. We
    applaud the committee's leadership on food security legislation which
    underscores the critical importance of this initiative to addressing
    global hunger. Many of you were working on this issue long before this
    initiative began. And we look forward to continuing to work with you
    and your staff on this vital cause.
        Let me begin by setting the context for our work. President Obama
    and Secretary Clinton have committed the United States to a new vision
    for development--one that embraces development as a strategic,
    economic, and moral imperative, as central to solving global problems
    and advancing American national security as diplomacy and defense. We
    seek to balance, align, and leverage these three D's as we pursue our
    national objectives in accordance with our fundamental values. This is
    a core characteristic of smart power and a guiding principle of our
    work around the world.
        The strategy for Feed the Future exemplifies our new vision for
    development. It starts with the recognition that food security is not
    just about food, but it is all about security--national security,
    economic security, environmental security, and human security.
        In too many places, agriculture has deteriorated to such a degree
    that people cannot grow enough to feed their families or earn an income
    from selling their crops. Or, if they can grow the food, they have no
    way of transporting it to local or regional markets. As a result, in
    cities and villages throughout the developing world, food is at times
    scarce and prices can be volatile and often beyond what people can
    afford.
        This broken system fosters hunger and poverty. That, in turn, can
    lead to violence and political instability. Since 2007, when global
    food prices skyrocketed, there have been riots over food in more than
    60 countries. People's inability to grow or purchase food has shaken
    fragile governments. In Haiti, the Government fell after violent
    demonstrations over the rise of food and fuel prices. Food insecurity
    has also contributed to tensions between nations; for example,
    restrictions on food exports during the crisis limited the flow of food
    and sent prices even higher in neighboring countries. And, hunger has a
    cascading effect for families and communities; it makes people more
    vulnerable to illness and disease and makes it harder for children to
    learn and adults to work--which further deepens poverty.
        At the G8 Conference in L'Aquila, Italy, last year, President Obama
    spoke of the billion people worldwide who endure hunger, and said,
    ``Wealthier nations have a moral obligation as well as a national
    security interest in providing assistance.'' We want to deliver that
    assistance in a manner that does not only temporarily alleviate hunger
    for some, but attacks the problems of hunger, poverty, and malnutrition
    at their roots, leading to sustainable and systemic progress on a broad
    scale.
        This is what we are striving to accomplish with Feed the Future. We
    seek to make strategic, long-term investments that will increase
    agricultural productivity, boost rural incomes, and improve household
    nutrition. As we have seen in country after country throughout history,
    agriculture can be a powerful engine for broader economic growth--
    particularly in developing countries, where agriculture can account for
    more than one-third of total economic output and more than half of the
    total workforce. The Green Revolution that began in the 1960s led to
    soaring productivity rates in India and other countries in Asia and
    Latin America. In East and Southern Africa, the application of
    scientific innovations to maize production led to yield increases of 1-
    5 percent per year, comparable to growth rates in the United States. By
    improving agriculture and nutrition, the United States has the chance
    to help a significant percentage of the world's people achieve the
    stability, prosperity, and opportunity to which we all aspire. And, in
    so doing, we can protect our own security, promote our own interests,
    and lay the foundation for a more peaceful and prosperous future.
        Earlier this year, Secretary Clinton set forth a vision that
    reflects our strong commitment to development. Feed the Future is an
    exemplar of that vision.
        First, we are concentrating our work in specific sectors where we
    have a comparative advantage. In the past, we've invested in many
    programs across many fields, often spreading ourselves thin and
    reducing our impact. Through Feed the Future, we will target our
    investments and develop technical excellence in agriculture and
    nutrition, to help catalyze broad, sustainable change in countries.
        The President's FY 2011 budget request includes $1.6 billion for
    Feed the Future, reflecting the President's pledge to invest a minimum
    of $3.5 billion in agricultural development and food security over 3
    years. We are committed to leveraging this investment through a number
    of coordinated funding mechanisms that reinforce and leverage one
    another. In addition, the budget request includes $200 million to fund
    nutrition programs in the Global Health Initiative that will be
    coordinated with and integral to Feed the Future.
        Second, this initiative aligns our diplomatic and development
    efforts. Feed the Future will require the best of our development
    efforts in each country, and will also require strong diplomatic
    support to coordinate with other donors and work with host governments.
    Our diplomats will reinforce our development experts, and vice versa.
    With that in mind, the Secretary recently named two senior Foreign
    Service officers to lead this initiative: Ambassador Patricia Haslach,
    who will serve as Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy, and Ambassador
    William Garvelink, who will serve as Deputy Coordinator for
    Development.
        Third, as we work to connect development and diplomacy to get
    better results, we have adopted an expansive whole-of-government
    approach. Led by a joint team at the State Department and USAID, Feed
    the Future brings together the Department of Agriculture's expertise on
    agricultural research, the U.S. Trade Representative's efforts on
    agricultural trade, the Treasury Department's close partnership with
    multilateral institutions, and the contributions of many other
    agencies, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the
    Department of Health and Human Services.
        Fourth, the administration's commitment to partnership extends not
    only to the countries where we work, but to other countries and
    organizations working there as well. That is why the budget includes
    $408 million for multilateral institutions--funds that will harness
    additional support and expand our impact. These funds, along with the
    $67 million appropriated in FY 2010, will enable the USG to contribute
    $475 million as a founding investor of a new multidonor trust fund
    managed by the World Bank. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is
    announcing this investment in the World Bank's Global Agriculture and
    Food Security Program today. The administration's initial pledge of $67
    million helped encourage $400 million in investments from Spain,
    Canada, the Republic of Korea, and the Bill and Melinda Gates
    Foundation. The diversity of these donors reflects a growing engagement
    in foreign assistance and the vital role that other stakeholders--
    including foundations, NGOs, and the private sector--will play in this
    initiative as we move forward.
        Since last year, when President Obama announced the $3.5 billion
    American commitment to combat poverty and hunger, 193 countries have
    endorsed a common set of principles in a collective effort to combat
    the reality of global hunger and food insecurity. Our global commitment
    must be commensurate with the problem we are facing. The U.S.
    contribution through Feed the Future is a portion of the global
    commitment--including more than $18.5 billion from other donors--which
    has helped move hunger to the front of the global development agenda.
        Fifth, and perhaps most critically, Feed the Future applies a model
    of development based on partnership, not patronage.
        Our new approach is to work in partnership with developing
    countries that take the lead in designing and implementing evidence-
    based strategies with clear goals that address their unique needs. One
    of the best lessons we have learned from past aid programs is that
    clear country ownership and strong country commitment are absolutely
    critical to long-term success.
        We are working with countries to develop approaches that strengthen
    the entire agricultural chain--from the lab, where researchers develop
    higher performing seeds; to the farm, where we can help improve
    productivity through better water management, fertilizer use, and
    farmer training; to the market, where we're helping to share product
    information and build the infrastructure that will let people process,
    store, and transport their crops more effectively; and finally to the
    table where families break their daily bread. Our objective is to give
    people the opportunity to buy and grow nutritious food and receive a
    balanced diet.
        And we will ensure that women and girls are at the heart of this
    initiative. A majority of the developing world's farmers are women and
    it will simply not be possible to make significant progress in
    enhancing food security, improving nutrition, and fighting poverty
    without creating more economic opportunities for women.
        There's a proverb that speaks to a central lesson of development:
    ``Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to fish
    and he'll eat for a lifetime.'' Secretary Clinton has offered an
    addition to that proverb: if you teach a woman to fish, she'll feed her
    whole village. We recognize the power of women to lead change in their
    communities and countries. So we are working to ensure that women have
    equal access to seeds, education and financial services, and that they
    play an equal role in leadership and decisionmaking in all of our
    programs.
        Through Feed the Future, we will also increase our investment in
    innovation. Simple technologies like cell phones can help farmers learn
    the latest local market prices, conduct mobile banking, know in advance
    when a drought or a flood is on its way, and learn about new seeds that
    can help corn grow in drought conditions. Given the potentially
    enormous return on investment, Feed the Future will invest in
    approaches that confront significant threats to food production, such
    as crop and livestock diseases, the decline in soil fertility, and the
    challenges of climate change.
        Sixth, our approach will focus on results, and on progress that can
    be sustained over time.
        At each link in the agricultural chain we will work with our
    partners to strengthen in-country capacity, create sustainable
    practices, and put into place accountability mechanisms that measure
    the impact of our investment. We will keep in mind that the right thing
    to do in one country may not be the right thing in another. We will
    scale up the efforts that yield strong results and learn from those
    that indicate that improvement is necessary. And we will share the
    proof of our progress--or underperformance should that be the case--
    with the public.
        Secretary Clinton has insisted that we measure our results, not
    just by tallying the dollars we spend or the number of programs we run,
    but by the lasting changes that these dollars and programs help achieve
    in people's lives.
        For too long, developed nations, including the United States, have
    believed that food aid alone was the right response to hunger. We tried
    to alleviate hunger for all the right reasons, but our approach fell
    short of creating sustainable solutions--and inadvertently created a
    sense of dependency that has held countries back.
        I want to be clear that Feed the Future will not supplant emergency
    food aid. As we recently saw in Haiti, emergency food assistance is a
    vital tool for saving lives, and will continue to be. But with Feed the
    Future, we take the next critical step: investing in our partners'
    futures by spurring long-term economic progress.
        Today, the United States has a unique opportunity. Several critical
    factors have converged. Our country and many others around the world
    have made significant commitments to this issue. We have learned
    important lessons from the past, which we are applying today. And the
    need for our leadership is greater than ever. One billion people around
    the world go to bed hungry every night. We can help change the
    conditions that cause hunger, and replace them with conditions that
    lead to greater opportunity, health, stability, and prosperity for
    people worldwide. It's an opportunity too valuable to let pass us by.
        Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar and members of the committee,
    thank you again for your tireless work to combat global hunger and food
    insecurity. We look forward to continuing our joint efforts on this
    critical issue.

        The Chairman. Thanks a lot, Secretary Lew.
        Administrator Shah.

    STATEMENT OF HON. RAJIV J. SHAH, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR
           INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID), WASHINGTON, DC

        Dr. Shah. Good morning, Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member
    Lugar, and members of the committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for your comment
    about Haiti, and for your personal guidance and support in the
    early days of that crisis.
        And, Senator Lugar, to your continued guidance, especially
    on this issue, we agree fully that the administration's
    conclusions are quite consistent with the great work that you
    and your staff, and others, including Senator Casey, have done
    over a number of years.
        Today is Earth Day, so it is worth underscoring the
    tremendous challenge of eliminating hunger in the context of a
    growing population, where erratic climate events, such as
    droughts and floods, are clearly on the rise, and where water
    resources are more scarce, and will become more scarce, than
    ever before.
        The World Bank just noted, this week, that an additional 65
    million people will be pushed into extreme poverty by the end
    of this year, continuing a tremendous and negative trend that
    has now taken place for 2 years and directly affects the number
    of hungry people worldwide, but especially, and most acutely,
    in Africa.
        Global food supplies, as you noted, need to increase by an
    estimated 50 percent by 2030, and double by 2050, to meet
    increased demands that are caused by a number of factors,
    including demand for meat and poultry products, and more grain-
    intensive foods, in certain parts of the world.
        And most notably, the most vulnerable populations, the
    rural poor in Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America, are
    going to be on the front line of bearing the brunt of this
    negative trend. As one example, Asian rice yields are projected
    to decrease by 25 percent without new technologies and new
    production systems that will reverse the trend of lowered
    agricultural productivity.
        Going forward, our initiative will focus on comprehensive
    agricultural development and food-security efforts. We will
    focus on those markets, and in those countries, where
    agriculture is more than two-thirds of total employment, more
    than one-third of total GDP, and often in places where families
    easily spend more than 70 percent of total income securing food
    for themselves. These are the most vulnerable parts of the
    world, and the parts where, according to the 2008 World
    Development Report, our investments can have the most outcome,
    in terms of improving people's resiliency against hunger and
    food shortages.
        With your support, the United States is bringing real
    leadership to this task. The President and the Secretary have
    launched this initiative, and, in doing so, have laid out
    specific principles, many of which referenced by Secretary Lew,
    that will guide our implementation. These principles--working
    in partnership, focusing on science and technology, leveraging
    our areas of comparative advantage, engaging more directly with
    women, who are more than 70 percent of all producers in the
    places where we work--will, together, allow us to achieve a
    transformation of the agricultural and food-system sectors in
    the countries in which we will focus, as opposed to our long
    history of simply implementing projects of modest scale and
    modest scope.
        We are moving aggressively to implement the strategy we
    have outlined. First, we are pursuing development of country-
    led plans. As of July 2009, only one country in Africa--
    Rwanda--had a comprehensive national agricultural plan
    consistent with the principles that they, themselves, had
    outlined. Today, there are 17; and by the end of June, there
    will be 25. These will be the bases of the programs and plans
    that will guide our investment, going forward. They coordinate
    the effort of multiple stakeholders behind a single process,
    and they serve as a point of coordination for donors around the
    world to come together and, in an organized way, support a real
    agricultural transformation in these places.
        Second, in science, technology, and innovation, we will
    pursue a two-part strategy that will focus both on a focused,
    sustainable intensification in those crop categories that are
    most important--maize, wheat, rice, cassava, sorghum, et
    cetera. We--for too long, there's been a real neglect in
    agricultural research, and international agricultural research,
    and too many differentiated goals that have downplayed the role
    of core productivity improvements. So, we'll refocus our
    efforts in that area.
        But, we will also focus on sustainable production systems
    that are very specific and very tied to the places in which we
    work--highland maize in east Africa, stress-tolerant rice in
    Asia--those places where we know we can find breakthroughs that
    will save tens of millions of people from a future of suffering
    related to hunger and extreme poverty.
        What that strategy will also allow us to do is better
    connect global technological innovations, such as drought-
    tolerant genetics that exist in the United States, with
    specific national research institutes and the local extension
    systems that can make sure those technologies actually reach
    the small-holder farmers, who, at the end of the day, are a big
    part of the solution.
        Third, we will work across markets and a market-led effort
    to create real, vibrant, resilient food systems. For example,
    we're using our development credit authority, a tool that USAID
    has to motivate credit and lending in specific sectors, to
    dramatically expand access to credit in the countries in which
    we will focus, and to do that in partnership with local
    microfinance organizations and local banks, so that small
    farmers and small agribusinesses can gain access to credit in
    order to improve their efforts.
        Fourth, as Secretary Lew mentioned, we will prioritize
    women. Seventy percent of African farmers are women, and yet,
    less than 10 percent of them have access to credit, and only 5
    percent of agricultural extension workers on the continent are
    women. So, we will be very specific about disaggregating
    income. We will target outcomes, such as gender disaggregated
    income, and study women's incomes. We will specifically target
    women through our extension programs. And we will look to make
    sure our partners are hiring and training women in all aspects
    of our work.
        And fifth, we will focus on results and accountability. We
    know that agricultural GDP growth is three to six times more
    likely to reduce poverty than generalized growth. And we need
    to measure outcomes by studying household-level income effects,
    child undernutrition, and agricultural productivity rates,
    basic measures that we collect everywhere in the world, but too
    often, in our agricultural development programs, have neglected
    to do the research to collect that information.
        I also want to assure you of my personal commitment, and
    USAID's strong commitment, to working in a whole-of-government
    effort to make sure that we succeed. We will work with our
    partners at the State Department, in close coordination, to
    make sure that we get other countries to invest in these plans
    and invest in these efforts, alongside our efforts. A true
    transformation will require a global effort. That was the
    spirit of the President's launching this at last years' G8, and
    continues to be the spirit in which we implement.
        We work closely with USDA in specific areas, where USDA has
    technical resources, in livestock genetics and other areas that
    can make a big difference as we take this forward.
        And we've reorganized ourselves at USAID to more
    effectively help lead this effort. We have a Food Security Task
    Team, led, as Secretary Lew mentioned, by Ambassador Bill
    Garvelink. And we are reallocating funding authority so we can
    make the kinds of central investments in collecting, monitoring
    information, in doing household surveys, and in funding global
    research efforts in a way that's efficient and strategic.
        We will need to continue to consult with you, and we will
    continue to ask for your support so that we can expand the base
    of agricultural experts we have that can help partner with
    countries to implement this program.
        In closing, I just wanted to note that, as has been
    mentioned, this initiative has really been structured around
    areas we think of as our comparative advantage: our strong
    agricultural productivity, our rich legacy in science and
    technology, and our ability to transform agricultural systems
    around the world. It was, in fact, a USAID Administrator,
    William Gaud, who, a number of years ago, coined the term,
    Green Revolution, based on the very impressive research and
    diplomatic efforts of Dr. Norman Borlaug. And President Obama
    and Secretary Clinton have mobilized a huge global effort to
    make sure that the whole world stands with us as we try to do
    this.
        So, I'm very optimistic about our potential, and I'm eager
    to take questions and continue to benefit from your guidance.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Shah follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Rajiv Shah, Administrator, U.S. Agency for
                   International Development, Washington, DC

        Good morning Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of
    the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the
    administration's food security initiative, Feed the Future and our
    efforts to address global food security. As your leadership has
    highlighted, food security is one of the highest priorities for U.S.
    development assistance. Food security ranks as a high development
    priority not simply because the United States is determined to meet our
    moral obligation as a great nation. The food security of developing
    nations is integral to our national security--hunger and poverty
    perpetuate instability, and food shortages are acutely destabilizing.
    Developing bodies and developing economies both need steady sustenance
    to thrive. Food security facilitates stable lives and sturdy, resilient
    nations. Our comprehensive approach seeks to respond to the staggering
    scope of the food security problem, a problem that has expanded in size
    in the past few years, affecting the lives of more than 1.1 billion
    people who suffer daily from want of this most basic of human need.
        There is growing momentum and a higher level of cooperation to
    address this problem on a global level. As a result of the President's
    efforts at L'Aquila, our international partners have made a commitment
    of $22 billion to combat food insecurity over the next 3 years. Global
    leaders agreed to a set of common principles for effective
    coordination, aligned behind country-led strategies, meaningful
    investment planning that would be supported by developing countries
    themselves, as well as through development assistance and other
    support. Those principles were reaffirmed by 120 countries in Rome last
    November. And just last week, Canada hosted the donor community for a
    review of the commitments made last summer, highlighting transparency
    and accountability to the L'Aquila agenda, as well as the pledges made
    to accomplish it.
        Members of Congress, especially members of this committee, are
    determined to address this problem. Increased budgets for agriculture
    development and continued support for global food security legislation
    have brought renewed attention to how agricultural-led growth can
    reduce poverty and hunger. The Global Food Security Act, sponsored by
    Senators Lugar and Casey, captures the strong commitment of the United
    States to align resources behind approaches that work. I would like to
    personally thank you both, as well as Representatives McCollum and
    McGovern, for your leadership on this critical initiative. We look
    forward to working with you on this important legislation as it moves
    forward.
        With a broad base of support, coordination within the international
    community, and leadership from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, we can
    capitalize on this momentum to leverage a global effort of significant
    proportions to fight hunger and undernutrition.
        It was a predecessor of mine, USAID Administrator William Gaud, who
    coined the term Green Revolution. That this term is known around the
    world is a testament to what U.S. leadership can mean. The
    administration's FY 2011 budget request reflects a coordinated,
    governmentwide strategy that expands support for both bilateral and
    multilateral assistance programs. We recognize that this is a tough
    budgetary time and that coming from such a low budget base for
    agriculture as recently as 2008, the FY 2011 budget looks ambitious.
    But this is one of our highest priorities and will require resources
    that address the scale of a problem affecting a billion people very
    directly and millions more globally. To illustrate just how far things
    had fallen, in 1982, USAID had an agricultural budget of $1.2 billion.
    That is equivalent to $2.9 billion today. In 1979, agricultural
    programs made up 18 percent of all development assistance, and
    productivity gains in the developing world were running 3 percent per
    year and generating enormous benefits. By 2008, agriculture's share had
    dropped to just 3.5 percent of development assistance, while
    productivity growth of developing country farmers lagged at less than 1
    percent growth per year, not enough to meet growing needs and far below
    what is needed to drive poverty reduction. The result of
    underinvestment in agriculture is clear.
        The global agricultural system is more interconnected today than it
    was during the first Green Revolution. What happened in global food
    markets in 2007-08 showed just how vulnerable the poor are in the face
    of price shocks. But this complexity also opens new pathways to
    success. For example, the rapid rise and transformation of small-scale
    dairy--in countries as diverse as Kenya and India--involves not only
    the introduction of modern animal husbandry practices but also the
    development of modern marketing chains. New enterprises aggregate the
    production of numerous small-scale producers--men and women with just a
    few cows each. These aggregators get the milk on the main roads for
    delivery to urban processors and ultimately to consumers. The impact is
    enormous, ranging from the increase in incomes to those small-scale
    producers, to the jobs created by the transportation and processing
    industry, through to the improved nutrition of millions of poor
    families who benefit from the addition of dairy in their diets.
        With the support of Congress, we are poised to bring American
    technical leadership to the complex task of promoting food security
    around the globe. By establishing new relationships with existing
    partners, such as the World Bank Global Agriculture and Food Security
    Program, as well as finding new local partners, we will fulfill our
    commitments to embrace a new, goal-oriented, evidence-based approach to
    achieving food security. We will support country-led plans and
    priorities in countries committed to policies that are conducive to
    rapid development progress.
        We are reshaping the agency to tackle food security more
    effectively by capitalizing on America's comparative advantages. There
    are aspects of American approaches to development that I would like to
    expand upon as these will be crucial to our long-term success. First,
    we are advancing a strategic and robust research agenda that promotes
    innovation in science and technology. Second, we are supporting
    entrepreneurial, market-based approaches to agricultural growth; and
    third, we are making targeted investments to meet the unique needs of
    women who make up the majority of the farming labor in our countries of
    focus.
        The United States is an admired innovator and early adapter in the
    area of agricultural technology. Thus, among global aid agencies, USAID
    is uniquely qualified to provide agricultural development assistance.
    From the spread of conservation practices in Zambia and South Asia to
    adapting biotechnology for small-scale farmers, the United States can
    leverage the expertise of U.S. universities and industry in partnership
    with established and emerging agriculture leaders in developing
    countries.
        Earlier this month, over 900 agricultural researchers from around
    the world gathered in Montpellier, France to chart a new way forward
    that would strengthen partnerships between global and developing
    country research systems and hold those systems more accountable for
    impact. Dr. Gebisa Ejeta, the recent World Food Prize Winner and
    special advisor to USAID on agricultural research, spoke on my behalf
    about the renewed U.S. commitment to research and strengthening the
    capacity of developing countries to deliver new technologies and more
    sustainable management practices to their farmers. The message from
    Montpellier was clear--the world needs to produce more food, but often
    with less land and water, and greater climatic uncertainty--the only
    feasible option is to use science and information to sustainably
    increase agricultural productivity. This ``sustainable
    intensification'' requires purpose-driven research and solid
    partnerships, both key areas for U.S. leadership.
        We will provide over 8 percent of our budget in FY 2011 for global
    research--which represents a major increase. But with this expansion
    come challenges. The CGIAR System (Consultative Group on International
    Agricultural Research) is defining new research programs with specific
    outcomes targeting hunger and poverty--transformative technologies such
    as drought tolerant maize, wheat that resists heat, drought, and stem
    rust, and rice that needs less water--that will strengthen food
    security for millions of smallholder families across Africa, Asia, and
    Latin America. Our university partners are similarly being challenged
    to design research programs that generate outcomes and build capacity
    that target clear and compelling priorities.
        These programs will create multiplier effects by training
    scientists and strengthening the faculty and curricula of agricultural
    universities that will produce the next generation of agribusiness
    leaders, policymakers, and innovators. And we are challenged to
    strengthen both public and private extension systems to deliver the
    benefits of research to small-scale producers.
        These are the type of investments that drove agricultural growth
    during the 1970s and 1980s. Dr. Ejeta himself embodies the impact of
    those investments. His education--from high school in Ethiopia to
    graduate research at Purdue University--was funded, in part, by USAID.
    USAID's investment in Dr. Ejeta paid off a thousandfold when he
    invented improved sorghum varieties that benefited the lives of
    countless Africans. These partnerships are also a key component of the
    Global Food Security legislation that Senators Lugar and Casey are
    sponsoring and we welcome these important investments.
        I also feel very passionately about U.S. leadership in support of
    market-based solutions to agricultural growth. Increases in both public
    and private sector investments in developing countries are essential to
    accelerating economic growth and poverty reduction.
        In Feed the Future, we place significant emphasis on linking small
    farmers to markets--from connecting them to growing urban markets to
    promoting regional trade as a means to increase the availability of
    food and increase incomes. Through value chain approaches, we not only
    help strengthen and professionalize producers, but we help support
    growth in transport, processing, and marketing industries that will
    broaden growth of the whole sector. We can help small-scale producers
    segue from subsistence agriculture to growing their own farming
    businesses.
        For example, in West Africa, USAID projects already underway like
    the Sustainable Tree Crop program are transforming the lives of small-
    scale farmers. Private partners, including Mars, Hershey, and Kraft are
    helping secure a vital supply chain for cocoa while improving the
    livelihoods of more than 1.5 million West African farmers in the
    industry. The program includes a farmer field school that is helping
    producers in a farmer-to-farmer approach with key lessons, disease
    control and knowledge extension. This is an ideal partnership between
    West African farmers and U.S. companies.
        We have several such opportunities to unlock the private sector
    investments in agriculture. Our programs can and will go a long way,
    but the real heavy lifting will come from our developing country
    partners as they must commit to market solutions for agricultural
    development. Rwanda set a very good precedent for other countries on
    this front. At the Rwanda portfolio review of the Country Investment
    Plan for Agriculture in February, a multitude of stakeholders including
    donors, civil society, and private sector representatives came around
    the table to agree upon investment priorities and then coordinate and
    align investment actions. We continue to encourage such
    multistakeholder reviews which emphasize the engagement with the
    private sector so that our collective public investments can unleash
    sustained, commercial opportunities over the long term. We have private
    sector advisors from the United States reviewing each country
    investment plan and we are working with our developing country partners
    to ensure there is a robust representation from local and regional
    commercial players at each of the country-level reviews.
        A third aspect of our approach relates to gender. The American
    ideal of gender equality permeates through our approaches to economic
    development as we intentionally target our work to meet the unique
    needs of women. Seventy percent of African farmers are female. In order
    to make the most of our food security funds, we must focus on these
    women who are the leaders of agriculture in Africa. Last year, I met
    one such woman--a successful Uganda farmer named Justine Manyomga. She
    farms about 2 acres of land--a plot that is considered large in her
    community. It took us several hours to reach her on a horribly slow
    dirt road, and Justine does not own a vehicle. She doesn't benefit from
    extension services, have access to credit, or the ability to ascertain
    market information in an efficient manner. Like most African farmers,
    she uses no mineral fertilizer.
        And should production fall, there are no safety nets to help her or
    her family. I met with Justine's neighbors who described how recent
    viral diseases in cassava and bacterial wilt disease in banana had
    devastated their food production, forcing them to pull children out of
    school, and making them go hungry.
        Justine does well by African small-farm standards, and she is
    hopeful that she will continue to be able to send her kids to school.
    She dreams that they will receive university educations so they can
    lead productive lives. She is participating in a program through a
    local NGO, to improve yields of her sweet potato crop. But, new crop
    varieties alone--especially without access to better markets--will not
    lead to the type of agricultural transformation required to reduce
    poverty and hunger at scale.
        When you take a step back and look at the entire chain--from caring
    for the soil, to planting the seeds, to raising, harvesting, and
    selling the crops--you can see all the threats to this woman's
    livelihood, all the vulnerable links along the chain where the whole
    enterprise could collapse.
        So there is an enormous gap in access to markets as well as in the
    adoption of new technology, inequalities in laws, rules, and norms,
    especially for women producers. These inequities limit women's access
    to land and other key productive resources. Moreover, the percentage of
    agricultural leaders who are women, including researchers and extension
    agents, is usually less than 15 percent. We are looking for additional
    ways to foster the roles of women in science, and also in extension,
    where new approaches, often in partnership with the private sector are
    also underway.
        Women are especially important to advancing the nutrition agenda.
    When the well-being of women is improved, there is consistent and
    compelling evidence that agricultural productivity advances, poverty is
    reduced, and child nutrition improves. Therefore, through the Global
    Health Initiative FY 2011 budget request, we are committing $200
    million toward achieving significant reductions in undernutrition that
    has crippling effects on a person's ability to learn and produce.
        The United States has technical leadership in these areas and, with
    your support, a strong resource base to apply against solutions we know
    are effective. We are putting in place a stellar team to carrying out
    our food security strategy. Ambassador William Garvelink will oversee
    the effort at USAID as Deputy Food Security Coordinator for
    Development, to lead the programming of USAID resources and coordinate
    with other U.S. Government agencies to be consistent with our overall
    strategy. Ambassador Patricia Haslach will lead our diplomatic efforts
    as Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy. Ambassador Haslach will lead the
    effort to imbed food security as a political priority in our embassies.
    We have hired more than a dozen new Foreign Service officers with
    expertise in agriculture over the last year with an additional 30 in
    the process of coming on board.
        All of our focus country missions have already submitted plans for
    FY 2010 that are now being analyzed and will be the basis for our
    improved, scaled-up investments in agriculture. The plans outline a
    multiagency effort to build the capacity of key actors in government,
    the private sector, and civil society--those who will lead and
    implement country-owned plans in food security. Interagency technical
    collaboration and review is allowing alignment of multiple U.S.
    Government agencies around the development efforts of USAID. These
    plans will provide the foundation for development of detailed and
    targeted multiyear strategies in the next few months that we will share
    publicly to engage partners in our effort and to communicate the
    results for which we will be accountable.
        Action is also happening at the country level. The coordinated
    effort of multiple stakeholders behind a country-led planning process
    is a central principle of the global effort. In July 2009, only one
    country in Africa, Rwanda, had a comprehensive national agriculture
    plan. Today there are 17; and by the end of June there will be 25.
    Several of these will be translated into technically reviewed and
    costed investment plans around which donors can organize and coordinate
    our funding. The progress is not only in Africa but also in Latin
    America and Asia, effectively reversing the trend of disinvestment from
    the 1980s until 2008.
        As early as next month, I will join a meeting hosted by the Prime
    Minister of Bangladesh with other major development agencies,
    multilateral organizations, local and international nongovernmental
    organizations and the private sector to chart the next steps toward a
    coordinated investment plan for food security that spans agricultural
    development, nutrition, and safety nets for the poorest. This will be a
    major step forward for Bangladesh as they address food security with
    their own commitments.
        The global momentum is great. The advances in technology and
    research have been powerful, and the sharing of information in real-
    time is opening new avenues and efficiencies that can make our
    investments more strategic than ever before. I believe we are at a
    unique moment in history to make a tremendous change in agricultural
    productivity, hunger and undernutrition.
        This is not to say it will be easy. Our partners in the developing
    world must do their part to develop robust, prioritized investment
    plans that have the buy-in from a broad base of constituents. These
    plans must represent hard choices and a commitment to doing work
    differently that even we in this country find difficult to do. Our
    partners must invest more in agriculture despite the difficult economic
    climate facing us all. They must make policy reforms to change the
    governance of seeds and fertilizer and to improve the investment
    climate in agribusiness. We need them to join us in the effort to
    integrate and grow the roles of women, even while other groups may have
    more pervasive political influence. These are all tough decisions that
    require real leadership. I am confident that our resources and
    flexibility will serve as both carrot and stick in terms of urging them
    onward.
        Not all the burden lies with developing countries. We have many
    operational and strategic challenges as we take on an issue of this
    size and magnitude. I fundamentally believe that the programs of USAID
    will only be effective if aligned with other donors and, importantly,
    with the broader work of the U.S. Government in each of our countries.
    Decisionmaking structures must be built that work across agencies. We
    must develop streamlined processes for reporting on our collective
    progress. We must recreate an atmosphere for sharing information and
    solving problems together. This cooperation and coordination is
    difficult, but absolutely necessary. I am committed to working more
    effectively across agencies and I am hopeful that with your support we
    can break down silos so that we can have a united approach to tackling
    food insecurity and undernutrition.
        In addition to the challenges of implementing a whole-of-government
    approach, we also have many strategic choices to make about how best to
    structure our funding to maximize impact. We will need your support and
    guidance as we do so. First, we need your commitment to having an
    outcomes- and learning-driven foreign aid agenda. It is imperative for
    us to allocate future funding based on the progress we are seeing in
    countries. Such an outcomes-oriented approach requires us to be nimble
    in our funding--advancing funds where progress is great and being bold
    in reprogramming funding where countries commitment to change is not
    there. To be successful in this approach, I recognize the importance of
    having metrics in place with which we can regularly gauge our success.
    As you know, I have made monitoring and evaluation an important part of
    rebuilding USAID's strategic planning and learning. Food security will
    be on the forefront of those efforts.
        In addition to supporting an outcomes-driven approach to aid,
    Congress can be instrumental in supporting the human resource
    requirements to take on an initiative of this size. While the program
    funds have grown our operating expenses have not been proportional.
    Congress' continued support for the Development Leadership Initiative
    is critical to rebuilding USAID's in-house expertise and I thank you
    for all you have done to strengthen and invest in that program.
        Today we celebrate Earth Day, and we know that agriculture and the
    environment are interrelated. We face enormous challenges in addressing
    climate change. But in the Sahel of Africa, for example, we can see
    success that marries productivity growth with improved natural resource
    management. Through wide-scale community-based agroforesty programs,
    large parts of Burkina Faso and Niger are greener today than they were
    30 years ago. Low technology solutions like regenerating on-farm trees
    from root systems are creating a new agricultural landscape.
        With over 1 billion people suffering from hunger, food security
    must be one of our top development priorities. It is the most basic of
    human needs and it is the basis for human development. Children who are
    undernourished will not reach their full educational potential,
    economies cannot grow if workers lack sufficient food to fuel their
    labor, unsustainable agriculture driven by poverty undermines the
    environment, and widespread hunger leads to political instability as we
    saw in the food riots of 2008. I look forward to working with members
    of this committee, and others in Congress, as well as other U.S.
    Government agencies, our partners in nongovernmental organizations,
    universities, industry, foundations, multilateral organizations, other
    donors, and developing countries themselves, to seize this opportunity
    and redouble progress in cutting poverty and hunger.

        Senator Lugar [presiding]. Thank you very much, both of
    you.
        Now, let me commence with questions, and we'll have a round
    with 7 minutes each, and another round, as required.
        I ask unanimous consent that I place in the record a piece
    from this morning's Wall Street Journal by Secretary Geithner
    and Bill Gates, entitled ``A New Initiative to Feed the
    World.'' And I quote from their report that, ``Whereas nearly
    18 percent of official development assistance worldwide went to
    agriculture in just 1979, this is now down to 5 percent in
    2008.'' And I would add that the aid to Africa during this
    period of time has been insignificant.
        [The article to which Senator Lugar referred can be found
    on page 56.]
        Now, one of the results of all of this is that the amount
    of crops per acre an average African farmer produces is
    currently half the amount of an Indian farmer, one-fourth that
    of a Chinese farmer, and only one-fifth that of an American
    farmer. So, as we're discussing the need for increased
    production agriculture, this is of the essence. Doubling the
    world's food production by 2050, in the face of these current
    percentages, is arithmetically impossible without the
    scientific expertise that you've mentioned.
        The role of genetically modified technology in agricultural
    development is a matter of contention for some. Europe's
    rejection of GM has pressured African governments to follow
    suit, for fear they will lose existing or future export
    markets. Others argue that the safety of GM has not been proved
    despite nearly two decades of use. This opposition contributes
    to hunger in Africa, in the short run, and virtually ensures
    that much of the continent will lack the tools to adapt to
    changing climate conditions, in the long run. We just may not
    be able to double food production by 2050, and do so using the
    existing agricultural footprint, if we do not invest in
    technological advancements. Accordingly, the Lugar-Casey bill
    includes a provision supporting research on the applicability
    of biotechnology in varying ecological conditions.
        My questions are designed to try to frame this issue as
    precisely as we can. Now, I ask each of you, to what extent
    does the United States support research on a full range of
    technologies through the Collaborative Research Support
    Program, contributions to the Consultative Group for
    International Agricultural Research, or other programs, and in
    consulting with countries and regional organizations such as
    the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program, on
    their agricultural strategies? What is the state of existing
    research capacities in countries suffering from chronic hunger?
    To what extent have they incorporated building research
    capacity into their own development strategies? And do these
    strategies encompass biotechnology?
        Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator. I'd start just by noting, as
    you point out, that the USAID and the Federal Government has
    had a longstanding commitment to the Consultative Group for
    International Agricultural Research. We target around $30
    million of investment directly to the CG system, plus probably
    another $20 or $25 million that comes from our missions to
    support CG research activities, and really linking those
    activities to local agricultural systems, which is very
    important.
        We've also, since 1975, actively invested in the Land-Grant
    University System, as you know, sir, through Title 12. We do
    about $30 million through these Collaborative Research
    Programs, known as CRSPs.
        The two things, with respect to this research system that
    we're looking to really evolve through this strategy, are as
    follows:
        First, we've really identified a set of core crops and core
    production constraints that need to become the priorities,
    going forward. These include rice, maize, cassava, et cetera,
    and they include the types of constraints that, frankly, have,
    shockingly, been neglected over the last decade, abiotic stress
    related to water--you know, water scarcity, and heat tolerance,
    in particular. So, we've identified those traits and those
    crops, and we're looking to reorient the investments we make at
    the CG and in the CRSP program to, in a more focused way,
    support that.
        As we do that, we're really working with partners around
    the world, including U.K., in particular, that are making big,
    new commitments to the CG system, so that we can, in an
    organized way, really return that system to its roots, which
    were originally focused on productivity, crop breeding, making
    advanced genetics available to countries around the world, in a
    focused and structured and efficient manner. And I'm confident
    we can do that, but it will take working with a range of
    partners.
        The second thing I would add is that we are looking to
    partner with USDA and the unique research capabilities they
    bring. In the intramural research space, USDA has programs in
    livestock genetics and livestock disease that will be important
    partners for us. And in the extramural space, we're looking to
    work on those dual-use types of technological advances, where
    their--where they can advance goals and we can help make those
    breakthroughs in drought tolerance, for example, accessible to
    lower-income countries.
        So, we believe research is an important component.
        And then, the final thing I'd say--I'm sorry--is that, on
    the transgenic technologies, we've both specifically supported
    transgenic technologies, like eggplant in India and a range of
    other technologies in Africa, including drought-tolerant maize
    in Uganda, and we're supporting efforts for those countries to
    develop the types of regulatory systems that they need to have
    in order to make those technologies accessible to their public.
    And then let farmers decide what they want, and what they don't
    want, as opposed to having those choices dictated from abroad.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Lew. Senator----
        Senator Lugar. Do you have a further comment, sir?
        Mr. Lew [continuing]. That was an answer that leaves little
    to be added to it. But, let me just add one--just highlight the
    last point that Dr. Shah was making.
        The regulatory environment that--is very important. I mean,
    we've seen, in a lot of areas, that if you don't fill the space
    with science and knowledge and facts, that fear can fill the
    space just as easily. We know, from phytosanitary standards,
    that we're much better with a world where everyone understands,
    in a uniform way, and where there are harmonized regulations in
    a region. This is a newer area, but it's just as important.
    And, in terms of dealing with the problems of the future, we
    can't afford to let it drift for decades. It has to be
    addressed as the technologies are being developed.
        Senator Lugar. Now, let me ask the following, as a second
    broad question to both of you. The committee's study on global
    hunger found that as funding and investments in global
    agriculture decreased over the last two or more decades, so did
    investment in agricultural, education, and national research
    systems. The Lugar-Casey bill seeks to enhance current USAID
    programs relating to building capacity at institutions of
    higher education, extension services, and research facilities.
    It proposes to do this through partnerships between United
    States universities and foreign universities. Now, what is the
    extent to which USAID manages programs to build capacity at
    foreign universities and national research services? And how do
    such efforts fit in the Feeding the Future Initiative?
        While it's been argued elsewhere that USAID has lost much
    of its specialized expertise, I'm interested in understanding
    the history of USAID's involvement in higher education programs
    and extension programs. Can you provide us with background on
    this question?
        And second, support for country-led processes has become
    popular in development policy circles. The thinking is that we
    must get away from paternalistic relationships and shift
    responsibility to countries, enabling them to create their own
    paths. However, I am concerned the rhetoric surrounding
    country-led efforts may lead us to support, even tacitly, plans
    that may not be in U.S. interests, or approaches we do not
    believe work. An approach that is dominated by a country-led
    framework can take attention away from a partnering
    relationship, where donors and recipients recognize the mutual
    benefit of each other's development.
        This leads me to the following question: To what extent can
    we ensure that country-led plans have encompassed the
    participation of civil society, rather than being elite-driven?
    Furthermore, to what extent is the United States or other
    international donors working with food-insecure countries to
    guide and inform their strategies?
        Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator. I'll address all three
    points.
        First, on partnerships, USAID currently has more than 50
    university partnerships that are specific to agriculture,
    including with the broad range of the Land Grant Universities
    that, in fact, work in very close partnership with agricultural
    research and extension organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin
    America.
        I had the chance to personally visit the University of
    Nebraska sorghum program, for example, and you can see the
    value of the rich, technical exchange of both germplasm and of
    individuals, so that people can learn modern breeding
    techniques and then take them back to those research systems.
        As we move this initiative forward, I think, we're looking
    to expand those efforts dramatically, but in a more focused way
    and with university partners in other parts of the world.
        You asked about our history. In the 1970s and 1980s, we
    were far more effective at building really strong agricultural
    research-based universities in Faisalabad, in Pakistan, and
    throughout India, for example. And those really became
    transformative institutions for the agricultural systems in
    those countries. Recently, the investment in that area has
    dropped off dramatically, so we'll rebuild in that space.
        On expertise, as you noted, there are more than 130
    agricultural experts at USAID. And we're looking to hire
    significantly in this area, and also looking to partner with
    other Federal agencies, notably USDA, that might have specific
    expertise in phytosanitary standards and other trade issues,
    including USTR. So, we're looking to expand that cohort; but
    there are 130, and we're looking to organize that in a way
    that's most effective in implementing this initiative.
        And, third, on country-led plans, we've helped support the
    Comprehensive African Agricultural Development plan process
    through NEPAD. And through that effort, they mobilize technical
    resources from all three of the Rome-based food and hunger
    agencies, as well as the International Food Policy Research
    Initiative, and really provide quite a lot of technical support
    to countries that are developing these plans.
        You are absolutely right, sir, to point out that often, in
    the past, country plans have not prioritized women or private
    sector efforts or research. And we're working, in a dialogue
    with countries, to help countries be most effective at
    developing the kind of long-term plans that can demonstrate
    that investment in those three often critically missing areas
    is often the key to long-term success.
        But, we do feel it's important to let this process run its
    course, and to be responsive to countries, as opposed to simply
    dictating priorities. And so, we're doing that in a balanced
    way with our colleagues on the ground.
        Mr. Lew. If I could just add, on the question of country-
    led programs, because I think this is an issue that's broader
    than just the food security issue. It's really part of an
    approach to development in healthcare and other areas, as well.
    And, I think that there's some tension in the notion of
    country-led and the directed focus that we're talking about in
    these programs. It won't be a good fit for every country. We
    are--what we think is important to do in the world won't have
    an application everywhere. And we need to find the places where
    there is a good fit, because they are U.S. programs that have--
    are driven by U.S. interests.
        I think there are a lot of countries where what we're
    talking about will be a perfect fit and there will be those
    kinds of country-led plans. But, we have to engage in
    partnership. And the notion that we let go and say, you know,
    ``You come up with a program, whether it's in food, security,
    or health, and, you know, we'll just write the checks'', that's
    not the notion of what ``country-led'' means. It's a
    partnership, it's engagement; it's respectful engagement.
    That's different from saying, ``You must do this.'' I mean, we
    respect that they may not want to participate in the program.
    And I think that that's the way you engage in a respectful way.
        Senator Lugar. I thank you both.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Lugar. I appreciate
    that.
        And, let me thank both of you for your service.
        This is a subject we've been talking about for a long time:
    food security. And your answers are, I think, the type of
    approach that all of us agree that we need to participate in.
    So, it's encouraging to hear this.
        But, I sort of want to try to connect the dots a little
    bit, and that is, it's hard to imagine how you can deal with
    hunger if you don't deal with poverty. And it's hard to see how
    you deal with poverty if you don't deal with the problems of
    corruption in the developing worlds, and a lack of institutions
    to protect the development of any semblance of progressive
    improvement on wealth.
        And a few weeks ago, we had President Clinton before us,
    and Mr. Gates, and they talked about their foundations, and how
    they use their foundations, but they, because they're private,
    can be a little bit more directive on how they deal with the
    issues of transparency and corruption.
        We have more diplomatic issues that we have to deal with.
    And I don't mean to say that they're equivalent.
        But, it seems to me that if we're going to be successful in
    dealing with food security, internationally, globally, that
    we're going to have to deal with accountability and
    expectations in the institutions that we deal with, in order to
    build the permanent structures for security in that country.
        And I just am interested as to how you are trying to deal
    with the interrelationship between our programs to help with
    hunger, and dealing with developing the types of credible,
    transparent institutions in the country, that can protect the
    people and allow wealth accumulation.
        Mr. Lew. Senator Cardin, that is central, not just to food
    security, but to our development programs and our foreign
    assistance programs, generally. And it's an extremely important
    issue for us to both be focused on and devote our attention to
    in the work that we do.
        I think, if you look at the structure of the Food Security
    Initiative, it's really designed to make the determination that
    we have a partner that we can work with, and to ask threshold
    questions about what their governance situation is, what kinds
    of programs will be implemented. The issue of women often gets
    to, Is the system one that allows for land ownership, that
    allows for the rule of law to work?
        Senator Cardin. And I want you to continue to answer, but I
    was going to follow up on the gender issue. You both raised
    that in your opening statements, we've talked about that. I'm
    very happy to see that. Secretary Clinton has been an outspoken
    champion for gender issues. It seems to me that's one area we
    can be pretty specific.
        Mr. Lew. Yes.
        Senator Cardin. So, now, suppose the country does not
    provide for that. Do we, then, back away? What do we do?
        Mr. Lew. These become very difficult diplomatic issues. I
    think you have to focus, at the front end, on being very clear
    about what expectations are. You know, we have seen, in other
    programs--the MCC, for example--where, if you set clear
    expectations, you can come in behind and say, ``You haven't met
    the standard.'' I think it's very difficult, if you haven't
    been clear about what's expected, to be that--to stick to your
    principles and implement a program the way you said you would.
        We've made clear, in the Food Security Initiative, that
    becoming part of it doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to stay
    part of it. If you don't perform according to what the--what
    your commitments in the program were, you know, there's the
    risk that you won't stay in the program.
        We're going to have to stick to our principles and
    sometimes say to countries, that we have good relationships
    with, or need to have good relationships with, or have
    strategic interests in, that this isn't working. And that's
    always a challenge. It's----
        Senator Cardin. Will you be able to provide us specific
    accountability standards on gender issues in a country----
        Mr. Lew. Yes.
        Senator Cardin [continuing]. As----
        Mr. Lew. Yes.
        Senator Cardin [continuing]. That we're participating in,
    so that we have at least transparency between the executive and
    legislative branches as what the expectations of that program
    and that specific country is, to improve the plight of women,
    particularly in agriculture, which is so well documented how
    they've been discriminated against?
        Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator. I--absolutely. And we will
    not only be able to provide them to you, but we will also be
    able to provide them to our implementing partners, to
    countries, and to all that are involved in this initiative.
        I think Secretary Lew's point is exactly the right point,
    that we have to be clear about the expectations, and develop
    those expectations with our partners.
        To give you an example--really, three quick examples--one
    is, we can set standards around what we expect, in terms of
    building an extension workforce that is responsive to the
    customers that workforce is trying to serve. We can set
    targets, we can have expanded efforts to recruit, retain, and
    train women extension workers.
        Second, we're already supporting programs, like the Award
    Program, that specifically identifies promising younger African
    agricultural scientists that are women, and gives them
    mentoring, training, and development opportunities, including
    opportunities to engage with United States-based scientists.
        Third, in every country we do this, we will have strict
    monitoring and evaluation, and we'll do things, like collect
    household income in a gender-disaggregated way, because we know
    income driven to women in particular, has much bigger effects
    on reducing child undernutrition and on improving family
    welfare outcomes.
        So, for reasons of effectiveness, there are very specific
    things we can make quite transparent, and we will.
        Mr. Lew. Could I add one additional point? And we talk,
    often, about development and diplomacy working together. It's
    critical, if we want to stick to our principles, that we have a
    single, united approach to a country, and that it's not just a
    message that's heard in an Agriculture Ministry, but it's heard
    by the Prime Minister, it's heard by the Finance Minister. We
    have to be able to communicate, at all levels of government,
    back and forth, consistently.
        I think we're trying very hard to do that as we put
    together the Food Security Initiative. Frankly, we're trying
    very hard to do it as we put together the Global Health
    Initiative. In many countries, we'll be talking about both of
    these programs together.
        So, there will be rising expectations, in terms of what it
    is that we expect our partners to--how we expect our partners
    to perform.
        Senator Cardin. I think it is very important that, up
    front, the expectations are well documented and known by our
    partners, that it is clear that our participation is not to be
    taken for granted, that if the standards are not met, that we
    are prepared to say it's not in the best interests of the
    United States, or the country in which we're operating, to
    continue that program. And we have to be prepared to leave if
    the standards are not being met. Because, quite frankly, you're
    not--we're not doing any benefit to the population if our
    participation does not change the underlining problems in that
    country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
        It's a privilege to introduce and recognize Senator Casey,
    my partner in this legislation that we produced and that we're
    attempting to coordinate with the State Department.
        Senator Casey.
        Senator Casey. Senator Lugar, thank you very much. And I
    appreciate your leadership, for many years, on these issues
    that we're coming together on. I think, in a way, that it's
    unprecedented, when you think about what the Congress can do,
    what the administration can do, and what our international
    friends can do. And not to leave out the tremendous work done
    by the--by foundations and nonprofit organizations. So, we're
    grateful for that leadership.
        And I want to commend Senator Cardin on some of his
    questions, that I might follow up on.
        But, I do want to thank you, Secretary Lew----
        Mr. Lew. Thank you.
        Senator Casey [continuing]. And Director Shah, for being
    here today, for your work and your commitment. And, I think, by
    commending your work, we're, of course, commending the team
    that you work with and for, President Obama and Secretary
    Clinton and the whole team, so to speak. We're grateful for the
    commitment.
        And I think when we come together today and have a hearing
    like this, and we have a discussion about this critically
    important issue of food security, we all come into this room
    for different reasons, I guess, or come from different
    experiences and different levels of commitment. But, I think I
    can go to anyone in this room, and if you ask them why they're
    here, it would come down to a couple of basic reasons.
        We're here, I think, because we're summoned by our
    conscience, first of all. And we're concerned about security.
    Not just food security itself, but security itself, from harm
    that results when people are desperate and when countries have
    terrible situations, which lead to another kind of insecurity.
    And I think we're also concerned about the economic impact of
    this issue, here in this country and across the world.
        So, as we think about our conscience, we're reminded, by
    some of those really compelling and disturbing statistics,
    there are lots of ways to express it, but, by one estimation--
    and people in this room know this number, but it's--bears
    repeating--every 5 seconds, a child in the world dies from
    malnutrition and food insecurity.
        I was also struck by some of the numbers that were cited as
    it relates to both the role that women play in the solution,
    but also the disproportionally negative impact that this crisis
    has for women across the world. Sixty percent of the world's
    chronically hungry are women and girls. Sixty percent. Twenty
    percent of which are children under 5.
        So, we have lots of data, we have lots of diagnosis of the
    problem, and I'm glad that, today, we're talking about a
    solution--or, strategy is, maybe, the better word.
        I wanted to talk about at least three areas, and maybe get
    to some more in a--maybe a brief second round, if we can. I
    know we have another panel.
        I want to talk, first of all--or, ask you, first of all,
    about the--kind of, the budget, but maybe, more importantly,
    the coordination question.
        The budget numbers are--and I know you don't want to spend
    all your time talking about your own budget, but it's--these
    numbers are pretty compelling, as well. Just in terms of--not
    only your capacity or the diminished capacity over time, but
    what that means for U.S. commitment around the world. One
    number that struck me was--1990, USAID employed 181
    agricultural specialists; 2009, 22. Go from 181 to 22, in 20
    years. It's not as if the problem has been cut back or
    diminished in that time--same timeframe; if anything, it got
    worse. We're at a billion people, more than a billion people,
    food insecure.
        But, second, and related to that, the numbers, as it
    relates to--because of that incapacity or failure for us to
    make a full commitment in our budget and our resources,
    worldwide--or our commitment to agricultural development
    worldwide has declined. The other number that struck me was,
    worldwide, the share of agriculture and development assistance
    has fallen from a high of 13 percent in 1985 to just 4 percent
    between 2002 and 2007.
        So, I don't want to just dwell on the numbers, but ask
    you--we know you need more resources. We're committed to that.
    And we're going to--we want to continue to work with you on
    that. But, maybe the tougher question to ask, and the tougher
    question to deal with, is--and, Secretary Lew, you understand
    this, because you've got management responsibilities, not just
    policy. And, Director Shah, obviously, has a really focused
    responsibility here. But, how do you cut through the red tape,
    the turf battles, the--all of the commitments that you've made
    and, I think, work you've already done on interagency
    coordination? It's one--I guess it's in that category of, it's
    easier to say than do. And I think, if there's a--in terms of
    where the public is on this--(a) the public may not have a full
    sense of the dimensions of the problem, and our scaling back,
    over at least the last 20 years, in addressing this problem.
    But, I think the public probably has taxpayers who--paying our
    salary--have probably a--there's probably a credibility gap.
    When we say, ``We're going to cut through the red tape, we're
    going to be more streamlined, we're going to be more efficient
    in the Federal Government,'' and they say, ``Yeah, I've heard
    that before.'' Can you walk through that again, in terms of how
    you're going to cut through that interagency or turf-battle
    problem?
        Mr. Lew. Senator Casey, this is a core issue, because we
    will only succeed if we're able to accomplish that. I mean,
    we've talked extensively already about the need to draw on
    expertise from multiple agencies. It's just as important when
    we go into a developing country. One of the characteristics of
    a developing country is that it's capacity constrained at the
    governmental levels. If we come with three or four loosely or
    uncoordinated programs, and other bilateral donors and
    multilateral institutions are there, also with loosely or
    uncoordinated programs, we're creating stresses on those
    capacity-constrained countries that it's unreasonable to expect
    them to be able to deal with. We owe it to them to be able to
    do the coordination and have the capacity, ourselves, to go to
    them with a coherent program, where the different pieces fit
    together.
        You know, it's interesting, I've worked from different
    vantage points on this question of jurisdiction and, you know,
    what we in Washington call ``turf.'' If we could just start by
    asking the question, ``What do we need to do? What are the
    requirements?'' and then, second, ask the question, ``Who's
    best equipped to do it, and how do they work together?'' we
    would be so much more effective.
        I think, on this Food Security Initiative, that's how we've
    approached it. That's how we've put the funding together.
    That's how we've put the people together. And it's a challenge,
    because--it's a challenge to congressional jurisdictional
    lines, it's a challenge to agency jurisdictional lines. And, I,
    frankly, think there's no substitute for leadership. We have to
    provide the leadership, at the agency level. We need your
    support in having the leadership, at the congressional level.
    And we have to go out into country with ambassadors and AID
    mission directors and leaders who understand it.
        As I travel to countries, the difference between where it
    works and where it doesn't work boils down to leadership. And
    we have to not just expect it of people, we have to train them
    for it, we have to model it for them.
        I just came back from Afghanistan last Friday. I wouldn't
    want to compare Afghanistan to all of the countries in the Food
    Security Initiative, but some of the issues are similar. We
    have probably eight agencies of government working together
    there. It is making a big difference that we're coordinating in
    an area like agriculture, and going with one program; that
    we're coordinating in rule of law, and coming with one program.
        This is one program. You know, we--if we don't get the
    funding, we'll be in a different place. It's a piece that's
    like a jigsaw puzzle; you can't take a piece out and have the
    whole picture. So, the multilateral funding is critical. I
    mean, we, at the State Department, don't normally advocate
    primarily for funding that the Department of Treasury typically
    requests. We put this together as a conceptual whole, where
    what we'll be doing on a bilateral basis dovetails with what we
    expect the international financial institutions to be doing on
    a multilateral basis.
        So, we have to continue to see it as a whole. We make the
    commitment to working, at the agency level, and providing that
    leadership. The two deputy coordinators are committed to it.
    You know, Administrator Shah and myself and the Secretary are
    committed to it. And, most importantly, the President is
    committed to it.
        So, I think you have our firmest commitment, from the
    executive branch, that we don't consider whole-of-government to
    be just a rhetorical phrase. It's a philosophy of how to get
    the job done.
        Dr. Shah. If I could just address a few points that you
    raised, sir.
        First, on budget, it is worth noting--and you did, of
    course--that our FY11 budget request on inflation-adjusted
    terms, is still building back toward where we were in 1982,
    when we had capacities for providing support in this sector
    that were far in excess of where we've been over recent
    decades. So, it is a process to get back to where we were, and
    we hope to get beyond that.
        Second, on expertise, we have been working, for about 18
    months, to build real capacity, at the agency, in agriculture
    and food. I think the 2008 World Development Report, the work
    of you--your work and Senator Lugar's work, has all sent a
    powerful signal, and the agencies have been responsive to that.
    So, today we have more than 130 agricultural experts. They're
    not all in the agriculture office. They're scattered around the
    world. But, we're reorganizing that in a way that allows us to
    be more effective and efficient.
        And, third, on coordination----
        Senator Casey. May I just ask you--when you started--or, I
    should say, when the new administration started, what was that
    number?
        Dr. Shah. Well, it--I'm--we've hired more than 40 ag
    officers----
        Senator Casey. OK.
        Dr. Shah [continuing]. In the last year, so, probably a
    little bit less than 90.
        On coordination, we are working really hard to get that
    right. So, every week, I lead a meeting that brings the
    interagency colleagues together. We have the investment in the
    World Bank Trust Fund. The Treasury will, for example, sit on
    the board of that trust fund. But we are working very closely
    with them to make sure that trust fund supports the countries
    we're prioritizing, that come out of this country-led process,
    and that we're using each other's tools in a way that's most
    aligned. In some places, the multilateral development banks can
    more easily fund road infrastructure, irrigation
    infrastructure; we can fund seed research, extension efforts.
    In other cases, the reverse may be true. So, I think there's an
    opportunity to use those tools in a synergistic way, and cover
    the full agricultural value chain, which has been such a
    missing part of effective ag development strategy over the last
    few decades. Similar examples exist in research and other
    areas. But, that's how we're trying to approach it.
        Senator Casey. Doctor, I know I'm over time, but I'll come
    back--try to come back to both of you in a couple of minutes.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
        And I just want to follow up on Senator Casey's point by
    mentioning the whole-of-government idea is certainly central in
    the initiative. You've explained your thoughts about this. But,
    physically, who will do the coordination? In other words, in
    light of the multiple agencies in a country working to address,
    will direction come from USAID, from Secretary Clinton, from
    you, Secretary Lew? How does the coordination happen?
        Mr. Lew. Well, in-country, the answer is easy. We have, you
    know, the Ambassador's chief of mission in-country, and we have
    made it clear that this is a priority for the Ambassadors to
    manage, and they have DCMs who often do the day-to-day
    management. There will be strong leaders for the--in each
    country, depending on the country. You know, there will be
    different people designated as leader. But, the team--you know,
    the two deputy coordinators will be driving it on a day-to-day
    basis. Dr. Shah described the, kind of, oversight mechanism.
        Each agency will ultimately be accountable for the funds
    that it has the appropriations for and that it's going to be
    spending and reporting on.
        But, it has to tie together in a plan. We're not looking to
    have three or four or five separate streams, where you come
    back at the end, and they didn't do the whole program. As Dr.
    Shah just said, each one is a component of a unified program,
    and it only works if we get each of the components.
        So, I think, in Washington, we're tightly coordinated, on a
    policy bases. The management ultimately has to be very strong,
    in country, for things to work. It needs to have the support of
    the Ambassador; and not just the support, but the active
    involvement.
        And, you know, this will be something of a learning
    experience. I mean, you know, we're doing a number of whole-of-
    government efforts in a way that they haven't been effectively
    done before. We understand that. I think we're already seeing
    what works better than doesn't.
        And I hate to get back to something that sounds so simple,
    but it really does depend on leadership. We have to make sure
    that our leaders, in country, know what's expected of them.
        And I've been to many meetings where the question begins,
    ``I want to do it the way my agency does it.'' If we say that's
    not an acceptable approach, it has to be, ``Are we implementing
    the plan?'' And our partners and other agencies have to do the
    same thing.
        And again, I come back to it, we're going to need to be
    partners on this, because sometimes what we hear is, ``Well,
    our committees want us to do this.'' If the message they get
    from us, and that they get from you, is that this whole-of-
    government effort is for real, and that you're going to be
    judged on whether or not you achieved that--people manage
    differently.
        We have a lot of history that we have to overcome or move
    away from. So, I don't say any of this, suggesting that it's
    easy. And it requires an awful lot of time. And the reason we
    have two very senior Ambassadors coming in to run it is, it's
    not something that should be done by a mid-level officer. It
    requires, you know, that kind of both sophistication and
    experience, but, also, the respect that comes from that in the
    system. Both of--you know, USAID and State are systems where
    experienced Foreign Service officers have a standing to call
    people to account. And if they know they have the support of
    the Administrator, of myself, of the Secretary, I think we can
    do this.
        It's clear to us that it's the right thing to do. It's also
    clear that there are a lot of historical and institutional
    barriers that we have to not be deterred by.
        Senator Lugar. Well, we, on the committee, will look
    forward to working with you as this whole-of-government
    approach grows, matures, and is perfected. It's so important.
        Senator Menendez, do you have questions?
        Senator Menendez. Thank you both for your service.
        Administrator Shah, the USAID has been the lead agency for
    the United States in poverty reduction. At one time, it was a
    highly respected thought leader. Particularly on agriculture,
    it led the Green Revolution. However, it has also been steadily
    decimated over the last couple of decades and has lost a lot of
    its technical capacity. So much so that today USAID has, as I
    understand it, only 16 agricultural experts, much fewer than in
    the 1980s.
        Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, Senator Corker, and I have
    been involved with legislation to try to build up capacity at
    USAID, which I hope that we can move soon. How do you plan to
    implement an effective food security strategy, or any other
    strategy, without a strong USAID?
        Dr. Shah. Thank you, Senator. And, Senator, with your
    support we hope to build a strong USAID to be able to
    effectively implement this program and all of the other
    responsibilities we carry.
        Just a moment on that. There are four major operational
    reforms that I'm pursuing this year, with the support of the
    Secretary of State and the White House and others.
        The first is to rebuild our policy and budget capabilities
    so that we can exercise thought leadership and organize our own
    thinking and speak with one voice, and do that in a coordinated
    way.
        The second is around procurement reform. It's been a major
    part of our shared thinking in this space, that we need to be
    more efficient at how we implement efforts, and that will
    require procurement reform.
        A third is in the area of human resources, where we're
    looking to expand certain technical expertise that, you point
    out, has been diminished over time, and that which is required
    of an agency that's called to take on significant tasks.
        And the fourth is in monitoring, evaluation, and
    transparency, where we have an expanded accountability, to this
    committee and to the American people, to be more transparent
    and to be more indicator-oriented.
        Senator Menendez. Let's talk, for a moment, about the third
    of your four items, which is how you intend to attract and
    retain high-quality talent.
        Dr. Shah. Well, thank you, sir. I hope, in August, to
    launch a set of human resource reforms that will cover
    recruiting and retention. But, in food security, in particular,
    we have been aggressively recruiting top talent. We now have
    more than 130 agricultural experts at the agency. We are
    reorganizing our capabilities so that they can function
    together in an integrated way, and actually test each other's
    ideas and pushback. We're trying to create the rich
    intellectual environment that will allow us to recruit others.
    I've--this is a field, in particular, where I have certain
    expertise in relationships, and have had some successes, I
    think, in bringing on board the types of people that will help
    us be effective, and will help us link better to the private
    sector, expand the kind of innovative partnerships we can do
    with banks and with large firms and with local private-sector
    organizations, and that can help us work better with our
    interagency colleagues and with institutions like the World
    Bank.
        So, I'm actually very optimistic, sir, in food security and
    in global health, that we can attract and retain a very, very
    high level of talent to do this.
        And I'll close by just noting--and although we'll have a
    broader recruitment strategy than just this, I've put a lot of
    personal effort into recruiting. I think human resource
    recruiting is probably one of my top tasks, in order to help
    support this agency be successful.
        And I enjoyed reading, just the other day, when Bill Gates
    was speaking to a university group, and students were asking
    where they should go to work to be part of this great mission
    of making the world a better place. He suggested USAID. And I
    know that's only one anecdote, sir, and we have a lot of
    structure to put around our recruiting efforts. But, we are
    working aggressively to rebuild our capabilities.
        Senator Menendez. Aside from your verbal response, do you
    have a plan of action in this regard?
        Dr. Shah. We do. We are refining it. It basically--there
    are two or three----
        Senator Menendez. Is it a written plan?
        Dr. Shah. It will be--yes, it will be written----
        Senator Menendez. And can you----
        Dr. Shah [continuing]. Within about a few weeks, if I
    could----
        Senator Menendez [continuing]. Share that with----
        Dr. Shah [continuing]. Send it to you..
        Senator Menendez [continuing]. The committee, please?
        Dr. Shah. Yes.
        Senator Menendez. Let me just shift to what's been going on
    with the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Diplomatic Review, a process
    that both of you are cochairing. Can you tell us where the
    process is and when Congress will have a chance to review the
    initial findings?
        Mr. Lew. Yes, Senator. We are very close to being in a
    position to come up and brief Congress in detail on where we
    are. We've been trying to coordinate with a number of executive
    branch policy processes that have been going on. There's the
    Presidential study going on, on development, specifically.
    There's a national security strategy being developed. Our
    Quadrennial Diplomacy and Diplomatic Review is part of that
    overall effort. So, there's been a back-and-forth, and a
    healthy back-and-forth. I think the product we're going to come
    forward with is better for it.
        I can't say if it will be next week or the week after, but
    we're talking about a very small period of time----
        Senator Menendez. You precipitated my next question because
    I was trying to quantify ``we're very close''; I've heard
    ``very close'' a couple of times.
        Mr. Lew. Yes.
        Senator Menendez. So, it's like the parent in the car, and
    the kid says----
        Mr. Lew. ``Are we there yet?''
        Senator Menendez [continuing]. ``Are we there?'' And, ``Oh,
    yeah, we're just about there.''
        Mr. Lew. Yes.
        Senator Menendez. This kid is getting impatient.
        Mr. Lew. I hear that. And I will take that message back.
        We are impatient to come up here and do the briefing. We
    very much want the input. We want it early in the process,
    because, you know, we now have the next stage ahead of us.
        What we've done up til now is identifying target areas of
    opportunity, the kinds of issues that we should drill more
    deeply into, different kinds of considerations that we should
    make, in terms of choosing--we can't take on every challenge
    that's ahead of us. But, the core issue that we're dealing with
    is, Do we have the capabilities, at the State Department and
    USAID, to address the challenges that we face over the next
    number of years? I think we've made a lot of progress defining
    what the tradeoffs are. We'll have to make more progress
    between now and when we have a final review. And having your
    input during that process will be very helpful.
        So, we look forward to coming up and briefing.
        Senator Menendez. Well, we hope that that offer will be
    substantive----
        Mr. Lew. Oh, absolutely.
        Senator Menendez [continuing]. Because we are, very much
    looking to be engaged. I've held my fire, as the subcommittee
    chair on foreign assistance but, I have to be honest with you,
    we want to be in sync, but it's not endless.
        Mr. Lew. We appreciate that. And we appreciate the patience
    that you and your colleagues have shown. Obviously, in the
    first year of an administration, we had a lot of things we were
    taking on at the same time. This is a very important priority.
    We've put a lot of people into it. We've got about 500 people
    at the State Department and USAID engaged--just the process of
    engaging across our two organizations and coming up with an
    approach that we can come forward with, internally in the
    administration and, very shortly, to the Hill, is huge
    progress. So, we feel we've gotten a lot done, as we've worked
    through it.
        I wish we were, you know, at the point where I could say,
    ``We're up here tomorrow.'' That would be easier, and I know it
    would be more satisfying. But, I do think we're talking about
    weeks before we're able to engage in the way you'd like.
        Senator Menendez. Final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Administrator, how many holds do you have on programs?
        Dr. Shah. I'm not aware of the total number, sir, but I can
    find out.
        Senator Menendez. Could you give me the total number, and
    for which programs there are holds on?
        Dr. Shah. Yes.
        Senator Menendez. Thank you.
        Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez.
        Senator Casey.
        Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Shah, I wanted to get back to a question for you. And I
    know we've got another panel and a vote and a lot happening, so
    we'll--I'll try to be brief.
        The question I wanted to focus on was the question of
    women; in particular, in terms of how that concern and focus is
    made part of the strategy.
        I was noting, in your testimony, Dr. Shah, you said--and
    I'm quoting from page 5 (page 17 of this print)--``When the
    well-being of women is improved, there is consistent and
    compelling evidence that agricultural productivity advances,
    poverty is reduced, and child nutrition improves.'' And I know
    you cited a person--Justine, in Uganda--and how her story
    exemplifies what one person can do when they have the capacity
    to farm and to produce.
        But, I just want to have you talk about that, because part
    of the challenge here for us--I think, both the administration
    and the Congress--is not--will be not just to get the policy
    right and the funding and cutting through the agency boundaries
    and all of that--the coordination part of it--we've got to be
    able to convince the American people of the necessity for us to
    go forward with this kind of a strategy. And I think, when you
    look at some of the public opinion surveys, and you ask
    someone, ``How do you reduce the deficit?'' or ``How do we make
    government--the Federal Government more efficient?'' they'll
    often say, ``Cut foreign aid.'' And they think it's a big part
    of our budget. And when they hear a lot of what we're talking
    about today, they conflate that with things that they would--
    they sometimes think we would like to do, or they'd like us to
    do, but they can't--we can't do it in a recession. When
    someone's out of work in this country, they don't want us to be
    focused on other priorities.
        And I think we have to connect for them how important this
    is to our own security, to our own economy, in addition to the
    moral gravity of these issues.
        So, part of the way to do that is to be able to show them--
    show the American people that individual--individuals around
    the world, and most of them women, are both victims of, as well
    as--can be, increasingly, major participants in implementing a
    better strategy. So, I wanted you to have a--just talk about
    that for a few moments.
        Dr. Shah. Sure. Thank you, sir. I think the main point I
    would make is that we bring a really data-oriented approach to
    decisionmaking, with respect to a focus on women. And the two
    most important data points, in my mind, are the ones you've
    referenced. First, that we know a dollar of additional income
    going to a woman is far more likely to be reinvested in the
    well-being of that family, and, in particular, of children. The
    correlations between child school attendance or child
    nutritional attainment and women's incomes is far stronger than
    it is with men's incomes. That's just reality, and there's
    quite a lot of data to substantiate that. So, for that reason,
    what--the indicator we care most about is--are women's incomes.
        The second critical data point is, we know that women are
    the decisionmakers and producers of food on--in the places
    where we're working--primarily dry land, small-holder
    agriculture that's highly vulnerable to climate, weather, and a
    range of other market conditions. So, in that context, we want
    to choose--we want to invest in the types of crop varieties
    that women are going to be more inclined to value and use.
        Nutritionally enhanced crop varieties, for instance, are
    more likely to be adopted by women, because they're thinking
    more about the nutrition of their family. There's a great
    example in beta carotene-enriched sweet potato in Uganda, which
    is the case I referenced, where, you know, women were
    responsive to a message that said, ``This is a product that
    will improve, you know, vitamin A in children, and reduce child
    malnutrition in that way.'' And you saw big improvements in
    adoption when you targeted women.
        The other example I'd cite is, there have been studies in
    Kenya on fertilizer that demonstrate that, when women are
    brought into the decisionmaking and when systems target women,
    particularly post-harvest, they're much more likely to purchase
    and store and manage access to fertilizer, on a continent where
    fertilizer use is, you know, virtually zero for staple crops
    and small-holder production. That's an important insight.
        So, these types of insights are simply the data points that
    drive the way we're trying to make decisions here. And,
    frankly, the question came up earlier about, Do the countries
    themselves recognize this? And the answer is, absolutely. You
    know, Rwanda is a great example, where a female Agriculture
    Minister, who's a former Rockefeller Ph.D. scientist, knows
    exactly all of this information, and how to put it together in
    a way that allows that program to be successful.
        So, you know, through our training programs, we hope to
    build more leaders like that. But, I'm very encouraged that we
    can be successful. And you have, on the next part of this
    panel, one of the world's leading experts, to talk about that
    in more detail.
        Senator Casey. Doctor, thank you.
        Mr. Lew. Senator----
        Senator Casey. Secretary Lew.
        Mr. Lew [continuing]. could I add that I think we all agree
    that food security is at the heart of economic instability in a
    lot of countries in the world. The food riots that we referred
    to earlier are just the most visible manifestation of that.
        It's also the case that, where you have that kind of
    instability, it is a--an environment that is ripe for political
    instability. And you look at the threats that we're dealing
    with, where there are crisis or where there are wars, whether
    it's Afghanistan, where there's a war, or a place like Somalia
    and Yemen, where political instability is generally seen as a
    real clear and present danger to the United States. It's too
    late, if you wait for the crumbling of a society, to go in and
    prevent that from happening.
        So, I would stand second to none in saying that this is the
    right thing to do, because it's the morally right thing to do.
    But, I also don't think it's at all inconsistent to say that
    it's a smart thing to do, if we want to look ahead and--look at
    a world where Americans will be more secure. It's not a good
    thing for Americans for there to be a lot of countries in the
    world that are failing or failed states, driven by the
    pressures of economic instability that's driven by food
    insecurity. So, I think it--we shouldn't make it a choice, that
    you either do it because it's the right thing to do or because
    we need to do----
        Senator Casey. Right.
        Dr. Shah [continuing]. it for our national security. I
    think it happens to be both.
        Senator Casey. And part of that challenge--and I'll end
    with this, because I know we have to move--part of that
    challenge is in--without trying to trivialize the issue--but,
    sometimes the way we debate even very big and important issues
    in this country is in 30 seconds. And what would you want in
    that 30 seconds--maybe 27 seconds? I think you'd probably want
    two things--maybe three, but you might only get time for two.
    One would be graphically demonstrating that instability--that
    that's a manifestation or a result of food instability. And
    second, Justine. Tell her story, as opposed to having a graph
    about the problem or a chart about how we're going to make it
    work, governmentally.
        So, it's a hard thing to do, but I think the more we can
    think about it in personal terms of real stories, as opposed to
    data--and then, second, to connect the dots to instability and,
    really, to a certain extent--I don't want to overdramatize
    this--but, to a certain extent, terrorism itself is one of the
    results.
        So, thank you very much.
        Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Senator Casey.
        Without overemphasizing this point, I think we're, today,
    demonstrating a very strong bipartisan legislative initiative
    here today. Likewise, Congress has taken the approach of
    working with the administration in a unified fashion, which is
    tremendously important to our efforts.
        So, we thank both of you very, very much for your
    testimony.
        Let me suggest, at this point, that we will have a 10-
    minute recess for our next witnesses----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lugar [continuing]. while Senator Casey and I vote
    and do our duty. A rollcall vote was called during the last
    question. We'll be back as rapidly as possible, and we hope
    that our witnesses will be with us at that point. We look
    forward to hearing them.
        Thank you.

        [Recess.]

        Senator Lugar. The committee is called into order once
    again.
        The Chair thanks the witnesses for your patience.
    Fortunately, that will be the last voting interruption. We will
    proceed with the hearing.
        I call upon the Honorable Catherine Bertini for her
    testimony.

    STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE BERTINI, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
      OF THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME, COCHAIR, GLOBAL
      AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON
                      GLOBAL AFFAIRS, CORTLAND, NY

        Ms. Bertini. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar.
        Senator Lugar, it's an honor and a pleasure for us to be
    here today. Thank you for inviting us. And, most importantly,
    thank you for your leadership, because it's your leadership,
    for many, many years, that has now--it looks like it may even
    culminate, this year, in real legislation and also, obviously,
    with a really strong commitment on the part of the
    administration, in the new administration of President Obama.
    So, it's--you've been in the right place all the time, and now
    the world is coming to the catalyst I think----
        Senator Lugar. Thank you.
        Ms. Bertini [continuing]. You've created. And we're very
    pleased to be a part of it, especially having been cochairs of
    the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Agriculture Task Force.
        It's also been very, very encouraging to see what President
    Obama has directed, and how Secretary Clinton and Secretary
    Vilsack and Administrator Shah and others have been working to
    put those issues in place.
        Just a few comments today, if I might, with the rest of our
    joint testimony being presented to you for the record.
        As others have said in different ways, agriculture
    development is the single best way to try to decrease the large
    numbers of people who are still living in poverty. It's the
    best way, because most poor people still live in rural areas,
    because agriculture is still the biggest employer, if one can
    call it that, or, at least, time user of poor people in the
    developing world, and because investments in their
    opportunities and the opportunities of poor farmers throughout
    the world will magnify, many times over, in terms of decreasing
    poverty, decreasing hunger, and increasing the ability of
    people, families, communities, and countries to contribute
    economically to not only their own well-being, but their
    country's and the world's.
        You know, we're doing this--you're doing this, Senator
    Casey and others, because it's the right thing to do. But,
    there are strong arguments, even for those who just want to
    know what's in this for the United States of America. And when
    we look at this from the perspective of agriculture over the
    long term, the demand for food, as you have said, is going to
    increase dramatically over the next 40 years. It already has,
    for many of the reasons that you stated in your statement. The
    world has to produce more food, and the areas and peoples who
    are going to be best positioned to have very significant
    increases in agriculture are those farmers in developing
    countries.
        And if we think about this from a U.S. perspective over the
    long term, and from where we are going to sell our own
    agriculture production, the--some of the areas where we have
    sold the most--countries where we have sold the most in the
    past, to some of our biggest customers, are countries where the
    population is declining, certainly not increasing. And if, over
    the long term, we expect future space, future markets for our
    own agriculture production, we have to be in a position of
    knowing that there are people who can actually afford to
    purchase our agriculture commodities. And those people are
    going to be in the developing world. But, unless they are less
    poor, they are not in a position to be able to purchase our own
    commodities. So, if we help them, through helping their
    agriculture over the long term, it will also complement ours.
        Several recommendations, quickly. And these are in our
    document and, certainly, in the report, earlier, done by the
    Chicago Council. We think, first of all, that the U.S.
    Government needs to support agricultural development, from a
    political perspective, a financial perspective, for many years,
    at least for the next decade. It's not the kind of project that
    we can say is a good idea for the next couple of years, because
    then we'll just waste a lot of money. It has to be a long-term
    commitment on our part.
        Second, we are very--we are unanimous and very strong in
    the view that USAID should be strengthened and supported as the
    lead institution, in order to advance U.S. global food security
    initiative. And, therefore, it needs to be given not only the
    resources, but the flexibility, in an effort to be able to
    achieve that.
        And, third, we think that one of the important additions or
    expansions that should be put in place is allowing USAID to
    spend more of its resources on local and regional purchases of
    food aid.
        Fourth, we believe that there should be much more
    attention, as you propose in the Lugar-Casey bill, for a
    stronger focus on agriculture research, education, and
    extension.
        And finally, but--not finally; first, really, in terms of
    need, but finally, on my list--as virtually every speaker has
    talked about today, about both sides of this desk, is that we
    must highlight and pay attention to the roles of women. And
    this must be much more than just the rhetoric of talking about
    it, but actually putting in place some of the things that were
    discussed today, as far as measuring how we reach women.
        And in the interest of time here, Senator, I want to offer,
    following up on Senator Cardin and others' discussions of these
    issues that, if you are interested in placing in the record a
    variety of ideas of how, actually, this not only could be put
    in place, this idea of reaching women and involving women, but
    also, potentially, how it could be followed and evaluated.
        Senator Lugar. Do you have items to place in the record
    today?
        Ms. Bertini. I can place some in verbally, but I'd like to
    send some to you to follow up on the discussion today----
        Senator Lugar. We'd appreciate that.
        Ms. Bertini [continuing]. If that's all right.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Lugar. Secretary Glickman, welcome.

          STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, FORMER SECRETARY OF
         AGRICULTURE, COCHAIR, GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
    INITIATIVE, THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON,
                                   DC

        Mr. Glickman. Thank you, Senator.
        I'll be careful how much I praise you, because you might--
    it might not necessarily help you. But, I've known you for a
    long time, and you are an ideal leader in this country, and you
    have done so much to promote this particular issue, and I am
    just deeply grateful to count on you as a friend----
        Senator Lugar. Thank you.
        Mr. Glickman [continuing]. As well as a former colleague.
        As you may know, I have switched jobs in the last few
    months. And I'm not here to promote my new job, but I'm now
    president of an organization called Refugees International,
    which, probably, will be seeking your assistance and your--at
    least getting an appointment to talk about issues that we care
    about, and very much indirectly related to many of the issues
    that we're going to talk about today. So, I thank you.
        I want to just reaffirm a couple of points. Number one is,
    I think your legislation is important. It will provide long-
    term success in this effort. It will be a sustaining effort. It
    will provide coordination and direction and transparency.
        And, you know, the fact that we can get something done into
    authorizing law is really important. These are very fine people
    who testified. I've worked with both of them in various parts
    of my life, and I can't think of two better people leading
    their respective agencies.
        And Secretary Clinton, certainly, is in that mode. But,
    Congress needs to set the parameters for these things, needs to
    set some guidelines for these things. And I think it will help
    dramatically in the effort.
        The second thing I would say is that the commitment, as
    Catherine said, must be long-term. It's not going to work
    unless it's long-term--at least 10 years. This is a long-term
    effort.
        To reiterate her--what she said also, that the USAID should
    be the lead agency for the implementation of a global food
    security initiative over the long term. There are a variety of
    agencies with serious roles. Clearly, the diplomatic functions
    of the State Department are key; certainly agriculture research
    parts of the United States Department of Agriculture are key.
    But, this, historically, has been the development agency. And
    it's kind of lost its way over the years, for a variety of
    reasons.
        But, I've been in government long enough to know that
    sometimes moving boxes around doesn't do much. It just makes
    people who move the boxes around happy. But, in this case, in
    my judgment, to be successful, there's got to be somebody,
    someplace clearly in charge. And that doesn't mean there can't
    be other actors here, in coordination, and the task forces to
    try to work these things together can work. But, my experience,
    in almost anything I've done in my life, but particularly in
    government, with turf being such a big part of the realities of
    what we deal with every way, is that a leader has to emerge
    that can direct action and, hopefully, inspire people to follow
    him or her in that process. And maybe it can be done through a
    division of effort, but I would just urge you--if that's going
    to be the case, then I would just urge you to keep riding herd
    as hard as you can to ensure that there is a minimum of this
    turf battle that takes place. Because, it's there. It's a
    natural phenomenon. It's part of the DNA of government. And
    what I hope that we've heard before is, the people who are here
    are committed to try to reduce that as much as they can. But, I
    know that those battles exist.
        One very positive thing I heard today was--is that, at the
    ambassadorial level, the State Department is really pushing the
    ambassadors, the CEO of the United States of America in each
    one of these countries, to take the leadership role, to know
    the significance and importance of pulling these teams
    together. These teams have to be pulled together in order to
    get this done. Otherwise, I fear that we're just going to be
    scratching the surface and struggling and not showing very
    many--much results.
        The United States of America used to be the undisputed
    leader in the world, helping people feed themselves, cloth
    themselves, basically allow people to become what the Good Lord
    intended them to become. And, you know, this is an opportunity
    here. We now have the Congress interested. We have the
    Secretary of State. We have the President interested. We have
    great leaders in this thing. Now is really the time to move.
        And I guess, from my perspective, what I would hate to see
    is that inertia of government slowing things down to such a
    degree that, in fact, we can't get it done.
        So, I guess, you know, ultimately, a lot of these decisions
    will be decided by the President and by the Secretary of State
    and by you and the Members of Congress. But, I would hope that
    we give USAID the kind of independence, authority, resources,
    flexibility and staffing necessary to carry it out, to do the
    development functions, working in coordination or collaboration
    with the State Department on its diplomatic functions, but
    recognize that the buck has to stop somewhere. And if the
    administration is carrying this out, it's got to stop with
    someone in that administration with the ability to actually get
    where the rubber hits the road, get what needed to be--get
    done--get it done. So, that would be my comment to you today.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared joint statement of Ms. Bertini and Mr.
    Glickman follows:]

      Prepared Joint Statement by Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Secretary of
      Agriculture and Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director of the
     U.N. World Food Programme; Cochairs of The Chicago Council on Global
              Affairs' Global Agricultural Development Initiative

        Chairman Kerry, Senator Lugar, and members of the committee, thank
    you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our
    ongoing work to identify opportunities for the United States to provide
    leadership in advancing global food security.
        The Chicago Council on Global Affairs' Global Agricultural
    Development Initiative, which we cochair, purposes to examine the risks
    posed to the United States and the world by rural food insecurity,
    explore the role of agricultural development in alleviating those
    risks, and identify opportunities where the U.S. can better address
    these challenges by a renewed focus on agricultural development in its
    foreign assistance programs.
        The work of the Global Agricultural Development Initiative builds
    upon a study conducted by The Chicago Council in 2008-09, which
    explored the challenges posed by global food insecurity in sub-Saharan
    Africa and South Asia and the appropriate role for this issue in U.S.
    foreign and development policy. The study concluded that nearly two-
    thirds of the people living on less than $1 a day live in rural areas
    and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Moreover, the study
    also found that it was in America's security, economic, and diplomatic
    interests to work aggressively to alleviate the problem of global
    poverty, and that the most effective way to do so was through investing
    in the development of sustainable agriculture and food systems in the
    developing world. For these investments to be effective, they must
    target smallholder farmers, as they make up the majority of the world's
    rural poor, and pay special attention to the critical role women play
    in farm-level decisions. This study built upon the momentum created by
    Senators Lugar and Casey's introduction of the Global Food Security Act
    (S. 384) in summer 2008.
        We appeared before this committee in March 2009 to present our
    study's recommendations for how the United States could provide
    international leadership to begin reducing global food insecurity
    through increased investments in agricultural development. The study's
    full conclusions and recommendations can be found in the report,
    ``Renewing American Leadership in the Fight Against Global Hunger and
    Poverty'' (The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2009).
        Since last year, food security, and the important role agricultural
    development can play in advancing it globally, has continued to be
    discussed among those in the United States and international
    communities. The food price crisis of 2008, the spread of abject hunger
    and poverty to over 1 billion people in 2009, and the need to nearly
    double food production to meet the global demand by 2050, has caused
    world leaders to give new attention to how agricultural development in
    poor regions can expand the sufficiency and sustainability of the
    world's food supply.
        The U.S. Senate responded quickly to these developments by
    introducing the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security bill in summer 2008.
    Upon taking office, President Obama has made clear his commitment to
    global food security. At the G20 summit in April 2009, the President
    called for a doubling of U.S. support for agricultural development in
    FY10-FY13. At L'Aquila in July 2009 the G8 announced a new $22 billion
    multinational food security initiative. In September 2009, Secretary
    Clinton made public the U.S. Government outline for its Global Hunger
    and Food Security Initiative, and developing country leaders continued
    to recognize the need to invest in their own food security. Finally, as
    we speak, the World Bank, U.S. Department of Treasury, and others are
    launching the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, a
    multilateral trust fund that purposes to finance efforts in developing
    countries to improve agricultural productivity, nutrition, and access
    to food. We were pleased that President Obama requested that Secretary
    Clinton oversee the development and implementation of a U.S. food
    security strategy, and applaud the attention, priority, and leadership
    the Secretary has given to this issues since early 2009.
        In spite of these initial commitments, further progress in
    overcoming global food insecurity faces many obstacles. In times of
    economic hardship, it can be politically challenging to get sustained
    support for foreign assistance programs, however beneficial to U.S.
    interests they may be. Moreover, many critical issues--ranging from the
    ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, to reforms of health care
    and immigration policies--continue to vie for administration and
    congressional attention. Finally, it will be challenging, yet not
    impossible, to sustain U.S. leadership and financial and technical
    support for a long-term U.S. food security initiative.
        It is our firm conviction that a long-term, well-resourced
    commitment by the U.S. Government to alleviating global food insecurity
    can drastically reduce global poverty, and that such a commitment is in
    the Nation's security, economic, and diplomatic interests. On-going
    U.S. leadership, at both the executive and congressional levels, in
    partnership with developing nations, other bilateral and multilateral
    donors, international organizations, NGOs, and private sector
    stakeholders, will be critical to a U.S. initiative's success.
        Advancing global food security will continue to be in America's
    economic, security, and diplomatic interests for the foreseeable
    future. Agricultural development has been demonstrated as the most
    effective way to alleviate rural poverty over the long term. Nearly 75
    percent of the world's poor resides in rural areas and depends on
    agriculture for their livelihoods. Moreover, the majority of population
    growth projected to occur between now and 2050, and therefore much of
    the increase in demand for food, will take place in developing
    countries. Investments in agriculture and food systems reduce poverty
    directly by increasing farm incomes and the availability and access to
    food, and indirectly, by generating employment and reducing food
    prices. These investments have been demonstrated to be twice as
    effective in reducing poverty as investments in other development
    sectors.
        Investing in global food security also advances U.S. national
    security interests. Through ongoing leadership on food security, the
    United States can renew ties and relationships in regions of heightened
    strategic concern, increase its political influence and improve its
    competitive position, while hedging against the serious future danger
    of political instability. The United States is already seeing the
    benefits of investing in agricultural development as part of its larger
    foreign policy strategies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There are
    further opportunities to strengthen relationships with regions of
    heightened concern, throughout Africa and Asia, by providing
    fundamental investments needed to stimulate economic growth. U.S.
    global food security policy also mobilizes the talent and influence of
    America's best institutions--its world-renowned agricultural research
    apparatus and land-grant universities. To address rural poverty and
    hunger in these regions is a wise and efficient deployment of America's
    ``soft power.''
        Moreover, investments in agricultural development will help the
    United States hedge against future demands on the agricultural and food
    sectors. By 2050, research suggests that global demand for food will
    double due to increases in population growth, shifts in dietary
    preferences, changes in climate, and scarcer resources. Climate change
    and resource scarcity, primarily the growing limited availability of
    fresh water, will affect agricultural productivity worldwide--from
    farms in Nepal and Ethiopia to those in Iowa and Kansas. If the world
    is going to be able to meet the growing demand for food, and avoid a
    significant increase in poverty, it will need to produce more, using
    fewer resources, in increasingly temperamental climactic conditions.
    Experts suggest that farmland in the developing world, much of which is
    currently underutilized due to lack of irrigation and access to
    productivity enhancing inputs and technologies, will be some of the
    only land where it will be feasible to dramatically increase production
    to meet the needs of the global food supply.
        Finally, increased economic growth in the developing world will
    create new trade and investment opportunities for American business.
    Already in South Asia, where GDP growth averaged above 8 percent
    between 2005 and 2008, American investors and exporters are making
    important gains. In 2007, U.S. total exports to sub-
    Saharan Africa totaled $14.4 billion, more than double the amount in
    2001. Research also suggests that as production in the developing world
    increases incomes are raised and dietary preferences shift, causing
    demand for U.S. agricultural commodities increases. A renewed American
    focus on alleviating poverty reduction through agricultural development
    will pay significant economic dividends in the long-run, to both U.S.
    businesses and the U.S. farmer.
        The Obama administration and 111th Congress have recognized the
    importance of providing political leadership and financial support for
    a U.S. global food security initiative. The administration's Global
    Hunger and Food Security Initiative led by Secretary Clinton and now by
    USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, and the President's request to Congress
    of $1.8 billion for funding toward agricultural development in FY11,
    are important first steps. However, passing authorizing legislation,
    which supports and complements the administration's Initiative, will be
    critical to the long-term success of a U.S. global food security
    policy.
        Institutionalizing global food security as an official component of
    U.S. development policy will cement for the long term the good work
    this administration and Members of Congress, many present at this
    hearing, have done on these issues to date. Empirically, policies that
    have been supported by both the executive and congressional branches
    have had the greatest success, in part because they have been reviewed
    and resourced over a multiyear period. The U.S. Food Assistance
    Programs, the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), and
    the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) have improved the lives of
    millions worldwide, and continued to be effective after the Presidents,
    Cabinet Members, and Members of Congress that fought for their
    establishment left office.
        Legal authorization of U.S. global food security efforts also gives
    direction and coordination to the various entities in the U.S.
    Government that are working on these issues. A recent GAO report
    identified 19 U.S. agencies that carry out or are involved in food
    security activities. The current administration has set up tools to
    begin coordination of these agencies' programs, but legislation will
    provide an official framework to direct differing agencies' mandates
    and provide a permanent mechanism for coordination and cooperation.
        Finally, legislation would provide a framework for regular review
    and evaluation of U.S. food security policy. These are useful tools for
    overseeing and implementing agencies to help see if programs are having
    the desired impact on the ground, but it also would also provides
    transparency and congressional understanding of America's work in this
    area, which would help support the regular, annual appropriation for a
    national food security policy.
        Although there are other urgent priorities confronting the
    Congress, the time is ripe to consider and pass legislation on global
    food security. International and national leaders and multilateral
    organizations are giving significant attention to the challenge of
    global poverty because of the recent food price crisis and ongoing
    period of economic distress. Moreover, unlike many other issues facing
    Congress and the administration, global food security, and decreasing
    international poverty and hunger, has always been a bipartisan issue.
    Relatively small investments in agricultural development ($1-$2
    billion/annually), if done strategically and sustained long term, are
    responsible and effective uses of taxpayer dollars because of their
    proven success. According to a 2008 study by the International Food
    Policy Research Institute in Washington, DC, if total investments in
    agricultural research and development in sub-Saharan Africa were
    increased to $2.9 billion annually by the year 2013, the number of poor
    people living on less than $1 per day in the region would decline by an
    additional 144 million by 2020. If annual agricultural research and
    investments in South Asia were increased by $3.1 billion by 2013, a
    total of 125 million more citizens in this region would escape poverty
    by 2020, and the poverty ration in the region would decrease from 35
    percent to 26 percent.
        As the administration and Congress continue to develop a national
    global food security policy, we offer the following recommendations
    based on our experience working on development, agriculture, and
    emergency assistance issues in the U.S. executive and congressional
    branches and international organizations:

       Provide sustained political and financial support for
            agricultural development for the next decade.
          Unlike investments in other areas of development, where the
            results can be seen shortly after program implementation,
            agriculture and food systems are built through long-term,
            strategic investments across multiple sectors (e.g., research,
            education, infrastructure development, local and national trade
            capacity) and by engaging multiple stakeholders (e.g.,
            bilateral and multilateral donors, international organizations,
            recipient countries, NGOs, businesses, and local civic
            organizations). Because of these complexities, it will take
            time for agricultural development to produce its full impact on
            the ground. However, if the United States can sustain its
            leadership and provide technical support and small financial
            investments to a global food security initiative for a decade,
            it will produce the desired result: higher productivity on
            small farms in underdeveloped countries, higher incomes for
            small farmers and their families, a dramatic increase in the
            global supply of food, and a significant decrease in the number
            of people, especially women, living on less than $1 a day.
       Strengthen and improve USAID as the leading institution to
            advance the U.S. global food security initiative.
          Successful assistance policies cannot emerge from inadequate
            institutions or from institutions that do not coordinate with
            each other and lack strong political leadership. A strong
            institutional framework is required to turn good ideas into
            operational policies and ensure that any added budget resources
            appropriated by Congress will be put to proper and effective
            use.
          We recommend that clear lines of authority and command be
            established inside the executive branch, emanating first from
            the White House, then through a single lead agency for
            international rural and agricultural development and hunger
            reduction. We believe a revitalized and strengthened USAID
            should be that lead agency. USAID has been carrying out
            agricultural development and U.S. foreign assistance policies
            for decades, and is uniquely positioned within the State
            Department to coordinate America's development policy with its
            overall foreign policy goals. However, in recent years USAID
            has been significantly weakened. To restore its strength, we
            recommend USAID be given an independent relationship with the
            Office of Management and Budget in order to give it authority
            and flexibility to most effectively carrying out U.S.
            development and food security activities. Its leadership on the
            Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative should be supported
            by the White House, other Cabinet agencies, including the U.S.
            Department of State, and in any corresponding legislation.
            Finally, in order to play this enlarged role in the area of
            agricultural development, USAID must be given enhanced
            professional staff resources in addition to an increased
            budget.
       Improve America's food assistance policies by increasing the
            authorization and appropriation of funds for local and regional
            purchase of food aid.
          America is the world's largest donor of food aid to hungry
            people, a matter of justifiable national pride. Hundreds of
            thousands of lives have been saved through this assistance, and
            hundreds of millions of lives improved. The in-kind food
            assistance provided and distributed by the United States, the
            World Food Programme, other bilateral donors, international
            organizations, and NGOs should be commended as one of the
            greatest emergency relief and development tools the
            international community has to alleviate global hunger.
            However, our food aid programs, which are effective in
            emergency situations, do not go far enough in dealing with
            long-term, systemic problems, and America does not get enough
            payoffs from its large food aid budget because of several
            longstanding practices in the way it is delivered.
          There are many ways that America's food aid policies could be
            improved, but we would especially recommend increasing
            authorization and funding for local and regional purchase in
            long-term development situations. International purchase allows
            food to be procured much closer to the beneficiary, reducing
            transport costs and ensuring compatibility with local diets.
            Local purchase also supports local markets, putting more money
            into the pockets of poor farmers, which in turn, boosts
            sustainable local and regional agricultural development and
            helps reduce poverty.
       Increase support for agricultural research, education, and
            extension.
          Significant investment--both financial and technical--into
            increasing agricultural research, education, and extension
            programs in the developing world will be critical to advancing
            global food security. The administration's Global Hunger and
            Food Security Initiative and the Lugar-Casey Global Food
            Security bill both have provisions to increase support for
            these components. We recommend that these areas be a key focus
            of any national global food security policy and should include
            providing financial support to the Consultative Group for
            International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), individual
            country's National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), and to
            the Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPs) run out of
            U.S. land-grant universities. Moreover, the United States
            should also support the development of higher education
            capacity and performance within specific regions in the
            developing world. These institutions could provide research,
            technology development, and extension services to best suited
            to expand agricultural productivity in its region.
       Begin implementation of a U.S. food security initiative
            quickly.
          There is no time to waste in implementing a U.S. global food
            security initiative. Under a ``business as usual'' scenario,
            rural poverty and hunger will continue to worsen. These
            problems will become far more difficult to address with every
            year of inaction. The time to begin implementation of this
            policy is now.

        We applaud and support the initial steps both the U.S.
    administration and Congress have taken to make food security a central
    component of U.S. development and foreign policy. We want to thank
    Senators Lugar, Kerry, and Casey, and the other members here today, for
    their leadership on these issues. Many of the actions outlined in the
    administration's Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative and the
    Lugar-Casey Global Food Security bill have been proven effective in the
    past--through the remarkable earlier achievements of the Green
    Revolution--when adequately funded. If administration and congressional
    leadership for a U.S. global food security initiative is sustained for
    the next decade, and the correct technical and financial resources
    provided, it could lift millions out of hunger and put them on the path
    toward self-reliance. It would also invest in America's political,
    economic, and security interests; its institutions; and its moral
    ideals.

        Senator Lugar. Well, I thank both of you for all the
    responsibilities you've shouldered over the years. And I wish
    you every success, Secretary Glickman, in your new
    responsibilities at Refugees International.
        I simply agree with both of you, that we've talked a lot
    today about the whole-of-government approach, but we also have
    tried, in our questions, with very distinguished witnesses, to
    zero in on the specific role of USAID and the State Department.
        Now, one reason we are having this hearing is that the
    committee has worked, through its staff, in a bipartisan way,
    with officeholders in the State Department--among them,
    officials in USAID. It was only a very short while ago that
    Rajiv Shah was named USAID Administrator. This is something our
    committee encouraged for many months, sensing some of the
    trends that have been noted today, with regard to USAID, and
    likewise, its importance. I think we're very excited about
    Administrator Shah's leadership, and I see his testimony today
    as further evidence of that.
        We're also excited that Secretary Clinton has taken a
    personal interest in this area. Without that, assuming a whole-
    of-government approach would be much more of a challenge, as
    there are many interests involved in this.
        Therefore, we've come to a point--and this is the reason
    why I'm indebted to Senator Kerry for calling this hearing--in
    which our legislative effort, which passed the Foreign
    Relations Committee back in 2009--has finally gained has some
    traction with the State Department and USAID, As we coordinate
    on additional language that will culminate in the unveiling of
    a new bill. I am hopeful the bill will have some universal
    support in the Congress, simply because of the crucial problems
    it will seek to address. But, it's important to underline the
    issues you have both brought forth today.
        The goals of such legislation are meant to be helpful in a
    humanitarian sense. But, there is also another sense, in terms
    of the world in which we live, as we all talk about the
    problems of international banking, the implications of
    failures, in various countries, which have ramifications on
    jobs, on even the existential ability of a country, such as
    Greece right now, for example, to handle its finances.
    Arguments abound, whether it be with the European community or
    the World Bank or everybody else, as to whose responsibility it
    may be to address these issues, with lingering thoughts that
    there are other nations right behind that may fall into similar
    difficulty.
        We know that these are systemic worldwide difficulties, and
    if our country does not take a leadership role in solving these
    issues, the ramifications for the future will not only be
    starvation, which we've illustrated today, but a world that is
    so insecure for our young people that we will rue the day we
    were not more farsighted and had the resources we presently
    have at our disposal.
        So, it's in that sense we hope there is leadership, with
    USAID at the helm in coordination with the other involved
    parties, including our Ambassadors, as has been pointed out, as
    a focal point. Ambassadors will have to try to maintain some
    control over the unique factors at play affecting the work
    undertaken by their respective embassies. We will have hearings
    from time to time, as parts of the U.S. Government come into a
    country and don't inform the Ambassador or are seemingly rather
    out of touch.
        You've both presented the idea that this has to be a long-
    term proposition. Every country that we are visiting with now
    agrees that this really has to be a commitment that is enduring
    and comprehensive in nature.
        Now, I would just say, in a personal sense, I understand
    this. I don't want to overemphasize my farm-family background,
    but, I've seen, on the acres of corn that we grow, a growth of
    about four times the yield that my dad was getting in the
    1930s. This has occurred physically. I've witnessed it. It's
    still being harvested. So, we're worried about the price of
    corn.
        Now, I would just say to American farmers who are concerned
    about people buying food or producing it abroad, as opposed to
    either importing it from us commercially or hoping that
    agencies would ship it to them through some emergency process,
    that the market is very big. If we're talking about twice as
    much food in the world, required just to maintain where we are
    by 2050, then this is a lot of production. It means that our
    markets are going to be strong, if we can engage with the World
    Trade Organization and work out all of the problems that occur
    right now in the trading of food worldwide. The problem of
    governments that shut down exports in response to pressures on
    food supplies and prices needs to be addressed. I think our
    colleagues today have said this. Why would the American public,
    in addition to a natural humanitarian reaction, find all of
    this to be more than interesting? In many cases, the fuure of
    our domestic agriculture will be one in which farmers will need
    to produce more on U.S. land to provide for these markets and
    will make a good livelihood doing so, as most of our young
    farmers now entering the business know.
        So, there is a very considerable American self-interest in
    this. It is also important that this committee in coordination
    with the executive branch finally get a piece of legislation
    that the President of the United States and Secretary Hillary
    Clinton can advocate on behalf of and urge Congress to pass,
    even in the midst of the many other issues we face.
        Your testimony is tremendously helpful in trying to push
    this along. If you had not already testified to this point, I
    would have asked you for your comments about this whole-of-
    government approach. With both of you having been involved in
    executive branch, you could certainly discuss the prospects of
    this ever really coming about. Who needs to construct such an
    approach? You've said, ``Well, USAID needs to do it.'' But,
    obviously, it needs the support of higher authorities such as
    the Secretary of State, and the President.
        Do you have any further comment on this matter? I reiterate
    this because it is so critical in ensuring that all of this can
    work.
        Mr. Glickman. Well, first of all, you have a President and
    a Secretary of State who've made this a priority. That is--for
    a long time, that's----
        Senator Lugar. Yes.
        Mr. Glickman [continuing]. We haven't seen that, and that
    makes a big, big difference.
        You know, in terms of the--what I call ``basic development
    decisions,'' and how technology and research is transferred,
    how you bring the--let's say, the American Land Grant
    institutions into coordination with the academic institutions
    elsewhere--where I call the actual--where the rubber meets the
    road, on the ground, I think that's a function of the
    development agency. And that's what--AID needs to be empowered
    to do that job, like they did in the 1960s and '70s, and
    participated in the Green Revolution, and saved hundreds of
    thousands of people from death and starvation, maybe millions
    of people.
        But, you know, it's clear that in a government as
    complicated as ours, you've got to have Congress engaged, on an
    intimate basis because they're the appropriators. I mean,
    they're the authorizers--where the money comes from. And you
    also have to have the research arm of America, whether it's the
    Department of Agriculture or the land grant institutions or the
    private sector, who are involved in creating new products all
    the time, involved.
        And, you know, I do think that we have--we're finally
    focused on this issue, where we weren't, 5 or 10 years ago. And
    maybe it was because of the supply shortages. I remember, when
    I was in the House, I first came here and was--constant
    problems of supply management schemes in order to get
    production, supply and demand in line. And today, I think we've
    realized that we don't need to do that like we did. And you
    were, of course, one of the leaders in trying to get rid of
    some of those practices. And I probably was on the other side
    of you when I was a Congressman from Kansas way back then.
        Senator Lugar. Not to worry. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Glickman. Yes, right.
        But, I think that, generally speaking, people of good will
    can come together and put--and try to solve the problems of
    hungry and starving people, because correcting those problems
    have remarkable ramifications on politics, on society, on doing
    the right thing; and also on national security, as well.
        Ms. Bertini. If I might, Senator.
        Senator Lugar. Yes.
        Ms. Bertini. When I was with the World Food Programme, and
    spent much of 10 years traveling in the developing world, I was
    able to see USAID up close in many, many countries, and I could
    see the depth of their knowledge and their leadership in the
    aid community, beyond representing the United States, but also
    leadership among the other bilateral aid agencies. And they
    were very, very important as advisors to us in the
    international organizations. I--but, today, when we sit here,
    we constantly hear, both publicly and privately--even from the
    strongest defenders and supporters of AID, hear about their
    weaknesses. And we can see what's happened over time; they've
    been micromanaged by Congress and by various administrations.
    They have lots of earmarks about what they have to do, that
    cuts back on their flexibility. They no longer have a
    relationship with the--a direct budget relationship with OMB.
    And they have outsourced so much of their work that it's hard
    to manage all these other entities that aren't even part of the
    U.S. Government.
        So, there are a lot of things at USAID that need to be
    fixed, or else we're going to sit here, 2 years from now, still
    talking about how AID needs to be strengthened.
        It has, as you have pointed out, now, a terrific new
    administrator. Dr. Shah and I worked together closely at the
    Gates Foundation; in fact, he brought me in there. And I know
    how brilliant he is and what a good strategist he is and how
    goal-oriented he is. But--and that alone can be tremendously
    useful for the U.S. Government in his role at AID, but he needs
    support. He needs senior political people nominated and
    confirmed. He needs some budget authority. He needs to have--as
    my colleague Dan was saying, he needs to be in charge, and to
    be respected as being in charge, in terms of how the rest of
    the operation needs it. Congress should let up from a lot of
    the telling-you-what-to-do-things that they do with AID. So, he
    needs space and flexibility. He has the talent, but he needs
    all of us to be supporting AID in ways that haven't been done
    before, or at least not in the recent past.
        Senator Lugar. I appreciate your mentioning the Gates
    Foundation. At the onset of today's hearing, I cited a piece
    from this morning's Wall Street Journal by our Secretary of the
    Treasury and Bill Gates that I asked to be added to the record
    Also, we've had testimony, as Chairman Kerry pointed out, from
    Bill Gates about his interest in food security.
        I mention this because, in conversations that I've been
    privileged to have with Bill and Melinda Gates about,
    specifically, how markets could be set up in various African
    countries through the construction of roads or other forms of
    infrastructure to facilitate the movement of goods, we end up
    coming back to an item that we mentioned earlier on, reminding
    me of the testimony of Dr. Norman Borlaug before the
    Agriculture Committee. We asked Dr. Borlaug to come back to the
    committee annually, in order for him to report on his
    activities and express his point of view on broader happenings
    related to agriculture taking placed throughout the world. In
    the last few years that he was able to testify, he was working
    principally in Africa. Extraordinary events had occurred in
    China and in India, not only through his efforts, but through
    many people who he inspired.
        We also came back to conversations that each of you has
    had, and I am certain that Dr. Borlaug had with people who are
    genuinely concerned about genetically modified seed,
    fertilizer, or anything that has the GM label on it. I've had a
    good number of such conversations in Brussels with officials
    from the European Union and with others in the German
    Government. It becomes almost a theological issue in which the
    feelings are so great about saving the environment, saving the
    soil, saving other plants, birds, or even insects. Such ideas
    are literally implanted in Africa with the message by Europeans
    ascribing to these beliefs that the ability of the African
    people to import their food is dependent on continued adherence
    to their point of view on GM products. It suffices to say that
    this has led to the roadblock we find ourselves in today.
        Now, the Gates Foundation has attempted, as a private
    organization, to break through on this, and they have done a
    lot of good, and, thank goodness, will continue to be
    advocates. I'm grateful for that. But, this still remains a
    serious problem.
        In fairness to the European Union, on one occasion while I
    was in Brussels, a report was published out of the EU
    indicating a considerably more liberal viewpoint with regard to
    genetically modified practices. And that, in fairness, has
    manifested in many of their deliberations. So, I don't want to
    characterize the Europeans per se. Although, I would just say,
    with many German legislators that I visited on the same trip,
    the feelings were adamant that anyone would be sure to despoil
    the whole neighborhood by even thinking of such a practice.
        How do we move beyond this? After all of our conversations
    about the lack of productivity here really get down to
    situations where, for example, a single woman is trying to
    handle less than an acre of land, with very deficient seed,
    fertilizer, or whatever she has to work with, almost no market
    for her product, and the hope there might be some harvest just
    to provide some nourishment to her family. This is still the
    overall practice that we're looking at. We can talk about this
    research, and other people trying to produce breakthroughs of
    this sort, but, from your expertise, can you discuss how we
    move beyond the status quo?
        Mr. Glickman. To arbitrarily restrict research, based on,
    in large part, a nonscientific perspective of the world, is a
    tragic mistake. I mean, somebody talked about climate change
    today. How--I think it was--Senator Kerry talked about conflict
    in Ethiopia because of dry-land agriculture and the ability to
    find food for animals.
        And so, research can look at ways to grow crops with less
    water, less pesticides, more adaptably, and more nutritiously.
    I understand--because when I was Secretary, I dealt these
    issues, and I understand that you have to have a sound,
    effective regulatory scheme, so that--and you've got to also
    deal with some of these issues of ownership and intellectual
    property rights, so that the fruits of the research are
    available in the developing world in sensible ways.
        And I know that the Gates and the Clinton foundations, and
    others, have been working on that. So, that's got to be all
    part of the situation. But, to arbitrarily restrict research,
    when that's what has caused humankind to achieve so much of
    what we've done, is just downright stupid.
        And it--I get the sense that there--especially in the whole
    climate change environment, there is a growing recognition that
    we've got to be open to new technologies to deal with some of
    these issues. We won't be able to feed ourselves.
        You know, this whole thing with the volcano has struck me
    that--like, well, what impact is that going to have? What if we
    go through a period of great volcanic activity, and it begins
    to cool the atmosphere and then it's going to affect crop
    production? You've got to have research that deals with those
    kinds of things. And some of that research may involve genetic
    technology, genetic engineering. We're doing that with human
    research now--I mean, targeting cancer therapies, based upon
    your DNA, and then being able to move the genes around to be
    able to find cancer therapies that are more targeted.
        One of the things that has struck me, that I think the
    research needs to focus on as much as they can, is things which
    actually benefit the human species or the animal species. So,
    we--in the past, there's been a tendency that some of these
    technologies look like they're just, perhaps, enhancing the
    economic value of the product that's being produced, without
    having a benefit associated with it. And I think--at least
    there's a perception of that out there. But, to not do the
    research is idiotic.
        Ms. Bertini. Related to that is--part of the problem is the
    lack of knowledge, and perhaps, in some cases, a lack of
    information available about any sort of impact of consumption
    of large amounts of food that has been genetically modified in
    populations where most of their food that they do consume could
    be genetically modified. And I--so, I think that's one area of
    research, which, if we had more background about that, would go
    a long way, in terms of helping to answer questions that have
    been raised, particularly in Africa, about, Is this good to
    eat? Remember, the big issue, some years ago, when Zambia and
    Zimbabwe said, ``We don't want any of this genetically modified
    food.'' Part of the issue was, the U.S. said to them, ``Well,
    we eat this, and it's OK.'' And they said, ``Yes, but so much
    more of our diet is made up of this. So, what kind of research
    is available to show us that it's OK if 70 percent of our
    intake is from this kind of food?'' And I'm not sure that those
    kind of questions ever were successfully answered. If they
    were, that could help.
        But, ultimately, also from an African perspective, there's
    the issue of markets, which gets back to the Europeans. And as
    more and more countries outside of Africa are developing--using
    genetically modified capabilities, part of that issue might end
    up being moot, because it will be very difficult to keep the
    ``purity'' of available food that hasn't been genetically
    modified.
        What I've heard more from African representatives with whom
    I've talked about this than anything else is, ``Please don't
    leave us behind. We feel like we were left behind in the Green
    Revolution that hit Asia and Latin America, and we don't want
    someone else deciding for us whether or not this is appropriate
    technology for us.'' So, the bottom line will come back, then,
    to African governments making this--these decisions.
        Mr. Glickman. If I just may add something. I've always felt
    that some of this--the discussion of this issue has,
    historically, taken on a bit of an anti-American sentiment to
    it, and may be encouraged, at times, by some of the companies
    that held the patents on some of these issues not being as
    careful about how they market them or how they monetized them.
    And, hopefully, we're seeing a change of that, particularly
    with the efforts of foundations like Gates and Clinton and
    others. But, I think there's--some of the suspicion may not be
    related to science at all, but may be politically raised.
        Senator Lugar. Senator Casey.
        Senator Casey. Well, thanks very much.
        I know I'm the late arrival here, and I was--we're all
    doing a little juggling, here.
        But, first of all, I want to thank you both for, not just
    today and your testimony, but your great leadership and your
    passion about this issue for so many years. And we need that.
    I--we all figured out, a long time ago, that all the answers
    aren't here on Capitol Hill; we need some help from outside,
    even from those who have been on Capitol Hill for a while.
        Mr. Glickman. Thank you.
        Senator Casey. Mr. Secretary, we're grateful.
        Your testimony makes it very clear what you think the steps
    are that we should implement and undertake. I did want to make
    note of one--I think it's your last bullet point, or second-to-
    last bullet point, on page 5 (page 42 of this print)--
    Increasing support for agricultural research, education, and
    extension. Now, as a Pennsylvanian that has a big institution
    like Penn State, I'm dutybound to mention that. But, in a very
    serious way, I think that's--part of this message that we have
    to deliver as we're working on this and try to implement policy
    is that this can be a very positive development for these great
    institutions and the students and professors and people with
    doctoral degrees that want to help the world. We can give them
    more of an opportunity to do that. So, I think it's very much a
    positive message to send to the world, that we're going to try
    to create more expertise around the world for that kind of--
    those kinds of disciplines.
        But, I guess I'd ask you two questions. One is, How do you
    assess where we are now, when it comes to that--those three
    areas--research, education, and extension--kind of where we
    have to get to?
        And then the second question that I'd ask you to answer, is
    there anything in the administration's strategy that you have a
    real concern about, or that you think will be difficult to
    implement? We want to have an honest dialogue here about
    implementing their initiative and getting our legislation
    passed. But, is there anything, in particular, that you have a
    real concern about that you think we have to change or be
    conscious of to--as we begin to implement?
        Mr. Glickman. You want to go first?
        Ms. Bertini. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        Well, first of all, we also applaud your leadership with
    Senator Lugar and your bill. And one of the reasons why we were
    pleased to come to testify today is because we think that
    passing this legislation is so important, to put these kind of
    programs in place over the long term. We applaud the
    administration's priority and direction. And it is the right
    time to be doing this kind of work.
        However, we really believe that this must be part of U.S.
    policy over the very long term. And that's one of the reasons
    why your legislation is so important.
        As far as research, education, and extension are concerned,
    we have incredible capacity at Penn State and at the other land
    grant colleges, and historically black colleges around this
    country, as well as at other universities. But, there is a huge
    need, in Africa and in much of the developing world, to share
    expertise.
        The United States used to do much more of this--in the
    1970s and the 1980s, for instance. You'll find, when you
    travel, many people, that are my generation, for instance, that
    were educated in the United States and then went back home and
    are senior agricultural experts in their countries now. But,
    there are not a lot of more junior people because we haven't
    been promoting that kind of work for some time.
        But, whether we bring students from Africa here, or whether
    we help build their institutions--the institutions in Africa
    and elsewhere, which would be even more important, to reach
    more people over the long term--all of those are things that we
    haven't done, and should be doing, and have the great capacity
    to do, through our own educational structures.
        Many countries in the developing world have research
    operations--have a agriculture research institute or some sort
    of a directorate. But, there are a wide range of capabilities
    in those institutes. One thing we could do very quickly, from
    the U.S. Government, is to make an analysis of some of those
    institutes, and then find comparable people at institutions in
    the United States, and give them a menu of opportunities of
    expertise that's available, and say to a country, for instance,
    ``We'd like to help build your expertise at your research
    institute. Here's a menu of the kinds of expertise we might
    have available to you.'' Then we could--and then we could fund
    Penn State or Indiana or whomever--Purdue, rather--Cornell,
    Wichita State----
        Mr. Glickman. No, Kansas----
        Ms. Bertini. Kansas State. Kansas. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bertini. Sorry, sorry.
        Anyway--to be able to give them a menu of, you know, ``Here
    are some of the capabilities. How can we help you?'' And then
    we could fund that university, in order to help them.
        Part of what Dan and I have talked about on the Chicago
    Council is how important it is, again, that we provide a
    listing of the capabilities and availabilities that we have in
    this country, and that we fund support for those institutions,
    but that we do it through the developing country. So, we don't
    want to go and show up and say, ``Hi, I'm from Purdue. I'm here
    to help you.'' We want them to say, ``Gee, we really think
    there is some great expertise in the development of tomatoes at
    Purdue that we want to be able to use. And could we please--
    would you fund Purdue to come to us to help?'' And that's
    really, I think, part of that process, for both research and
    education.
        But, the agricultural institutions in Africa are
    overcrowded and need a lot more capacity. We could help in many
    ways through our own institutions.
        Extension--it was mentioned by Dr. Shah in his testimony--
    is an area that needs a lot of work, and that's one area where
    it's critical that it be gender-sensitive. Since there are so
    many farmers who are women--the vast majority--and since women
    and men don't necessarily communicate outside of their own
    household, especially on technical matters, and since women are
    much more likely to follow the direction of other women and the
    advice of other women, it's almost a nonstarter that we need to
    build extension capacity that includes large numbers of trained
    women. So, that's just another area where we could provide a
    lot of expertise.
        Mr. Glickman. You know, I remember, your colleague, Thad
    Cochran set up this program, the Cochran Fellows, and they
    bring people from South Africa--it was shortly after Mandela
    came in, and then it's--I think that program is still
    continuing. I don't know exactly what the funding is. And I
    remember--they'd come here. They'd go around. They'd learn
    techniques of agriculture production. They'd also learn a lot
    of business techniques. It was a comprehensive thing. And to
    look into the eyes of these young men and women, and see that
    they now go back and become great entrepreneurs and great
    agriculturalists, and have done so--there's a remarkable
    positive impact. That's just one small type of program. So,
    there are great opportunities out there.
        You know, all the public universities in this country are
    having this terrible funding crisis now. And so, I'm sure that
    these programs are going to be impacted by just the fact that
    the State aid is falling, the tax base is in trouble, and
    everything else. And, you know, your legislation at least will
    keep this in the priority area, and, hopefully, will encourage
    these universities to continue to be involved in these efforts.
        Just two other quick things.
        The Internet. Modern technology does do something that we
    haven't seen in a long time. It allows people to leapfrog, to
    communicate instantaneously. You see massive sales of cell
    phones all throughout Africa, that--you know, I mean, it's like
    they hadn't needed to build an infrastructure of a telephone
    system. They just have cell towers, and they can talk to each
    other.
        And so, one of the things is to explore how modern
    technology can get--a transfer of information faster--transfer
    of all sorts of techniques, to get people to move into an
    economic mainstream, at least in agriculture, much faster than
    they have before.
        Catherine also mentioned the issue of best practices. We
    need to somehow figure out, either AID or somebody working
    internationally, perhaps with the U.N., but perhaps with the
    CGAR network, to develop a place where people can go to and
    find out where the best place is to do this, this, this, and
    this. We see this a little bit, but it's not as well developed
    as--and the land grants can clearly do that.
        Final question, you asked, Is there anything about the
    administration's strategy that's an issue or a problem? I don't
    think, substantively, there is. I think the issue that we've
    raised is more of a process issue, ``Is somebody going to be in
    charge? Where will the real leadership be? Who's going to knock
    heads, so to speak, to make sure that things get done?'' And,
    there, I think that the jury is still out. But, I think their
    heart is in the right place. Their public statement's in the
    right place. And, to date, just from what I saw up here, I
    think that the implementation is in the right place.
        Senator Casey. Do you have--I'm sorry. Go ahead.
        Ms. Bertini. Might I just add two other quick things. One
    is, again, on how--where the money is spent with the
    universities, and especially with the concern that Dan points
    out, that, since the universities are--funding is so tight
    right now, I would plead to be sure that the way the funds are
    used are not just to fill in the gaps, but rather to make sure
    that that funding is going through the university to support
    the need in the developing country; otherwise, we're not going
    to get anywhere. That's one.
        Two is, this whole concept that's in your bill, about using
    U.S. expertise through universities, can be used in other
    creative way--that same concept can be used in other creative
    ways, as well, and I want to mention two.
        One is, for instance, the School Nutrition Association,
    here in the United States, has the Global School--Global Child
    Nutrition Institute--I think I'm saying the right thing, but I
    can correct it later--and what they do is use the capacity from
    American school lunch program administrators to help train
    people in Eastern Europe and in developing countries on how to
    organize school lunches. Now, that's not a university,
    obviously, but they've done it now, and I think in almost 50
    countries. And there have been--a lot of countries have been
    using their own resources, that have developed school feeding
    programs. So, it's a great way to use U.S. capacity for
    something that ends up being sustainable over the long term
    elsewhere, based on the request of the country wanting the
    program.
        And then, a second thing is a student-type-based program.
    And at Auburn University, they've started, a few years ago, a
    program, Students Against Hunger. And they've got programs now,
    in many of the land grant universities around the country,
    where they're working to try to raise awareness about hunger in
    the developing world, in American universities, and then
    transfer some of their own knowledge through work in developing
    countries.
        So, there are a lot of different ways, I think, to use that
    same concept that you've put in this bill to take advantage of
    expertise.
        Mr. Glickman. And that's where things like this can make
    the difference, that we didn't have 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
        Senator Casey. The technology, yes.
        Well, thanks very much. I know we have to go, but I want to
    do at least three things.
        One is, I want to correct the record. I think my first
    reference to Dr. Shah was ``Director Shah'' and it should have
    been ``Administrator Shah.'' So, just so we get his title
    right.
        Second, I want to thank both of you for your work on this.
    We'll need to keep calling on you and asking you questions.
        And I want to, Mr. Chairman, submit my statement for the
    record and thank you, for your work on this.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Casey can be found in
    ``Additional Material Submitted for the Record.'']
        Senator Casey. And we've got some work to do to get the
    bill passed, but I know we're--our offices have been spending a
    good deal of time, and the two of us have, so we're going to
    continue to push it forward.
        Thanks, Senator.
        Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Senator Casey.
    And we're grateful to you and to your office.
        And we're especially grateful to our distinguished
    witnesses today for coming to grips with, I think, the basic
    problems of our legislation and the initiative of the State
    Department. And I am hopeful this will supercharge our efforts
    as we move ahead.
        Thank you so much.
        Mr. Glickman. Thank you.
        Ms. Bertini. Thank you.
        Senator Lugar. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
                         U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania

        Today, every five seconds a child somewhere in the world will die
    from starvation.
        While the United States has historically played an important role
    in addressing hunger internationally, this simple fact should serve as
    a galvanizing call to action. The 2008 global food crisis brought
    attention to the fact that emergency food assistance was not enough and
    that donors and recipient countries needed to work together to address
    the systemic problems that lead to food insecurity.
        The Obama administration has rightly prioritized food security and
    political support in the Senate is growing through the Lugar-Casey
    Global Food Security Act. Creating an environment where local farmers
    can produce for themselves and their communities as well as easily
    trade and get their goods to market is the key to fundamentally
    changing this ongoing crisis.
        With the host of competing priorities for U.S. attention, I believe
    there are two reasons why food security matters.
        First, this is a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions that we
    can go a long ways toward solving. As one of the richest countries in
    the world, we have a moral obligation to help when we can. This crisis
    is solvable with a combination of assistance and emphasis on providing
    small farmers around the world with the know-how, technology and means
    to provide for themselves.
        Second, global hunger is indeed a national security issue.
    Instability arising from conflict over access to food is a documented
    and real problem. The 2008 food crisis unfortunately brought this into
    acute focus. We saw it in Somalia, where struggles to gain access to
    food have enveloped population centers in violence. We have seen it in
    Egypt as citizen's rioted for access to bread. And we have seen it in
    Haiti where hospital beds filled in 2008 with those injured during food
    riots. Increased instability in any of these countries has a direct
    impact on U.S. national security interests.
        The root causes of this perfect storm of a crisis are by now well
    known, but worth recounting. In 2008, food demand was driven higher due
    to expanding populations and rising incomes. More cereals were needed
    to feed livestock for the production of meat and dairy products and to
    fill rising demand for biofuels. High oil prices combined with weak
    harvests, and rising global demand created a scramble for resources.
    Wheat prices more than doubled and rice prices more than tripled
    between January and May 2008. Twenty-eight countries imposed export
    bans on their crops, driving up commodity prices and limiting supply.
    This led to political unrest across the globe, concentrated among
    developing countries with large, food insecure poor urban populations.
        While this was indeed a perfect storm of events, the underlying
    issues that created the crisis continue. In sub-Saharan Africa, for
    example, 80 to 90 percent of all cereal prices remain 25 percent higher
    than they were before the crisis began. In many Asian, Latin American,
    and Caribbean countries prices are still more than 25 percent higher
    than in the precrisis period. In the wake of the economic crisis, the
    World Food Programme began receiving requests for assistance even from
    countries that previously were able to provide for themselves.
        The peripheral effects of food insecurity are considerable. High
    rates of hunger are shown to be linked to gender inequality, especially
    in terms of education and literacy, which also negatively affects the
    rate of child malnutrition. It is estimated that 60 percent of the
    world's chronically hungry are women and girls, 20 percent of which are
    children under 5.
        Hunger in a country like Pakistan poses both a humanitarian and
    security issue. Last year, over 77 million people in Pakistan were
    considered ``food insecure'' by the World Food Programme. That is
    nearly half of their population. As Pakistan's military is conducts
    continued operations against extremist forces, those numbers could
    increase. Hunger and competition for food can lead to further
    instability and potentially undermine the country's government
    leadership at a very critical time.
        The global food crisis is still a serious problem, and despite the
    efforts of the administration, we still have a lot of catching up to do
    in order to properly respond. According to the Center for Strategic and
    International Studies, U.S. commitment to agricultural development has
    declined in recent years, though emergency food assistance continues at
    robust levels. Worldwide, the share of agriculture in development
    assistance has fallen from a high of 13 percent in 1985 to under 4
    percent between 2002 and 2007. U.S. development assistance to African
    agriculture fell from its peak of about $500 million in 1988 to less
    than $100 million in 2006.
        USAID has been hardest hit during this period. The Agency once
    considered agricultural expertise to be a core strength, but today
    operates under diminished capacity. As recently as 1990, USAID employed
    181 agricultural specialists; in 2009 it employed just 22. In the
    1970s, the U.S. Government sponsored around 20,000 annual scholarships
    for future leadership in agriculture, engineering, and related fields;
    today, that number has fallen to less than 900.
        We simply don't currently have the adequate assistance
    infrastructure government to respond to this crisis, but the
    administration making progress toward building this capability.
        The administration's Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative
    (GHFSI), is a comprehensive approach to food security based on country-
    and community-led planning and collaboration. I welcome this
    opportunity to hear directly from the administration on this effort.
    While I know that the administration has assiduously worked to
    coordinate an interagency process and selection criteria for country
    participation, questions remain in terms of overall leadership of the
    initiative as well as its plans to develop internal expertise and
    capacity that is sustainable over the long term.
        In the Senate, we have also worked to bring attention to the
    world's hungry. Senator Lugar, a respected leader is this field for
    decades, and I joined to introduce the Global Food Security Act. Our
    bill has three major objectives.
        First, this bill will provide for enhanced coordination within the
    U.S. Government so that USAID, the Agriculture Department, and other
    involved entities are
    not working at cross-purposes. We do that by establishing a new
    position, the Special Coordinator for Food Security who would forge a
    comprehensive food security strategy.
        Second, it would expand U.S. investment in the agricultural
    productivity of developing nations, so that nations facing escalating
    food prices can rely less on emergency food assistance and instead take
    the steps to expands their own crop production. Every dollar invested
    in agricultural research and development generates 9 dollars' worth of
    food in the developing world. This provision can serve as the vehicle
    for the President's pledge to more than double the U.S. agricultural
    development assistance.
        Third, it would modernize our system of emergency food assistance
    so that it is more flexible and can provide aid on short notice. We do
    that by authorizing a new $500 million fund for U.S. emergency food
    assistance when appropriate.
        This is one of those rare occasions where a serious crisis was
    greeted by a substantial administration response as well as bipartisan
    collaboration in the Senate and House. I am encouraged that there has
    been positive movement toward fundamentally changing how we look at
    food security issues. Such support, however, is not permanent and we
    should enact this multiyear authorization bill to ensure that such
    congressional support exists in the future. We cannot wait for another
    massive food crisis before taking action on this legislation. This is
    the right thing to do and will ultimately enhance the security of the
    United States and our allies.

                                   __________

               Responses of Rajiv Shah to Questions Submitted by
                          Senator Christopher J. Dodd

        Question. USAID has lost more and more control over food aid, while
    USDA's control over food aid has grown. I strongly believe that this
    entire portfolio should be brought back under the full and total
    control of USAID. Food aid, at its core, is a development issue and
    America's development experts should be in charge of crafting and
    implementing this policy. In my view one of the principle problems with
    our food aid policy is that it's been taken away from USAID--this is a
    troubling trend in other development areas as well. What is the
    administration's plan to move food aid back within the purview of
    USAID?

        Answer. The distribution of food aid responsibilities between USAID
    and USDA is based on legislation such as the Food, Conservation, and
    Energy Act of 2008 and the Food for Peace Act. On an annual basis,
    USAID manages approximately 85 percent of the total tonnage of U.S.
    international food aid assistance. We are proud of our relationship
    with USDA and under the President's Global Hunger and Food Security
    Initiative we will continue to work closely with them to ensure maximum
    humanitarian and developmental impact from our food aid resources.

        Question. Transportation of food aid to target regions has
    represented as much as 60 percent of U.S. food aid budgets in recent
    years. Is the administration planning to reevaluate the costly and
    often counterproductive practice of transporting food aid from half a
    world away rather than from nearby regions?

        Answer. While U.S.-grown food will continue to play the primary
    role in meeting global emergency food needs, the administration
    requested and received funding in FY 2010 in the International Disaster
    Assistance (IDA) account for emergency food assistance interventions
    such as local and regional procurement, cash voucher and cash
    transfers, which all allow for greater flexibility and timeliness in
    delivering food assistance. The administration is once again requesting
    this IDA funding in FY 2011.

        Question. Children, particularly toddlers and infants, suffering
    from acute malnutrition require nutrients that aren't often found in
    U.S.-sourced food aid. What percentage of U.S. food aid is nutrient
    fortified? Have USAID and the Department of Agriculture integrated
    ready-to-use-foods, which are highly nutritious, transportable and can
    be locally sourced, into our overall food aid strategy?

        Answer. While the percentage varies from year to year, in FY 2009
    approximately 25 percent of USAID food aid and USDA food aid shipped
    abroad was nutrient fortified. USAID has developed a ready-to-use meal
    replacement and is in the process of a trial procurement including an
    efficacy study for its prepositioning overseas. USAID is also working
    closely with USDA on specifications for a ready-to use supplementary
    food that can be used for the recuperation of moderately malnourished
    children.

        Question. How has climate change impacted the frequency of famine
    and episodes of food insecurity? What programs exist to help at-risk
    communities and regions adjust to changing environments ahead of
    potentially disastrous changes?

        Answer. No famines or specific food crises can be directly
    attributed to climate change. The expected impacts of climate change
    over time, however, will likely increase stress on poor communities
    which are the least able to deal with and adapt to the changes.
        Programs to assist communities in mitigating the impact of climate
    change are currently being designed and scaled up to meet needs. For
    example, USAID's Famine Early Warning Systems Network, in partnership
    with the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development Climate Prediction
    and Application Center (ICPAC) in East Africa, produces seasonal food
    security early warning and climate information products. In Uganda and
    Kenya, these reports have been used to advise farmers on planting of
    early maturing and drought resistant crops, as well as maintenance of
    cattle watering points.
        In Ethiopia, USAID has supported the diversification of drought
    tolerant crops, such as sweet potato and cassava. Seeds are distributed
    to farmers in areas that are predicted to have below normal rainy
    seasons. To mitigate future loss of crops to drought, this program is
    also introducing additional options to farmers currently planting one
    of the drought resistant options (e.g., sweet potato is promoted to
    those already planting cassava) because increasing agro-biodiversity
    reduces risk to climate change, both for food security and livelihoods.

                                   __________

       Wall Street Journal Article Submitted by Senator Richard G. Lugar

                 [From The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 22, 2010]

                       A New Initiative to Feed the World

    Over the last few decades the developed world lost interest in
    agricultural development. Now's the time for change.
                      (By Timothy Geithner and Bill Gates)
        A year ago the world came together in a powerful and coordinated
    effort to restore the stability of our global economy. Thanks to the
    actions taken then, the world is beginning to recover from the most
    severe economic crisis since the Great Depression.
        But as we work to build a stronger, more stable and balanced global
    economy, we must renew our commitment to tackle global hunger and
    poverty. Because a world where more than one billion people suffer from
    hunger is not a strong or stable world. A world where more than two
    billion people in rural areas struggle to secure a livelihood is not a
    balanced one.
        Today, the United States, Canada, Spain, South Korea and the Bill &
    Melinda Gates Foundation are making a commitment to fight the threat of
    global food insecurity. Together we are launching the Global
    Agriculture and Food Security Program, a new fund to help the world's
    poorest farmers grow more food and earn more than they do now so they
    can lift themselves out of hunger and poverty.
        A steep rise in food prices in 2008 and the recent global economic
    crisis have pushed the number of hungry people in the world to more
    than one billion. As the world's population increases in the coming
    years and as changes in the climate create water shortages that destroy
    crops, the number of people without adequate access to food is likely
    to increase. As that happens, small farmers and people living in
    poverty will need the most help. They are the ones who cannot afford to
    grow crops or buy food when seed prices double. They are also the ones
    who face shortages when rainfall patterns change and reduce the amount
    of available water.
        We should not be facing this challenge today. In the 1960s and '70s
    the world understood that agricultural development was an indispensable
    tool in alleviating hunger, reducing poverty, and driving economic
    growth. A combination of new, high-yielding crops developed by
    scientists such as Norman Borlaug and sustained investments from the
    U.S. and other countries helped save hundreds of millions of people
    from starvation in India, Mexico and elsewhere.
        Yet during the past three decades the world's interest in
    agriculture waned. Donor nations moved on to focus on other issues. The
    result is that there has been a sharp drop in aid for agriculture. In
    1979, nearly 18% of all official development assistance world-wide went
    to agriculture. In 2008, about 5% did. Private investment in
    agriculture in Africa is insignificant. Today, many Africans face food
    shortages in part because the average African farmer produces half the
    amount of crops per acre of an Indian farmer, one-fourth that of a
    Chinese farmer, and just one-fifth that of an American farmer.
        Proposed last year by the G-8 and G-20, the new Global Agriculture
    and Food Security Program hosted by the World Bank will provide
    financing to low-income countries with high levels of food insecurity.
    It will partner with countries that have developed sound agricultural
    plans and that are already using their own resources to invest in the
    most effective ways to boost crop production. The fund's public-sector
    account will invest in infrastructure that will link farmers to
    markets, promote sustainable water-use management, and increase access
    to better seeds and technologies.
        But aid alone cannot unleash the potential of agriculture. Small
    farms need greater private-sector investments than they get now. That
    is why this fund will have a private-sector account that provides
    financing to increase the commercial potential of small and medium size
    farms and other agribusinesses.
        Some poor countries are already taking steps to increase
    agriculture productivity. Rwanda, for example, has increased its
    investment in agriculture 30% from 2007 to 2009 and recently reported
    that its agricultural production was up 15% over that period.
        The fund will build on this and other progress that is underway. It
    will provide a transparent way for donors to implement their commitment
    to agriculture and a predictable source of funding for developing
    countries. And it will provide recipient countries and civil
    organizations, as well as donors, with a strong voice in determining
    where investments are made.
        Thanks to the leadership of President Barack Obama, Secretary of
    State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.), the
    announcement we will make today will be a significant step forward: our
    commitments total nearly $900 million from now until 2012.
        But creating this fund is only a first step. Last year, several
    wealthy nations pledged at least $22 billion over the next three years
    to agricultural development. Now they can join this fund to begin
    making good on their promises. Farmers and their families are in this
    for the long haul; we must be, too.
        Working together, we have an opportunity to create a world free of
    hunger and extreme poverty. Rural communities have waited too long for
    their farms to flourish. This time, as we return with renewed vigor and
    commitment to boosting agricultural development, let's sustain our
    focus until the job is done. Let's make history by learning from it.
                                     ______

       Letter From the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

                                                        April 22, 2010.
    Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
    U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Robert P. Casey,
    U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Senators Lugar and Casey: The Association of Public and Land-
    grant Universities strongly endorses your continued efforts to pass
    S.384, the Global Food Security Act. We are greatly encouraged that you
    are working collaboratively with the House sponsor, Rep. McCollum, and
    that the Administration is working with you to bring this bill to the
    President's desk this year. Many of our universities have already
    contacted their Senators asking them to support S.384. They will
    continue to do so.
        We believe S.384, particularly Title III, will ensure that U.S.
    colleges and universities will be an important part of advancing key
    foreign policy objectives of reducing world hunger by increasing
    agricultural productivity. Institutions of higher education in the U.S.
    have historically played a critical role in international development,
    particularly in agriculture. They are essential in building the human
    and institutional capacity in developing countries necessary for
    sustained economic growth. Unfortunately, over the past 20 years, the
    U.S. foreign assistance strategy has under-invested in agriculture and
    under leveraged the resources of colleges and universities to help
    address critical global development problems. Your bill is a major step
    in correcting these practices.
        While a number of factors were responsible for the acute global
    food crisis of two years ago, one of the major causes was a decline in
    agricultural productivity in developing countries. S.384 will commit
    the U.S. to increased investment in agriculture, which accounts for as
    much as 70% of the GDP in many developing countries, in part by
    engaging U.S. colleges and universities in collaboration with higher
    education institutions in developing countries to build the research,
    training, and extension capacities. This is consistent with U.S.
    foreign policy interests, and enhances the overall objectives of the
    legislation.
        Again, thank you very much for your important legislation. We look
    forward to continuing to work with you for its enactment.
                Cordially,
                                               Peter McPherson,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

         Letter From International Relief and Development Organizations

                                                        April 21, 2010.
    Senator Richard G. Lugar,
    Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

    Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
    Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

    Senator Richard Durbin,
    Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Senator Lugar, Senator Casey, and Senator Durbin: The
    undersigned international relief and development organizations applaud
    your leadership in promoting global food security with the introduction
    of the Global Food Security Act (S.384). We have long fought for the
    underlying principles driving the legislation and are pleased that the
    walls of Congress are beginning to echo our cries.
        Solutions are needed to address the estimated 1 billion people that
    suffer from chronic food insecurity. Lasting improvements in food
    security can be reliably ensured with adequate financial and technical
    resources for sustainable agricultural development. Studies show that
    investments in agriculture produce the highest returns in rural poverty
    alleviation and increased food security. In addition, when emergency
    food assistance is necessary, aid must be structured in a way that
    vulnerable families do not have to wait four to six months for U.S.
    food shipments to arrive.
        The bill not only addresses the emergency needs of those suffering
    from the ongoing food crisis, but offers long term food security
    solutions by investing in agriculture and rural development. We are
    heartened by the legislation's recognition of the critical role that
    women throughout the world play in agriculture and family nutrition. By
    providing assistance in forms that benefit the women working on family
    farms using local resources, your bill promises efficient and effective
    investment in food production and well-being for those who need it
    most. In addition, we welcome the introduction of a Special Coordinator
    for Global Food Security and support its integration into a modernized
    foreign assistance strategy.
        We look forward to working with you on this important issue and, on
    behalf of hungry families around the world; we thank you for your
    leadership.
                Sincerely,
                        ACDI/VOCA; Adventist Development and Relief Agency
                                International; The Alliance to End Hunger;
                                Bread for the World; CARE; The Christian
                                Reformed World Relief Committee;
                                Congressional Hunger Center; ECHO; Food for
                                the Hungry; Foods Resource Bank; Friends of
                                the World Food Program; Heifer
                                International; Helen Keller International;
                                The Hunger Project; International Center
                                for Research on Women; International
                                Medical Corps; Lutheran World Relief; ONE;
                                Oxfam; Partnership to Cut Hunger and
                                Poverty in Africa; Relief International;
                                Save the Children; Women Organizing for
                                Change in Agriculture & NRM; Women Thrive
                                Worldwide; World Cocoa Foundation; World
                                Relief; World Wildlife Fund.
                                     ______

            Article Submitted by Catherine Bertini and Dan Glickman