[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID PROGRAMS: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-28
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-948 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JIM COSTA, California
STEVE KING, Iowa TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio SUZAN K. DelBENE, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia FILEMON VELA, Texas
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JEFF DENHAM, California ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DOUG LaMALFA, California PETE AGUILAR, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
TED S. YOHO, Florida ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
MIKE BOST, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
______
Scott C. Graves, Staff Director
Robert L. Larew, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 3
Witnesses
Dills, Laura, Director of Program Quality, East Africa Regional
Office, Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Koach, Lucas, Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, Food for
the Hungry, Washington, D.C.................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Didion, John, Chief Executive Officer, Didion Milling, Johnson
Creek, WI...................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Peanick, Jeffrey L., Chief Executive Officer, Breedlove Foods,
Inc., Lubbock, TX.............................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Cowan, Wade, President, American Soybean Association, Brownfield,
TX............................................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Warshaw, James William, Chairman, Food Aid Subcommittee, USA
Rice; Chief Executive Officer, Farmers Rice Milling Company,
Lake Charles, LA............................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Submitted Material
Salem, Navyn, Founder, Edesia Inc., submitted statement.......... 53
U.S. INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID PROGRAMS: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael
Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Conaway, Lucas, King,
Austin Scott of Georgia, Crawford, Hartzler, Benishek, Denham,
LaMalfa, Davis, Allen, Rouzer, Abraham, Moolenaar, Newhouse,
Kelly, Peterson, Walz, Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan
Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett,
Adams, and Graham.
Staff present: Bart Fischer, Caleb Crosswhite, Callie
McAdams, Haley Graves, Jackie Barber, Leah Christensen, Matt
Schertz, Mollie Wilken, Scott Sitton, Stephanie Addison, John
Konya, Andy Baker, Liz Friedlander, Nicole Scott, and Carly
Reedholm.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Committee
on Agriculture regarding U.S. international food aid:
stakeholder perspectives, will come to order. I have asked Mr.
Austin Scott to open us with a prayer. Austin?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lord, we love You and we know You love us. You have loaned
us this beautiful country. We just pray that You would be with
the leadership of this country, that we would do the things
that would be pleasing to You, and that we would trust You to
guide us in that right direction.
We ask You to continue to bless the men and women that are
protecting this country and those that we seek to serve.
I make this prayer respecting other faiths. I make this
prayer in the name of Christ. Amen.
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being
here. I appreciate our witnesses being here.
The purpose of today's hearing is to obtain the perspective
of those producing and processing food used in our food aid
programs, as well as those tasked with distributing the aid to
those around the world that are in need.
Today's hearing is the third in our review. So far, the
Committee has heard from agency officials charged with the
administration of these important programs about their views on
how the programs are working and how they can be improved.
Our Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture has
also heard from the GAO and Inspectors General for both USDA
and USAID regarding their efforts to monitor program
implementation. Based on that hearing, it is clear that reviews
of cash-based assistance are few and far between, and that
efforts have only just begun to evaluate the benefits of the
flexibility provided in the 2014 Farm Bill. Those findings
underscore my view that the continued push for added program
flexibility is premature.
Speaking of ongoing reform efforts, the Committee continues
to seek all the facts surrounding rumored negotiations between
USAID and the maritime industry regarding a potential agreement
that would increase funding to participants in the Maritime
Security Program in exchange for unprecedented levels of cash
assistance within the Food for Peace Program.
As I am sure you are aware, Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer
and I have sent letters to USDA, USAID, and the Department of
Transportation's U.S. Maritime Administration requesting
documents of communications related to those negotiations.
Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a substantive production
of documents. It is my understanding that those negotiations,
and until recently, discussions regarding a whole-of-government
approach to global food security have largely ignored the views
of the agricultural community. That is why I believe it is
especially important that we provide a platform here today to
assure that a variety of perspectives are heard.
America's farmers are the most productive in the world, and
without question, generate the safest and highest-quality food
available. Their contribution has served as the backbone of
these programs for the past 60 years and should not be
overlooked.
Furthermore, any review of food aid programs would be
incomplete without input from those organizations carrying out
the day-to-day implementation of feeding and development
programs across the globe.
Finally, given the Committee's commitment to gather input
from all segments involved in the lasting legacy of food aid,
we also intend to hear from the maritime industry in a separate
hearing later this fall.
The United States has long been the leader in the fight
against global hunger, and today I look forward to learning
more about the role that the private voluntary organizations,
agricultural processors and suppliers, and the commodity groups
play in that effort.
Again, I thank all of you for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Thank you for being here this morning as the Committee continues
its review of U.S. international food aid programs. The purpose of
today's hearing is to obtain the perspective of those producing and
processing the food used in our food aid programs as well as those
tasked with distributing that aid to those in need around the world.
Today's hearing is the third in our review. So far, the Committee
has heard from agency officials charged with the administration of
these important programs about their views on how the programs are
working, and how they can be improved.
Our Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture has also
heard from the Government Accountability Office and the Inspectors
General from both USDA and USAID regarding their efforts to monitor
program implementation.
Based on that hearing, it is clear that reviews of cash-based
assistance are few and far between, and that efforts have only just
begun to evaluate the benefits of the flexibility provided in the 2014
Farm Bill. Those findings underscored my view that the continued push
for added program flexibility is premature.
Speaking of ongoing reform efforts, the Committee continues to seek
all the facts surrounding rumored negotiations between USAID and the
maritime industry regarding a potential agreement that would increase
funding to participants in the Maritime Security Program in exchange
for unprecedented levels of cash assistance within Food for Peace. As I
am sure you are all aware, Subcommittee Chairman Rouzer and I sent
letters to USDA, USAID, and the Department of Transportation's U.S.
Maritime Administration requesting documents and communications related
to those negotiations. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a
substantive production of documents.
It is my understanding that those negotiations--and until recently,
discussions regarding a whole-of-government approach to global food
security--have largely ignored the views of the agricultural community.
That's why I believe it is especially important that we provide a
platform here today to ensure that a variety of perspectives are heard.
America's farmers are the most productive in the world and--without
question--generate the safest and highest quality food available. Their
contribution has served as the backbone of these programs for the past
sixty years and should not be overlooked.
Furthermore, any review of food aid programs would be incomplete
without input from those organizations carrying out the day-to-day
implementation of feeding and development programs across the globe.
Finally, given the Committee's commitment to gathering input from
all segments involved in the lasting legacy of food aid, we also intend
to hear from the maritime industry in a separate hearing later this
fall.
The United States has long been the leader in the fight against
global hunger, and today, I look forward to learning more about the
role that private voluntary organizations, agricultural processors and
suppliers, and the commodity groups play in that effort.
Again, thank you all for being here. I now yield to the Ranking
Member for any remarks he would like to make.
The Chairman. I yield now to the Ranking Member for any
remarks that he would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the
witnesses to the Committee.
As the Chairman has said, today's hearing continues the
Committee's review into international food aid programs in
advance of the next farm bill. We made several improvements to
U.S. food aid programs in the 2014 Farm Bill, and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses on how they have been
impacted by these changes.
We are focusing on stakeholder perspectives today, and the
groups before us should all be commended for the work that they
do around the globe. The partnerships of the private
organizations, millers and shippers have allowed the United
States to deliver more than $80 billion in international food
aid since World War II.
Again, I thank our witnesses for their work, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I would now like to introduce our panel today,
distinguished folks all. Ms. Laura Dills, the Deputy Regional
Director for Program Quality, East Africa Regional Office,
Catholic Relief Services, Nairobi, Kenya; Mr. Lucas Koach, the
Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, the Food for the Hungry
program, here in Washington, D.C.; Mr. John Didion, CEO of
Didion Milling, Johnson Creek, Wisconsin; Mr. Jeff Peanick, CEO
of Breedlove Foods of Lubbock, Texas; Mr. Wade Cowan, President
of the American Soybean Association from Brownfield, Texas; Mr.
Jamie Warshaw, Chairman of the Food Aid Subcommittee, USA Rice,
Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Lady and gentlemen, thank you for being here. Ms. Dill, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LAURA DILLS, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM
QUALITY, EAST AFRICA REGIONAL OFFICE, CATHOLIC
RELIEF SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MD
Ms. Dills. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, and Members of the House Agriculture Committee. On
behalf of Catholic Relief Services, we appreciate this
opportunity to discuss our perspectives on international food
aid programs.
I am honored to be a part of this panel, which is
representing key elements of the international food aid system.
Catholic Relief Services is the international humanitarian
and development agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops. We operate in over 90 countries and often implement
programming through existing Catholic Church networks. This
gives us a unique opportunity to reach people in need that many
others can't match. We view international food programs--Food
for Peace, Food for Education, Food for Progress--as critical
components to U.S. efforts to improve food security around the
world.
Catholic Relief Services' food security approach is rooted
in the Pathway to Prosperity model described in detail in my
written testimony. We take a holistic view to supporting small
holder family farms, integrating assistance across sectors and
entire communities. Ultimately, this encourages market
engagement as the long-term sustainable path out of poverty.
Food aid programs are well positioned to support this
approach, especially Food for Peace. Our work with Food for
Peace in Madagascar focuses on nutrition, livelihoods, and
community resilience. The program has seen farmers' yields in
the main staple crops of rice and casaba increase by 80 and 38
percent, respectively. The program reforested 10,000 acres and
irrigated 24,000 acres of land. We saw a 12 percent decline in
stunting and a 31 percent decrease in underweight children.
Overall, this program improved the lives of over 600,000
people.
While these seem like just statistics, behind them are real
people whose lives are better as a result of the program.
I would like to tell you about a little boy that I met when
I lived in Madagascar for 3\1/2\ years named John Clement. When
he came into our program he was skin and bones. At 14 months,
he weighed a mere 14 pounds. He was so severely undernourished
that he didn't even have the strength to lift his head. Our
program taught his mother better hygiene and nutritional
practices, showing her how to prepare more nutritious foods
using local resources available in the market. This miracle in
this program was evident after 12 days. He gained 2 pounds and
was able to walk.
This is a clear example of how critical it is to have
dedicated funding for Food for Peace development programs and
why we are very pleased with the results of the 2014 Farm Bill.
That bill provides no less than $350 million a year to these
programs. It has also eliminated a waiver system that could
have siphoned funding from programs that rehabilitate children
like John Clement.
To be clear, we view both the emergency and development
sides of Food for Peace as critical. Funding for these two
purposes should not be pitted against one another. We believe
the Committee struck the right balance on this issue and hope
others in Congress also see the wisdom of your actions.
While Food for Peace and all the food aid programs you
oversee are doing incredible work, we respectfully offer
specific recommendations that would further improve the
programs.
These include further reducing monetization in Food for
Peace and addressing it in the Food for Progress, giving
implementers more discretion to use vouchers or the local
purchase of food and programming and reducing the minimum
tonnage and repealing outdated rules governing cargo
preference. Action in this last area would be very timely given
the GAO's report released last week that shows cargo preference
led to $107 million more in food and shipping costs. We stand
ready to work with you in pursuing any of these paths to more
efficient food aid programs.
Last, while it isn't the topic of this hearing, I
understand the Agriculture Committee is presently reviewing the
Global Food Security Act. As such, I wanted to highlight
Catholic Relief Services' support of this bill. We believe the
bill provides important Congressional direction to the existing
Feed the Future program. We are especially supportive of the
great emphasis it places on highly vulnerable people and
greater reporting requirements that will give a clearer picture
on how funding is used.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dills follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura Dills, Director of Program Quality, East
Africa Regional Office, Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD
Thank you Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson for this
opportunity to provide testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture.
I am Laura Dills, Deputy Regional Director of Program Quality for the
East Africa Regional Office of Catholic Relief Services. I have been
with Catholic Relief Services for 12 years and have been involved in
Food for Peace projects in Burkina, Rwanda, India, Haiti, Madagascar,
and now East Africa. I am honored to represent Catholic Relief Services
in this hearing.
In my statement, I will review Catholic Relief Services' food
security strategy, discuss how U.S. food aid programs help us to
implement that strategy to help millions of people, and then make
several recommendations from our experience that the Committee should
consider as it seeks to improve the impact and efficiency of U.S.
international food assistance.
Catholic Relief Services and the U.S. Catholic Church
Catholic Relief Services is the international relief and
development agency of the U.S. Catholic Church. We are one of the
largest implementers of U.S.-funded foreign assistance overall, and of
international food aid programs under the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture Committees. Our work reaches over 100 million poor and
vulnerable people in nearly 90 countries. Catholic Relief Services
works with people and communities based on need, without regard to
race, creed, or nationality. We often partner with institutions of the
Catholic Church and other local civil society groups in the
implementation of programs, which from our experience is essential to
understanding the needs of the communities we work with, and ultimately
the long-term success of our work.
Catholic Relief Services Concept of Food Security
A core focus of our work is on improving the livelihoods of small
holder farm families as a means to achieve food security. These
families can be categorized according to their levels of assets,
vulnerability, commercial prospects, education, and ability to take on
new technologies or risk. Accounting for these differences, our
objective is to move small holder farm families along a Pathway to
Prosperity (see Graph), and ultimately out of any need of assistance.
Graph 1
Pathway to Prosperity Model
Moving people along the Pathway to Prosperity requires
transitioning families from subsistence farming into greater engagement
with markets. Ultimately, small holder farming is a small business and
even very vulnerable farmers--with the right skills and opportunities--
can increase their income through increased connections to markets.
Catholic Relief Services provides customized support to farm
families at all levels of the Pathway in areas of building and
protecting assets, acquiring new business skills, adopting better
farming practices, and revitalizing the natural resource base. The vast
majority of the people we work with are subsistence farmers who would
be classified in recover or maybe the build segments of our Pathway to
Prosperity model. That said, changes in production and commercial
behavior by one group in a community will affect others, so our
programming looks at a community-wide strategy that works with small
holder farmers in each group and across a number of sectors. These
sectors tend to include agricultural production, nutritional status,
and market engagement. We believe that this holistic, community-wide
approach is the most effective way to achieve long-term food security.
Food for Peace Program
For over 60 years the Food for Peace program has provided food
assistance to people in need around the world. Current operations of
the Food for Peace program are split between emergency and development
programming. Emergency food aid supplied by Food for Peace provides
U.S. commodities to people who are impacted by natural disasters or
civil conflict. Emergency programs have traditionally lasted 6-12
months, however, in many cases they are continued for much longer
periods of time because the underlying emergency conditions are not
resolved. This is particularly true for many refugees and internally
displaced people who have fled violence at home. Catholic Relief
Services currently is the prime implementer of an emergency Food for
Peace program in Ethiopia, and is a sub-awardee to several emergency
food aid programs.
Food for Peace development programs primarily serve extremely farm
families in the recover and build levels denoted on our Pathway model.
In line with our approach to food security, Food for Peace development
projects are designed to address a number of sectors simultaneously--
agriculture, nutrition, land regeneration, water management,
infrastructure improvements, and market engagement--in order to address
whole community needs. Food for Peace development programs are
implemented over a period of at least 5 years, which gives implementers
like us enough time to make a lasting impact on the people we serve,
whether by revitalizing local ground water sources, teaching farmers'
skill sets and new practices, or constructing community assets like
dikes and irrigation systems. Development programs are awarded on a
competitive basis, allowing the best ideas and most successful
implementers to carry out the work. And, these programs are designed to
address chronic stress before negative trends devolve into outright
crisis, thus helping people avoid the need for emergency food
assistance. Catholic Relief Services is the lead implementer of eight
Food for Peace development projects; these projects are in Burkina
Faso, Burundi, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Malawi, Madagascar, Niger, and
South Sudan.
The 2014 Farm Bill set funding for development projects at a
minimum of $350 million per year, and also permitted this funding to
rise up to 30% of overall Food for Peace appropriations. The remaining
Food for Peace appropriations are available for emergency food
assistance programs. In practice, this has provided over $1 billion for
emergency food aid over the last several years. The 2014 Farm Bill also
eliminated a waiver system that would allow development funding to be
used for emergencies if certain conditions were met.
Catholic Relief Services believes funding for both emergency and
development food aid programs is critical, and that funding for one
should not come at the expense of the other. As such, we are grateful
that the 2014 Farm Bill eliminated the then existing waiver, and
established a reliable level of funding for development projects.
Consistent funding for long-term development programs is paramount to
ensuring such projects are able to achieve their goals. That said, we
are troubled that funding for Food for Peace has remained flat over the
last few years, particularly in light of higher commodity and
transportation costs. We encourage Congress to prioritize higher levels
of funding for the Food for Peace program so that more resources are
available for both emergency and development food aid programs.
Food for Peace in Practice--Madagascar
Madagascar is an island off the Southeast coast of Africa, with a
population of about 22 million people. About 80% of the population
lives on less than $2 a day, and greater than 50% are considered food
insecure. In 2014 a Catholic Relief Services-led consortium completed
the Food for Peace project Strengthening and Accessing Livelihood
Opportunities for Household Impact (SALOHI) project which served
630,000 people in the Central and Southern portions of Madagascar. The
project focused on helping vulnerable groups within the target areas,
including rural farmers in Eastern coastal areas who are often impacted
by cyclones and floods, farmers living in largely inaccessible regions,
pastoralists and farmers who often face drought in the South, and
especially female-headed households in all project regions. The SALOHI
project had three main objectives; (1) improve child nutrition,
especially for children less than 5 years old, (2) improve the
livelihoods of food-insecure households, and (3) increase community
resilience to the shocks that often befall Madagascar.
Addressing child nutritional needs was a major component of this
Food for Peace project, particularly given that over 17% of the people
in target areas were children under 5. Project activities directly
impacting child nutrition included the promotion of exclusive
breastfeeding through 5 months, complementary feeding (supported in
part with Food for Peace commodities) for children 6-23 months with
continued breastfeeding, and prevention of micronutrient deficiencies
and anemia. To help prevent childhood diseases, particularly diarrheal
diseases common among beneficiary communities, SALOHI focused on
improving personal hygiene of beneficiaries, especially hand washing
and food hygiene. The project also trained existing and new community
health workers and volunteers in the area of children's health,
encouraged mothers to bring their children for regular checkups to
monitor their nutritional status and potential need for intervention,
and addressed the needs of malnourished children.
Since the vast majority of beneficiaries in SALOHI were
smallholder, subsistence farmers, efforts to improve livelihoods
focused on increasing agricultural production through Farm Field
Schools (FFS) that brought small groups of farmers together to learn
new farming techniques like planting in rows, use of better seed,
basket composting, and use of organic fertilizer. SALOHI also helped
farmers organize themselves into village-level microfinance
cooperatives that pooled and lent small amounts of capital to their own
members. Working with these same farmer groups, SALOHI also introduced
agribusiness skill-sets. Women made up \1/2\ the participants in FFS
groups and over \1/2\ in microfinance cooperatives. The new techniques
and skills from these interventions often spilled over to community
members who did not participate in the Food for Peace project, as they
saw and learned from direct project participants.
To improve community resilience and to compliment other aspects of
the project, Food for Peace commodities were used in food for asset
activities, where community members would build and rehabilitate
community infrastructure like roads, dams, canals, and irrigation
channels in exchange for food rations. To ensure sustainability,
several types of management associations were created to build and
maintain these assets, some of which collect fees to raise money for
upkeep expenses. SALOHI employed a ``Go Green Strategy'' in both its
livelihood and resilience activities, which promoted natural resource
management and sustainability. For instance, to protect farm land from
soil erosion, the program promoted reforestation and agroforestry in
and around agricultural areas. Such an approach shields farm land from
strong winds, reduces soil erosion from flooding, and improves water
quality and availability.
The final evaluation found that SALOHI met or exceeded most of its
major targets. For children under 5, stunting rates declined from 47%
to 41% and underweight children decreased from 29% to 20%. Average food
availability in households increased from 7.7 months to 9.1 months.
Adoption of new agricultural practices increased yields in staple crops
like rice (80%) and cassava (38%), and led to more vegetable production
and the adoption of new crops like sweet potatoes. Almost 4,300
hectares of land were reforested or protected, almost 900 kilometers of
roads were built or rehabilitated, and over 9,800 hectares of land are
now being irrigated thanks to SALOHI. What these numbers mean is that
farmers are able to grow more food, on less land; farmers are not
losing as much of their crops to storms, floods and pests; farmers are
able to get their crops to market, sell more of their crops, and
receive better prices; preventable childhood diseases are in fact being
prevented; children who need special care are being helped; families
have learned how to better care for their children; and overall,
children are healthier and people are more productive. These are the
kinds of achievements characteristic of Food for Peace development
projects.
We plan to continue and build on the successes in SALOHI, as
Catholic Relief Services was recently awarded a second Food for Peace 5
year development project in Madagascar. In addition to bringing our
interventions to new regions in Madagascar, we are especially excited
about new ways we are integrating market engagement into project
activities. For instance, we are working with a local business in
Madagascar to certify participating farmers in the production of
organic vanilla. While Madagascar already produces the majority of the
world's vanilla, there is a growing world demand for certified organic
vanilla, which most of Madagascar's producers can't meet. We hope to
help project farmers to meet this demand, first by earning organic
certification and second by connecting them with international buyers
like McCormick's and Ben and Jerry's, and in the process help them earn
a premium for their product.
McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program provides U.S. commodities for overseas school lunch
programs. These programs target some of the most food insecure
communities, so providing school lunches serves as a major incentive
for parents in these areas to send their children to school. Indeed,
for many of the children served by McGovern-Dole programs, their school
lunch is the only full meal they receive all day. This program has led
to significant increases in school attendance, particularly of girls
who in many communities are most likely to be kept home by their
families. In addition to providing school lunches, Catholic Relief
Services also implements complimentary activities that focus on
literacy and strengthen educational quality, such as curriculum
development, teacher training, and mentoring. Catholic Relief Services
is currently implementing Food for Education projects in Benin, Burkina
Faso, Guatemala, Honduras, Laos, Mali, and Sierra Leone.
Food for Education in Practice--Honduras
Catholic Relief Services is implementing a Food for Education
program in Intibuca, a department (state) in Honduras which has the 4th
highest adult illiteracy rate in the country and which is situated in
highlands which geographically is difficult to reach. The program is
serving more than 53,000 children, in over 1,000 schools, and includes
a daily breakfast for all participating children, as well as take home
rations for certain students. Food used in these programs is largely
U.S. commodities donated by the American people.
Beyond providing meals, this Food for Education project funds
implementation of a multi-prong approach to improving student
attendance and achievement, and students' overall learning environment.
This includes organizing school vegetable gardens which help supplement
the U.S. commodities used in the program; peer-to-peer tutoring
programs that target under achieving youth with special help from
fellow classmates and teachers; drop-out intervention committees that
help identify and address the root causes of why children are absent
from school; support to especially poor families who cannot afford
school supplies like books, backpacks, and uniforms; the creation of a
substitute teacher program made up of community volunteers, so the that
the overtaxed regular faculty can attend trainings and professional
development workshops; and physical improvements to schools, like
building and improving latrines, classrooms, and kitchen areas.
One of the more exciting recent developments in the program is that
the Government of Honduras has decided to invest $625,000 into the
program for the purchase of local foodstuffs to support the feeding and
take home rations component. While this is only a 1 year pilot that
will end in December 2015, we are hopeful that the government will be
willing to renew this investment in subsequent years.
Food for Progress Program
The Food for Progress program improves commodity value chain
development and market engagement for vulnerable farmers, helping them
earn more and better support their families. Projects are funded
through monetization of U.S. agricultural products in host country
markets. Catholic Relief Services is presently implementing Food for
Progress projects in Burkina Faso, the Philippines, Tanzania, and in
Nicaragua. Like with the other food aid programs we implement, Catholic
Relief Services has seen great success with Food for Progress. For
instance, in the Philippines we worked with 33,000 farm families
involved in rice and coffee production who had limited market
experience, no access to end buyers, and limited farmland. We helped
these farmers improve yields and product quality, learn essential
business skills, and organize in cooperatives so they could
collectively ask for higher prices. As a result, rice production rose
57% and coffee production rose 27%. Farmers also saw better prices for
their crops, with an average increase of 17% for rice and 31% for
coffee.
Farmer-to-Farmer Program
The Farmer-to-Farmer program has been matching U.S. farmers and
other agricultural professionals with projects and communities in need
of expert help around the world for 30 years. Beginning last year,
Catholic Relief Services has matched over 100 U.S. citizens with
projects in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Ethiopia. The skill sets of
these volunteers include basic farming skills, to soil quality and
management, marketing, and a host of other areas. Volunteers have
offered their expertise in stand-alone projects, and in support of
other existing and ongoing projects funded by Food for Peace, Food for
Progress, Feed the Future, and other U.S. funded programs.
Improving Food Aid Programs
As outlined above, Catholic Relief Services is a major implementer
of food aid programs and as such we have a clear and deep perspective
of how these programs operate. This affords us a unique perspective in
how food aid programs can be improved. Below we provide three broad
categories for our many recommendations for improvement; Shipping and
Cargo Preference, Monetization, and Flexibility.
Shipping and Cargo Preference
Catholic Relief Services recommends that Congress explore changes
to existing cargo preference laws and practices that have had a
negative impact on food aid programs. Cargo preference is the policy
that requires the shipping of U.S. funded cargo, in this case food aid,
on U.S.-flagged vessels. The basis for this requirement is to help
maintain private, sealift capacity--in terms of both cargo vessels and
U.S. crews--in order to transport military supplies should it be
required. While there is debate over whether cargo preference is an
effective way of achieving this objective, it is clear that using U.S.-
flagged vessels to ship food aid is more expensive than using foreign
flagged vessels. According to a study commissioned by the Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S.-flagged vessels
cost 2.7 times more to operate than vessels flagged in other
countries.\1\ Our own experience in the price differential between U.S.
and other vessels closely resembles this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maritime Administration, U.S. Dept. of Trans., Comparison of
U.S. and Foreign-Flag Operating Costs, Sept. 2011,available at http://
www.marad.dot.gov/documents/
Comparison_of_US_and_Foreign_Flag_Operating_Costs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cargo preference law applicable to food aid programs is found
in 46 U.S.C. 55305(b), and states that:
``at least 50 percent of the gross tonnage of the . . .
commodities (computed separately for dry bulk carriers, dry
cargo liners, and tankers) which may be transported on ocean
vessels is transported on privately-owned commercial vessels of
the United States, to the extent those vessels are available at
fair and reasonable rates for commercial vessels of the United
States, in a manner that will ensure a fair and reasonable
participation of commercial vessels of the United States in
those cargoes by geographic areas.''
There are several things Congress can do to reduce the impact cargo
preference has on food aid programs. First, we encourage Congress to
consider eliminating or reducing the minimum tonnage required to be
shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels. Depending on the reduction, this
change could have significant and direct savings for food aid programs,
leading to the purchase of more U.S. food and helping more hungry
people. Alternatively, we ask Congress to consider making changes
beyond the minimum tonnage requirement to current cargo preference law
that would also result in significant savings for food aid programs.
One change going beyond reducing the minimum tonnage that we
recommend is eliminating the distinction between classes of vessels.
The Maritime Administration, supported by the Department of Justice,
has determined ``that at least [50] percent of agricultural commodities
be shipped by U.S.-flag vessels `computed separately for dry bulk
carriers, dry cargo liners and tankers' requires that the U.S. vessels
be divided into those three categories and further, that the [50]
percent minimum be computed separately for each category of vessel.''
\2\ In today's ships is very little functional difference between these
vessel types, yet we have seen U.S. carriers use this provision to
force the rebidding of awards that were initially to less expensive
carriers (both U.S. and foreign) because the quota for the vessel type
they were offering had not been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Maritime Administration, U.S. Dept. of Trans. Notice:
Procedures for Determining Vessel Service Categories for Purposes of
the Cargo Preference Act, Fed. Reg. Vol. 74, No. 177, Sept. 15, 2009,
p. 47309, available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MAR730.AG-
2009-03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the reference to ``geographic areas'' in the cargo preference
law has led to the requirement that USDA food aid programs must meet
the 50% requirement by country, per year.\3\ Under this constraint,
small country programs with only one or two shipments in a year usually
have to use the more expensive U.S. carriers for all their commodity
shipments in order to ensure they meet the 50% minimum. We recommend
doing away with the requirement that minimum tonnage be calculated
based on country, or any other geographic region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Government Accountability Office, Cargo Preference
Requirements: Objectives Not Significantly Advanced When Used in U.S.
Food Aid Programs, Sept. 1994, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
160/154635.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with the shipment of food aid go beyond the cargo
preference law. Recently in Madagascar, we saw a foreign flag carrier
split what should have been eight shipments of food into 23 different
shipments, spread out over several months. This led to delays in
program implementation, and higher than expected costs associated with
receiving, handling and storage of the food. In another recent
instance, a shipment of food on a U.S. carrier destined for Ethiopia
was challenged by another U.S. carrier who felt the winning transport
company did not meet all relevant statutory requirements. We ultimately
decided to go ahead with the original carrier as planned because any
delays could have put lives in jeopardy, but in so doing we had to
assume the risk of potential legal action for this decision. We believe
there is also a role for Congress to help address food aid shipping
problems that are outside of the cargo preference law through greater
oversight, and if need be through legislative changes that prioritize
timely shipment of food aid.
Last, Food for Progress has been particularly hard hit by cargo
preference requirements in recent years. The authorization for Food for
Progress allows the program to spend up to $40 million a year on
transportation costs. Prior to 2012, food aid programs were being
reimbursed for using higher costs associated with shipping food on
U.S.-flagged vessels. It was Food for Progress' practice to reinvest
these reimbursed funds into additional transportation for its projects.
We estimate this effectively gave Food for Progress $5-$10 million more
each year to spend on overseas shipping of U.S. commodities. Now that
reimbursements have been eliminated, Food for Progress has had to cut
back on the number of programs it funds, reducing the number of people
the program once reached. We ask Congress to consider ways to address
this reduction in programming--in the short-term by considering
additional appropriations to supplement the program's cap on shipping,
and in the long-term, providing a higher authorized level of funding
for transportation costs.
Catholic Relief Services also wants to make clear that we admire
and respect the contributions made by U.S. merchant mariners, who for
over 60 years have delivered U.S. food to millions of hungry people
around the world. We recognize their efforts and sacrifices in food aid
programs, and consider them valuable partners in the fight against
hunger. We, however, believe that the cost of achieving the objective
of maintaining a U.S.-flagged merchant fleet, and U.S. mariners to crew
those vessels, should not at the expense of programs intended to help
the hungry overseas. We encourage Congress to consider measures to
support merchant marines in ways that do not place an undue burden on
food aid funding.
Monetization
Monetization is the practice of shipping U.S. commodities overseas,
to be sold abroad, in order to raise funds to cover non-food program
costs. Usually the markets in which these goods must be sold cannot
bear the full cost of purchasing U.S. commodities and shipping them
overseas--especially when U.S. carriers are used. In almost every
single case, sales are at a loss. The Government Accountability Office
has looked at this and has concluded that monetization is an
inefficient means of raising funds to cover non-food program costs,
noting that Food for Peace monetization on average achieved a 76% cost
recovery--that is, the sale of commodities netted only 76% of the cost
to buy and transport the food in the first place.\4\ Our own experience
closely resembles these results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Government Accountability Office, Funding Development Projects
through the Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S. Commodities Is
Inefficient and Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts, June 2012, available
at http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/320013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agriculture Committees recognized that monetization was an
inefficient practice and in the 2014 Farm Bill increased the amount of
Food for Peace funding available to 202(e), a provision in the Food for
Peace Act that provides cash funding for administrative purposes.
Additionally, the scope of activities that 202(e) could fund was
broadened to include development activities and the enhancement of
existing programs. These changes, along with additional cash funding
provided to Food for Peace from USAID's Community Development Fund, has
allowed most Food for Peace programs to avoid the use of monetization,
including all Food for Peace development programs Catholic Relief
Services is currently implementing. For this we are incredibly
grateful.
While we consider this substantial progress, we also note that the
2014 Farm Bill still requires that at least 15% of Food for Peace
development program resources be used towards monetization. We are
concerned that this enduring 15% requirement could force our programs
in the future to monetize again. We ask that you consider measures that
would eliminate the requirement to monetize in Food for Peace programs
altogether. Additionally, we note that Food for Progress programs
remain entirely funded though monetization. We request the Agriculture
Committee consider ways to make cash funding available in the Food for
Progress program as well.
Another way the 2014 Farm Bill sought to address monetization was
to institute a special reporting requirement when a monetization
project failed to achieve at least a 70% cost recovery. It is our
understanding that the intention behind this provision was to document
the reasons why there was such a low cost recovery. In practice, this
provision was seen as a signal from Congress that no project should
ever have a cost recovery lower than 70%. This has led to substantial
reluctance by Food for Progress to engage in any projects that do not
guarantee at least 70% cost recovery. In the long term, this could mean
Food for Progress may scale back operations to only those few countries
where higher than 70% cost recovery can reliably be achieved--most
likely only countries that are a short distance from the U.S. To be
clear, our goal is to achieve as high a cost recovery as possible in
each monetization. However, we have no control over the prices of the
commodities that are bought for the project; we have no control over
how much we will be charged to transport the commodities overseas; and
we have no control over the market conditions in the countries in which
we are required to monetize. In short, our ability to achieve cost
recovery is limited, and we are concerned otherwise worthy projects
will not commence because they could not guarantee a 70% cost recovery.
As such, we ask that the Agriculture Committee provide clear guidance
to USDA that it will not be penalized in any way if Food for Progress
monetization does not meet the 70% cost recovery target.
Flexibility
The 2014 Farm Bill also provided additional flexibility in how food
aid funding could be used. Most notably, it made permanent a pilot
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) program, and authorized $80
million in funding for this program. The farm bill also established a
preference that this funding be used in conjunction with McGovern-Dole
projects. We were very pleased with this outcome in the farm bill and
believe that this funding could help encourage local governments to
ultimately assume responsibility for school lunch programs.
Specifically, we hope to implement programming that will build the
capacity of local farmers to supply the food need to carry out school
lunch programs, and the capacity of school officials and parent
associations to manage the purchase, storage and preparation of school
lunches. In this way, we will be able to create local systems to supply
and carry out school feeding that can ultimately be turned over to
local and national governments to fund. Since these systems will have
already been adopted by the local community, and the benefits of the
system all feedback to the local community, governments will have
strong incentives to take over program funding when the McGovern-Dole
funding runs out. We strongly encourage Congress to provide funding for
the USDA LRP program in the final FY 2016 appropriations bill.
Another area of flexibility that we appreciate is the ability to
temporarily transition existing Food for Peace development programs
into emergency programs when on-the-ground circumstances make it
impossible to continue development programs as planned. This
flexibility has been provided by the Office of Food for Peace in two
recent cases--Mali and South Sudan. In both cases we had begun
implementation of Food for Peace development projects when internal
civil conflict flared. In both cases we were able to use program
commodities to provide emergency food relief to affected civilian
populations, and in both cases we were able to transition back to
development programming to populations outside combat areas. What is
most critical about this kind of flexibility is that these projects
have been very responsive to immediate and changing needs, and we
believe they can provide a level of stability that will support the
ultimate resolution of these conflicts.
Catholic Relief Services also urges Congress to provide food aid
implementers as much discretion as possible in how food aid funds are
used, including whether they can be used for the purchase of U.S.
commodities, locally produced/purchased commodities, vouchers, or cash
transfers in their projects. We have used each of these modalities of
assistance and we know they all can be valuable in the fight against
hunger and it is the specific circumstances of the project that will
determine which is the right tool to use. In some cases using U.S.
commodities will be the best choice--because it's less expensive, it
can be provided in the necessary quality or quantities, or buying
locally in the needed volumes will negatively impact local markets.
Alternatively, in some cases using an LRP modality will be the best
choice--because it's less expensive, can get to the target population
faster, is more amenable to local diets, or because bringing in U.S.
commodities would be disruptive to the local market. Given the dynamic
circumstances in which food aid operates, food aid programs should be
responsive, nimble, and adaptable to current conditions. Ideally,
implementers would have complete discretion in how food aid funding is
used through the life of a program.
Conclusion
U.S. food aid programs--Food for Peace, Food for Education, Food
for Progress and Farmer-to-Farmer--have been incredibly successful at
feeding the hungry and helping the poor become more self-sufficient. It
is through these programs that the U.S. is making a significant
contribution to lifting people out of poverty, and their success gives
us great hope that our collective goal of ending extreme poverty is
attainable. At the same time, we know these programs can be improved,
and we ask the Agriculture Committee and all of Congress to consider
adopting the recommendations we provide in this testimony.
Thank you for this opportunity to share with the Committee our
perspectives on food aid and we stand ready to work with you on making
the programs even better in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Dills.
Mr. Koach.
STATEMENT OF LUCAS KOACH, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND
ADVOCACY, FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Koach. Mr. Chairman, Food for the Hungry appreciates
this opportunity to present testimony on the value and
importance of U.S. food aid programs that address emergency
needs and promote food security in developing countries. I ask
to submit my full testimony for the record, and will summarize
the key points in my opening statement.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Koach. Food for the Hungry is a private volunteer
organization, commonly referred to as a PVO, and a faith-based
organization that works with communities in need around the
world. Our approach is partnering, helping people identify and
address the impediments to development and then to build their
capacity through skills development, increased economic
opportunity, greater ability to engage their government
officials, and improve access to water, food, education,
healthcare and other vital services. We are grateful for the
generosity of the American people who contribute funds to our
organization, and we are grateful to the Congress, which has
consistently supported food aid and other programs that uplift
the needy.
All the food aid programs under the jurisdiction of this
Agriculture Committee are vital for meeting the range of needs,
and while many know of the use of food aid to meet urgent
needs, the overall goal of food aid is to indeed provide food
where it is needed and to also build self-reliance in order to
reduce the future need for emergency food aid. Thus, Food for
Peace, Food for Progress, McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition include technical assistance in
capacity-building to allow food-insecure countries and crisis-
prone poor communities move from subsistence to self-reliance
so their populations may lead healthier and more productive
lives.
The farm bill's USDA Local Procurement Program also offers
a new opportunity to integrate local ingredients into food aid,
and if well planned, to stimulate local production and
processing of nutritious foods.
Mr. Chairman, six of the seven statutory purposes of Food
for Peace Title II focus on using food aid in programs that
address the underlying causes of chronic hunger and help people
lead more productive lives. The premise is straightforward:
regions where there is extensive poverty, poor infrastructure,
and chronic hunger are prone to crisis. When food aid is
integrated into programs that help vulnerable households and
communities become more food-secure and self-reliant, they are
less likely to need repeated humanitarian interventions over
time.
Despite the wisdom of this approach and the positive result
of PVO Title II development programs, returning year after year
with short-term food aid to meet emergency needs has become the
mainstay of the Title II program. And we fully support food aid
for urgent needs and disaster response, but for areas where
chronic hunger is prevalent and food shortfalls are common due
to poverty, remoteness or seasonal crises, being ahead of the
curve with well-planned, comprehensive development food aid
program is the best approach, thus limiting or diverting funds
from development programs to emergencies is counterproductive,
in our opinion.
Moreover, there are other options for addressing urgent
needs if Title II funds are already committed. Non-emergency
Title II programs, which are primarily conducted by private
volunteer organizations, maximize the benefits of food
assistance by combining food aid with skills development,
technical assistance, capacity-building for the very poor,
crisis-prone communities. Maternal and child hunger is reduced,
livelihoods are expanded, and community resilience is improved.
A USAID-commissioned independent evaluation of over 100
Title II programs conducted from 2002 to 2009 confirmed these
and other positive impacts in very poor and highly vulnerable
communities. We are therefore thankful to this Committee and
the Congress for establishing that minimum level of $350
million for these food for development programs in 2004 Farm
Bill.
We also are grateful that the farm bill increased the
maximum level for the Section 202(e) program support from 13 to
20 percent and expanding the purposes so these funds can be
used for developmental capacity-building activities. Such
activities make possible lasting change by not just giving a
person a fish but teaching people how to fish.
As an example, in these eastern part of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, in one small region, the Nyalugana Valley,
Food for the Hungry has converted 914 hectares. That's over
seven times the size of the National Mall of valley land that
was previously not arable into productive fields bringing
sustainable crop production livelihoods for over 13,000
households, and that is just one area and one program, and
there are many programs like that.
Another example is the high mountain of the Amhara region
of Ethiopia which is home to 31 percent of that country's food-
insecure population. Food for the Hungry's Title II program
started in 2011 and is reaching more than 300,000 households,
facilitating terracing, reforestation, rainwater catchment,
restoring the springs and on and on.
Volunteer cascade groups and care groups are reaching over
30,000 young mothers with vital health and nutrition and over
8,400 mothers in our program in Ethiopia participate in village
savings and loans programs, precursors to microfinance. Ninety-
one percent of beneficiaries increase agricultural production,
which is also responsible for an 88 percent increase in dietary
diversity and improved nutrition stores. As we can see, these
programs go far beyond mere food.
So thanks to this Title II development program and others
like it, during the 2012 food crisis, 7.6 million fewer
Ethiopians needed emergency food relief.
We wish to acknowledge and thank this Committee's
leadership in reauthorizing international food aid programs in
the 2014 Farm Bill, preserving this unique and important U.S.
Global Food Security Program and making it even more effective
and efficient.
We appreciate this opportunity to testify and certainly
welcome the opportunity to answer questions and provide further
information.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lucas Koach, Director of Public Policy and
Advocacy, Food for the Hungry, Washington, D.C.
Food for Peace, McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition, Food for Progress, Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust and the USDA Local and Regional Procurement Program
Mr. Chairman, Food for the Hungry appreciates this opportunity to
present testimony today on the value and importance of U.S. food aid
programs that address emergency needs and promote food security in
developing countries. Food for the Hungry is a private voluntary
organization (PVO) and also a faith-based organization (FBO) that walks
with communities in need around the world, providing assistance in 18
countries. Our approach is partnering, helping people identify and
address the impediments to development and then to build their capacity
through skills development, increased economic opportunity, greater
ability to engage their government officials and improved access to
water, food, education, health care and other vital services. We are
grateful for the generosity of the American people who contribute funds
to our organization and we are grateful to Congress, which has
consistently supported food aid and other programs that uplift the
needy.
In developing countries, one in eight people are chronically
undernourished (FAO, 2014), which decreases productivity and increases
susceptibility to disease. Insufficient nutrition during pregnancy and
in the first 2 years of life increases the chances of child mortality
and stunts cognitive and physical development (Black, et al., 2013). In
addition, millions of people urgently need assistance because of wars
and natural disasters. Improving agricultural productivity and the
availability of wholesome, sufficient foods through well-functioning
food systems in developing countries is the long-term solution, but for
now, U.S. food assistance is critically needed.
Many of the communities we serve are in areas where there are few
opportunities for expanding business and incomes. Struggling to meet
basic needs is a way of life. In such areas, cyclones, droughts, soil
erosion, remoteness, poor water and sanitation are among the types of
challenges that keep people from feeding their children good diets and
improving their lives. Helping people become food secure is a priority.
Assuring people have access to and can consume sufficient food to meet
nutritional needs is a prerequisite for a healthy, productive life,
economic growth, and, in a larger sense, peace and prosperity.
Thanks to the steadfast support of the U.S. Congress, the United
States is the leader in fighting world hunger and promoting peace and
prosperity through its long-standing commitment to food assistance.
Indeed, our country's leadership is demonstrated through its commitment
of $1.6 billion a year under the international Food Assistance
Convention. This is 66 percent of total governmental pledges. The next
largest pledge, by the European Union and its member countries, is \1/
4\ the U.S. level--only 17 percent of the total.
All of the food aid programs under the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture Committee are vital for meeting the range of the needs.
While many know of the use of food aid to meet urgent needs, the
overall goal of food aid is to provide food where and when needed and
also to build self-reliance in order to reduce the future need for
emergency food aid. Thus, Food for Peace, Food for Progress and
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
include technical assistance and capacity building to allow food
insecure countries and crisis-prone, poor communities move from
subsistence to self-reliance, so their populations may lead healthier
and more productive lives. The farm bill's USDA Local-Regional
Procurement Program also offers a new opportunity to integrate local
ingredients into food aid and, if well planned, to stimulate local
production and processing of nutritious foods.
Important Role of Food for Peace (P.L. 83-480 Title II)
P.L. 83-480 is the most reliable program worldwide for fighting
acute and chronic hunger. Countries that receive Title II food
assistance have weak food and agricultural systems, limiting the
availability of food. Producers in those countries face barriers as
they seek to increase productivity and market their goods, including
insufficient infrastructure, financing, agricultural inputs and
services. Food safety is another difficulty. For example, aflatoxin, a
poison produced by fungi in the soil, is prevalent and poorly
controlled in many corn, peanut and sorghum growing areas of Sub-
Saharan Africa. In addition, target countries do not commercially
import sufficient amounts of food to make up for their internal
deficits due to credit, foreign currency and other market constraints.
In addition to high levels of child hunger that leads to stunted
growth, most Title II populations live in areas with poor water,
sanitation and health services. Infectious disease and intestinal
parasites reduce nutrient absorption and productivity, and can
ultimately lead to death.
Over time, P.L. 83-480 Title II has been monitored, evaluated,
adapted and improved and it continues to be one of the most effective
instruments for reducing childhood malnutrition and fighting food
insecurity. A more comprehensive list of bulk and packaged commodities
and processed foods is now available, such as nut-based, high-energy
pastes to treat severe acute malnutrition and Corn Soy Blend Plus,
which is formulated to supplement diets of children between the ages of
6 and 24 months and to prevent malnutrition. A March 5, 2014 General
Accountability Office (GAO) report found that in the past 6 years, the
timeliness of P.L. 83-480 Title II food aid deliveries for emergencies
has improved due to the pre-positioning of commodities at multiple
strategic locations around the world. It suggests ways in which USAID
could use pre-positioning even more effectively. Implementing agencies
(USAID and USDA) should be encouraged to continue to take steps to
improve commodity procurement, transportation and supply systems.
Title II Food for Development: From Subsistence to Self-Reliance
Section 201 of the Food for Peace Act lists seven purposes of Title
II and six of them focus on using food aid in programs that address the
underlying causes of chronic hunger and help people lead more
productive lives. The premise is straightforward: Regions where there
is extensive poverty, poor infrastructure and chronic hunger are prone
to crises. When food aid is integrated into programs that help
vulnerable households and communities become more food secure and self-
reliant, they are less likely to need repeated humanitarian
interventions over time.
Despite the wisdom of this approach and the positive results of PVO
Title II development programs, returning year-after-year with short-
term food aid to meet emergency needs has become the mainstay of the
Title II program. We fully support food aid for urgent needs and
disaster response, but for areas where chronic hunger is prevalent and
food shortfalls are common due to poverty, remoteness or seasonal
crises, being ahead of the curve with well-planned comprehensive
development food aid programs is the best approach. When an emergency
strikes, these are the most vulnerable populations. Even though
progress may be made during better times, it is difficult for people to
overcome hunger in their lives.
Thus, limiting or diverting funds from development programs to
emergencies is counterproductive. Moreover, there are other options for
addressing urgent needs if Title II funds are already committed. The
Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust managed by the Commodity Credit
Corporation is designed to provide commodities for urgent needs. USAID
also uses International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds for emergency
food aid.
Nonemergency Title II programs, which are primarily conducted by
private voluntary organizations, maximize the benefits of food
assistance by combining food aid with skills development, technical
assistance and capacity-building in very poor, crisis-prone
communities. Maternal and child hunger is reduced, livelihoods are
expanded and community resilience is improved, all of which help reduce
the future need for emergency aid. This was the original design and
intent of the Food for Peace Act. A USAID-commissioned independent
evaluation of over 100 Title II development programs confirmed these
and other positive impacts in very poor and highly vulnerable
communities. We thank this Committee and the Congress for establishing
a minimum level of $350 million for these programs in the 2014 Farm
Bill and urge vigilance to make sure it is met.
We also are grateful that the farm bill increased the maximum level
for the section 202(e) program from 13 to 20 percent and expanding the
purposes so these funds can be used for developmental, capacity-
building activities. Such activities make possible lasting change by
not just giving a person a fish, but teaching people how to fish.
PVOs identify the factors that cause chronic hunger and seasonal
spikes in hunger and to address them through development activities as
well as supplemental foods. Preparing a Title II development program
proposal typically takes 6 months, but it can take up to 1 year. PVOs
invest significant organizational resources to conduct quantitative and
qualitative field research to identify target populations based on
health and nutrition criteria, income, assets, and the degree to which
households can meet their own food needs and in-depth situational
assessments to identify barriers to food security. PVOs develop program
plans in consultation with the targeted communities, incorporating
strategies that--
(1) During the course of the program (usually 5 years) will show
progressive, positive change, such as improvements in
mother-child nutrition and health, dietary and sanitation
practices, land reclamation, agricultural productivity and
marketing, household food supplies and incomes, and school
enrollment and attendance;
(2) Build local capacity and prepare communities, governments,
institutions and participants to continue activities, reap
benefits and decrease vulnerability to hunger after the
program is complete. For example, through Food for the
Hungry's Title II development project in Ethiopia, we have
a formal partnership with the Organization for
Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA) in which
26,000 government and regional partners have been trained
in technical and leadership capacity. Thanks to the
developmental Title II programs, during the 2012 Ethiopian
food crisis, 7.6 million avoided severe hunger.
Here are some examples of the types of program activities:
Locally-appropriate methods for improving child
nutrition: Nearly
all Title II development program incorporate a maternal-
child nutrition
component. Local organizations are formed to support
better nutrition of
women and children, use of latrines and other sanitary
practices, and the
development and maintenance of clean water sources. The
practices used in
households with nutritionally thriving children in
communities that other-
wise suffer high rates of malnutrition can be identified
and used as positive
examples. Community members volunteer to participate in
``training of
trainer'' sessions and to lead ``mothers clubs'' or
``Care Groups'' that provide
training and outreach within the community.
Stabilizing and improving agriculture, nutrition and
incomes:
Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has
suffered with conflict for many years. Under a 5 year
Title II development program, Food for the Hungry uses
a variety of community-based mobilization, training and
technical assistance strategies to stabilize
populations in South Kivu and Katanga provinces,
improve nutrition and allow the communities to build a
more promising future. Beneficiaries include returning
refugees, internally displaced people, and more
permanent communities. Thousands of houses have been
built; farmers have increased production and incomes
due to training in improved agricultural practices and
linkages to markets; and the communities now have
access to a more diverse and abundant food supply.
Gender-based violence is being combated with innovative
media campaigns and nutritional support has been
provided to pregnant and lactating women and children
under 59 months old.
In just one region in the Nyalugana valley, working
with local community leaders, FH has converted 914
hectares (over seven times the size of the National
Mall) of valley land that previously was not arable
into productive fields bringing sustainable crop
production and livelihoods to over 13,000 households.
New markets are forming, roads are being built, and
clinics and schools are being constructed. FH recently
shared these encouraging results with DRC government
ministers and other key stakeholders in the capital of
Kinshasa this summer. In a country that has seen much
despair, there is much hope.
Amhara Region of Ethiopia is home to 31% of that
country's food insecure population and site of Food for
the Hungry's 5 year Title II program that started in
October 2011 to assist more than 300,000 food-insecure
individuals that cannot grow enough food to meet year
round needs. Due to low rainfall, infertile soil,
degraded mountainous environment and limited market
access, nine rural districts 350 km north of Addis
Ababa are particularly prone to chronic food
insecurity. Our food for work program uses food as
payment (5 days per month in return for 15 kgs of
wheat, 1.5 kgs of peas and .5 liters of vegetable oil)
on public works that are transforming the landscape
into productive land. It includes terracing,
reforestation, rainwater catchment to restore springs,
construction and maintenance of safe drinking water
sources, and agriculture rehabilitation. These natural
resource rehabilitation activities restore soil
fertility and the surrounding environment as part of
Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program. Volunteer
cascade groups and Care Groups are reaching 30,000
young mothers with vital health and nutrition
education. Over 8,400 mothers participate in village
savings and loan groups--precursors to microfinance.
Ninety-one percent of beneficiaries increased
agriculture production, which is also responsible for
an 88 percent increase in diet diversity and improved
nutrition scores. Seventy-five percent have improved
drinking water systems. Through the development of
farmer cooperatives, farmers now produce not only for
local needs, but for markets outside their communities.
As a result 89 percent increased their incomes.
The Evolution of McGovern-Dole Food for Education.
When first started, McGovern-Dole was seen as a way to deliver
school meals and take-home food packages to encourage more poor
families to send both their boy and girl children to school. Household
chores and the need for additional wage-earners were seen as key
barriers to education. When developing needs assessments and program
plans, it quickly became apparent that it was necessary to address
other barriers to education, as well. Many schools were in disrepair
and the curriculum and teaching methods were not very effective, which
made parents question the value of an education. Thus, PVOs encouraged
and were pleased by USDA's decision to address both the nutritional and
educational value of the program. Because of PVOs' ability to tailor
each program to address local needs and conditions and organize parent-
teacher associations, community-support organizations, community
contributions, teacher training and curriculum improvement and other
program enhancements, McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs have
taken root and created sustainable benefits.
Food for Progress
Also administered by USDA, Food for Progress provides commodities
to countries that are enacting economic reforms to support improvements
in their agricultural and food systems. Through partnerships with PVOs
and others, this program uniquely targets specific challenges to
expansion of vibrant agricultural systems and links farmers, processors
and other in the food value chain in order to promote economic growth
and food security.
It also provides good examples of when and where monetization is a
tool in the field of development especially for spurring stability and
economic activity in net food-importing countries that, due to
financial and market constraints, are not able to procure sufficient
amounts of food on the world market. The primary purpose, therefore, is
to meet commodity shortfalls in developing countries; however, through
innovative programming, it can have additional economic benefits. For
example, the current USDA Food for Progress program in Jordan is
helping a U.S. ally that is hosting thousands of Syrian refugees meet
its wheat shortfall, which the proceeds from the sale of the wheat can
support continued growth in their agricultural economy--a double
benefit from one contribution.
We wish to acknowledge and thank this Committee's leadership in
reauthorizing international food aid programs in the 2014 Farm Bill:
preserving this unique and important U.S. global food security program
and making it even more efficient and effective. We appreciate this
opportunity to submit testimony and would welcome the opportunity to
answer questions or provide additional information.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Didion.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DIDION, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DIDION
MILLING, JOHNSON CREEK, WI
Mr. Didion. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, and Members of the Committee for inviting me to
testify today. I am John Didion. I am the CEO of Didion Milling
in Cambria, Wisconsin. I am providing an abbreviated testimony
and asking that a full written testimony be included in the
record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Didion. My brother, Dow, and I founded Didion Milling
back in 1971. We are a small family-owned business, employing
about 250 people in a rural town in Wisconsin. Didion Milling
is one of the world's largest producers of famine relief
products for Title II Public Law 83-480 Food for Peace
programs, the McGovern-Dole school programs run by USDA and
USAID.
Daily, we receive hundreds of loads of locally produced
grain for milling into our specially designed facility for
domestic and food aid products. When operating at capacity, we
can produce over 800 million complete meals, products like
corn-soy blend. CSB is a quality, nutrient-dense product
packaged in USAID bags labeled ``From the American people''
with the symbol of the American flag.
At Didion, we recognize our position in the food aid supply
chain as a quality, low-cost producer and resource to the
industry for USDA and USAID. Over the past couple of years, we
have worked closely with USDA and USAID to develop a new
product, Super Cereal Plus. Super Cereal Plus was initially
used by the World Food Programme, packaged in a retail-sized
bag intended for children of 6 months to 12 months of age.
Super Cereal Plus is effective at reducing and reversing
moderate acute malnutrition in children.
The product launch of Super Cereal Plus has had its
challenges. Super Cereal Plus was initially purchased with a
lot of enthusiasm by USDA in 2014. The product has not been
solicited for purchase since January of 2015. Our specially
designed production line, costing millions of dollars, has sat
idle for months.
Our history with food aid, Food for Peace, McGovern-Dole
school feeding programs is long standing. Our commitment is
unwavering.
Recent changes have us concerned about the future for the
Food for Peace program. In 2004, USDA purchased over 200,000
metric tons of CSB while in 2014 there has been less than
60,000 tons purchased. Didion has adapted to the change and
continues to participate in the program while others have opted
out. We are most concerned about these changes on behalf of the
needy recipients. Every night, over 800 million people go to
bed hungry, and according to the World Food Programme, the
trend has worsened over the last decade. In my opinion, the
trend of declining food purchases and the increasing number of
hungry people in the world is connected and it must be
reversed. We can do better.
Allocations for food aid have declined and there is now
talk of converting more dollars to a greater proportion of the
program to cash. It is my opinion that more cash, less food aid
provided will jeopardize the Food for Peace program and put
more needy lives at risk.
On the surface it may seem more efficient to send cash
rather than provide in-kind food. However, there are many
considerations in in-kind food that make it superior to cash.
In some instances, cash may actually cost the needy more than
in-kind food. Cash is more susceptible to corruption. Products
purchased with cash are not necessarily designed for at-risk
populations. Cash will not have the same support from
Americans, certainly not from the U.S. Corn Belt. Cash is
impersonal and will not carry the same message to recipients as
our bags do.
Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole school feeding
programs have operated successfully for many decades as in-kind
food deliveries. In-kind food aid puts our best foot forward as
a country while creating and supporting American jobs in food
production, rail transportation, stevedoring, maritime
administration, and support of rural America.
Over the 20+ years that Didion has participated in this
program, we have reached out and provided more than a billion
people in 35 different countries with a nutritious meal. I
believe Food for Peace is a food program that works and a
program that should be expanded with in-kind food aid.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Didion follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Didion, Chief Executive Officer, Didion
Milling, Johnson Creek, WI
Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members
of the Committee, for inviting me to testify at today's hearing. I am
John Didion, CEO of Didion Milling in Cambria, Wisconsin. My brother,
Dow, and I founded Didion Milling in 1971 and have worked closely with
farmers and our customers, milling, processing and marketing grain
products. Since then, we have expanded our operation several times;
however, we are still a family-owned, small business employing
approximately 250 people.
At Didion, our vision is to develop great people and make quality
products from grain. We develop and empower employees; driving decision
making to the front lines to move our business forward. We have
recently grown our food and industrial milling business by over 300%
with this model. This growth would not be possible without dedicated
employees committed to our vision. I live our mission and it is a key
reason why we have chosen to participate in the Title II Food for Peace
program (Food for Peace) to help provide quality food products for the
development of people around the world.
Over the last 20 years, we have been producing famine relief
products. Our products include Corn-Soy Blend (CSB), Corn-Soy Blend
Plus (CSB+), Cornmeal, Soy Fortified Corn Meal, Corn Soy Whey Blend,
Fortified Vegetable Oil, and most recently, Super Cereal Plus for Food
for Peace and McGovern-Dole school feeding programs. We are one of the
world's largest producers of fortified blended foods for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID).
We are incredibly proud of our role in transforming the corn and
soybeans purchased from our local farmers into complete nutritious food
products which are sent to hungry school children and others around the
world. Every day we receive hundreds of loads of quality grain from
local farmers for milling into specially designed food aid products,
such as CSB+ and Super Cereal Plus. Both are high quality, nutrient-
dense products packaged in USAID bags labeled ``From the American
People'' with a symbol of the U.S. flag.
About 90% of the grain we purchase is grown within a 100 mile
radius of our facilities; both farmers and employees take pride in
helping to meet the humanitarian needs across the world with U.S. grown
crops, and particularly with Wisconsin grown crops. When operating at
capacity, Didion Milling can produce over eight million complete meals
per day, shipped from our plant in rail cars and transported to various
U.S. ports for distribution all around the world.
Last week when Pope Francis addressed Congress, he said, ``The
fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many
fronts, especially in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as
in the past, are working to deal with this problem.'' Food for Peace is
a very important part of the fight against hunger. It is a program the
American people, farmers and businesses have taken pride in over the
past 60 years, as it benefits so many who are in need around the world.
At Didion we recognize our position in the food aid supply chain as
a quality and low cost supplier as well as an industry resource for the
USDA and USAID to help commercialize new products and implement
suggested changes of the Food Aid Quality Review. We welcome those
opportunities to have a lasting impact in the world by helping to
deliver the best product with the best nutrition at the best value. We
have a close working relationship with the USDA for the procurement of
our products and with USAID for the formulation of existing and new
products. We were the first U.S. supplier of CSB+ through our
partnership with USDA and USAID. In coordination with USAID and Tufts
University, we helped develop and produce Corn Soy Whey Blend. This
product is currently being field-tested for acceptance and performance.
Within the past year, we worked with USAID and USDA to
commercialize and scale up our newest product, Super Cereal Plus. Super
Cereal Plus was specially designed by the World Food Programme (WFP).
The product is packaged in retail sized packaging to promote the
dignity of recipients. Nutritionally, it is high in fat and protein,
containing both animal and vegetable proteins. It is fortified with
vitamins and minerals such as vitamin a, iron, iodine and zinc along
with many others. This vitamin and mineral profile will promote
cognitive development and growth, strengthen the immune system and
reduce the occurrence of blindness. The intended recipients are kids 6
months to 24 months as well as pregnant and lactating women. WFP has
been purchasing this product internationally for years; however, it had
not been produced in the U.S. until late last year. As the food aid
basket evolves, we remain committed to working closely with USAID and
USDA to produce high quality, safe and nutritious products, like Super
Cereal Plus, that will meet the needs of many around the globe.
However, this product evolution is not without its challenges.
Super Cereal Plus was initially purchased with a lot of enthusiasm by
USDA and USAID. A few short months later, there are questions about the
future of the product being produced in the U.S. USAID country
directors, private voluntary organizations and program managers seem
uninformed about the product and its availability. For example, the
majority of food basket items have a robust document on the USAID
website with the intended use, suggested serving size and expected
outcome for program managers. Unfortunately, this document is absent
for Super Cereal Plus. Because of this, the product stayed in the
warehouse at port for months without any movement, preventing any
additional procurement of the product. The product has not been
solicited for purchase since January 2015. Now our specially designed
production line has sat idle for over 5 months. Lengthy production
interruptions strain our ability to be a low cost producer. More
importantly over 18 million meals were delayed for about 6 months.
Our goal is to produce the most cost efficient quality product to
reach as many recipients as possible. Recently, we added an ethanol
plant to our mill to support this cost efficiency effort. Our
proprietary process selects the best parts of the kernel of corn for
food products and sends the balance of the kernel to our biofuels plant
to produce ethanol. This unique system helps to deliver the highest
value for all parts of the kernel of corn and optimize our natural
resources. This benefits our customers and reduces our carbon
footprint.
Our history with the USDA and USAID is long standing and our
commitment has been unwavering. Recent changes have us concerned about
the future of Food for Peace. In 2004, the USDA purchased over 200,000
MT of CSB, while in fiscal 2014 there was less than 60,000 MT of CSB/
CSB+ purchased. We have successfully adapted to this change and
continue to participate in the program while others have opted out. We
are most concerned about these changes on behalf of the needy
recipients. Every night over 800 million people go to bed hungry and
according to the WFP, the trend has worsened over the last decade. The
progress made in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s through the strength
of Food for Peace has been slowed. I believe in our products as well as
the rest of the U.S. products in the food aid basket. I know fortified
blended foods are safe, high quality, nutrient dense and cost effective
products that improve the lives of recipients. Processed and bagged
products promote the generosity of the American people by being labeled
``From the American People'' with the symbol of the U.S. Flag.
Now the discussion has turned to converting a greater portion of
the program to cash. I believe a movement to more cash will jeopardize
Food for Peace and put more lives at risk. On the surface, it may seem
more efficient to send cash rather than provide in kind food; however,
there are many considerations which make in kind food superior to cash:
Cash may actually cost more than in-kind food. According to
a study conducted by the WFP in Niger, cash support costs four
times as much as an in kind food aid delivery of a specially
designed product like CSB+ or Super Cereal Plus.
Cash does not always reach the intended recipients.
Corruption is a concern and a recent GAO report concluded
controls need improvement.
The products purchased with cash are not necessarily
designed for the at-risk populations and could leave children
with unmet nutritional needs.
Cash would not have the same support from the U.S. Farm
Belt.
Cash is impersonal and will not carry the same message to
recipients as bags labeled ``From the American People'' with
the symbol of the U.S. Flag.
Food for Peace has operated successfully for many decades with in
kind food deliveries, now supplemented by the McGovern-Dole school
feeding program. In kind food aid puts our best foot forward as a
country while creating and supporting American jobs in food production,
rail transportation, stevedoring, and maritime; it also supports
American agriculture. Over the 20+ years Didion has participated in
these programs, our products have reached and helped serve a complete
nutritious meal to over a BILLION people in over 35 different
countries. We use the phrase ``The Didion Difference'' to explain our
great people, quality products and exceptional service. We are proud
``The Didion Difference'' has had a positive impact on lives of the
needy around the world. We ask all parties to work together to find and
implement cost and time savings so we can reach more needy recipients.
We believe Food for Peace is a food program that works and a program
that should be continued with in kind food aid.
Thank you very much. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Peanick, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. PEANICK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BREEDLOVE FOODS, INC., LUBBOCK, TX
Mr. Peanick. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, and Members of the House Agriculture Committee. I
would like also to recognize retiring Vice Chairman Neugebauer
and thank him for his service to our 19th Texas District and to
our country.
Thank you for inviting me here to testify about the role
Breedlove Foods plays in providing global humanitarian aid. We
are a nonprofit food processor, and since our founding in
Lubbock in 1994, we have provided humanitarian relief to some
65 countries and produced over 1.5 billion servings of
nutritious food for the hungry.
My name is Jeff Peanick, and since this past April, I have
been entrusted to carry on this good work as the CEO of
Breedlove Foods. Although I am new to Breedlove, since 1978 I
have been engaged in international trade with Asia, Europe and
Latin America, and have served as a senior executive in North
America and overseas in Europe and in the Middle East.
As a young man, I was privileged to grow up on a farm in
the beautiful Missouri Ozarks, and although my career has taken
me far from those beloved Ozark hills, I still consider myself
first and foremost a farmer, and no doubt some of you feel the
same way about your agricultural roots.
Since first partnering with Food for Peace in 2001, grants
to Breedlove from USAID have funded over 22,500 metric tons of
nutritionally fortified food to feed the hungry in 65
countries. To put this effort in perspective, however, I would
cite some recent statistics on world hunger from the World Food
Programme.
Poor nutrition causes nearly \1/2\ of deaths in children
under age 5. That is 3.1 million children each and every year.
One in four of the world's children are stunted physically or
mentally.
Breedlove is a small food processor with just 54 employees,
and when confronted with the enormity of the world hunger
problem, I am reminded that Jesus' disciples faced a similar
dilemma. In reference to feeding the 5,000 with five barley
loaves and two fishes, the disciples asked, ``What are these
among so many?''
Solving world hunger requires taking a first step. This
past August, Breedlove was privileged to host 40 4-H students
from Nicaragua. Some of these students were beneficiaries of
Breedlove's feeding programs from 2002 to 2010 with Fabretto,
our PVO partner. Food insecurity in Nicaragua is a serious
problem with 22 percent of the children unable to reach their
expected height due to malnutrition and stunting. In response,
Fabretto implemented a school lunch program that provides
students with a nourishing meal every weekday. Fabretto also
prepares future community leaders by teaching primary and
secondary students about sustainable agriculture through hands-
on models such as 4-H clubs. Some might ask, what are 40
children among so many. To them, I would recount this story.
Once upon a time there was an old man who used to go to the
ocean to do his writing. Early one morning he was walking along
the shore after a big storm had passed and found the beach
littered with starfish. Off in the distance he saw a young boy
occasionally stooping down and picking something up and
throwing it into the ocean. As he approached him, he said,
``Young man, what is it you are doing?'' The young paused,
looked up and replied, ``Throwing starfish into the ocean.''
When the sun gets high, they will die unless I throw them back
into the water.'' The old man replied, ``But there must be tens
of thousands of starfish on this beach. I'm afraid you won't
really be able to make a difference.'' The boy bent down,
picked up yet another starfish and threw it as far as he could
into the water and he turned and smiled and said, ``It made a
difference to that one.''
The Food for Peace initiative can and does make a
difference. The Fabretto feeding program certainly made a
difference to those children from Nicaragua.
Some of those in America helped today in turn might revile
us in the future and the values we stand for. For those who
begin to ask this question, I would invoke Mother Teresa's
memory with a quote from her Anyway poem. ``If you're kind,
people may accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Be kind
anyway. The good you do today, people will often forget
tomorrow. Do good anyway. You see, in the final analysis, it is
between you and God. It has never been you and them anyway.''
So yes, there may be those that seek to return evil for the
food that America does such as Food for Peace. Nevertheless, we
should stay the course anyway. We must remain true to American
virtues and continue to share the blessings that God has
bestowed on our great nation, for in the children we feed today
lies the future of many developing nations, future friends of
America, and future friends of our children.
In closing, I wish to thank the Committee for allowing
Breedlove to continue our mission where we have clearly seen
the faces of children we have saved and can proudly say that we
made a difference to the Fabretto children of Nicaragua. May
God continue to bless this good work and may He continue to
bless America.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peanick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey L. Peanick, Chief Executive Officer,
Breedlove Foods, Inc., Lubbock, TX
Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and
Members of the House Agriculture Committee. I would also like to
recognize the Vice Chairman, Congressman Neugebauer who also happens to
be my Congressman. We we're all sad to hear of your intent to retire,
and I want to thank you for your service to our 19th district in Texas
and to our country.
Thank you all for inviting me here today to testify about the role
that Breedlove Foods plays in providing global humanitarian aid.
Founded in 1994, Breedlove is a nonprofit humanitarian food aid
processor dedicated to hunger relief throughout the world.
My name is Jeff Peanick and since this past April, I have been
entrusted to carry on the good work as the CEO of Breedlove Foods.
Although I am new to Breedlove, since 1978 I have been engaged in
international trade with Asia, Europe and Latin America, and have
served as a senior executive in North America and overseas in Europe
and in the Middle East. As a young man, I was privileged to grow up on
a farm in the Missouri Ozarks and was an active 4-H member. Although my
career in international business took me far from those Ozark hills, my
agricultural roots remain with me.
Breedlove Foods Background
Breedlove Foods, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit humanitarian food
aid organization located in Lubbock, Texas. Since it's beginning in
1994, Breedlove has focused it's efforts as a nonprofit organization on
providing nutritious food aid items to planned feeding programs,
improved nutrition programs, emergency preparedness, and emergency
relief operations. This is accomplished by working with various Private
Volunteer Organizations (PVO's) throughout the world to determine
specific program needs and distribute humanitarian food aid. Breedlove
works with both private and government funding sources in order to
develop food aid items that deliver sound nutrition, to the most
people, at the lowest cost to our partners.
Since Breedlove began operations in 1994, approximately 1.5 Billion
servings of shelf-stable, prepackaged food aid has been shipped to
approximately 80 partnering PVO's, in more than 65 countries. It is
safe to say this would not have happened without the vision of the
House Agriculture Committee in promoting the International Food Relief
Partnership Act, nor without the good work of USAID.
Employing more than 50 people, we operate 5-7 days per week with up
to three shifts each day. Production capacity includes a drying line
(110,000 pounds of raw product per day), four dry blending and
packaging lines (192,000 pounds of finished product per day), a paste-
pouch packaging line (20,000 pounds of finished product per day), over
30,000\2\ of warehouse space, and four shipping bays to accommodate
multiple types of transportation.
Breedlove combines expertise in food technology, manufacturing,
logistics, and program implementation to provide the most appropriate
food aid to partner organizations. Since it's beginning, Breedlove has
focused on research and development of nutritious food aid products
specifically for use in various types of humanitarian programs. Simple
packaging helps to keep costs low for our partners; however, labeling
can be customized to best suit the needs of the partner and the end
user. Preparation requirements vary from ready-to-eat convenience
pouches to minimal boil and serve soup blends; and Breedlove food aid
items are packaged in such a way that makes shipping and handling very
convenient for both the distribution personnel and the end recipient.
Breedlove food aid items have a long shelf-life, a highly dense
number of servings requiring minimal storage space, and require only
routine non-perishable food storage management. Products include
various types of Vegetable Blends, Lentil Vegetable Blends, Rice
Blends, other legume and pulse blends, nutritionally fortified Dry
Drink Blends, and nutritionally fortified Ready-to-Eat pastes in
convenience pouches. Breedlove looks to both staple commodities
(soybeans/soybean products, rice, lentils, beans, peas, peanuts, dried
vegetables--potatoes, carrots, onion, etc.) and innovatively processed
and fortified products to develop nutritionally impactful food aid
products.
Throughout the years, Breedlove has developed a variety of
products, taking into consideration cultural preferences, program
needs, nutritional needs, as well as other factors affecting logistics
and costs, all to provide the right food aid to those in need of
assistance.
Breedlove Foods' Partnership with Food For Peace
In 2001, Breedlove Foods began its partnership with the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) to provide hunger relief through
the Office of Food For Peace programs. Breedlove implemented a unique
approach by offering nutritious blended foods. The strategy was to
provide staple commodities, like rice, lentils, potatoes along with
soy-based fortified textured vegetable protein and other nutritious
vegetables like carrots and onions. These blends were formulated to
provide nutrition first, but also to be adaptable to cultural
preferences. Breedlove's food has been called ``nutrition with
dignity.''
Under our USAID/Food For Peace programs alone, Breedlove has
partnered with 49 other U.S. Nonprofit organizations_many of them
community and faith based_in 48 countries, providing 22,500 MTs, over
1.1 billion servings of Breedlove food aid to those in need. This has
leveraged another 10,060,000 servings of nutritionally fortified peanut
paste delivered through other non-Federal forms of assistance.
Our partnership with Food For Peace enables Breedlove and PVOs to
collaborate in a wide range of program activities, including small
scale emergency and relief activities, institutional and hospital
feeding, feeding children in schools, food for orphans, safety net
assistance for needy communities, the elderly, supplemental food in for
those dealing with severe illnesses, and many others.
Our innovative and expeditious programs with Food For Peace have
increased our ability to serve the needy and destitute. The objectives
of these programs have grown--adding new types of fortified products,
engaging the private sector, rapid response to natural disasters and
civil strife, and increasing outreach to small organizations typically
new to collaborating with USAID. Our programs have served as a catalyst
for introducing new products, and a model for conceptualizing pre-
positioning of aid commodities for emergencies. Both processors and
distribution partners bring additional resources in the form of other
matching funding or in-kind asset use, personnel, administration,
services, and development activities to projects. Distribution partners
educate, shelter, tend to the sick, give technical/vocational training,
teach life skills, and perform many more program activities that
contribute beyond simply feeding, thus reducing the factors that lead
to poverty and food insecurity.
U.S. international food aid programs facilitate partnerships:
between Food For Peace and nonprofit processors like Breedlove, between
our nation's great agricultural producers and the word's most
vulnerable and food insecure. U.S. international food aid programs have
allowed Breedlove Foods and The Office of Food For Peace to engage more
small organizations in nimble program partnerships, increasing outreach
to those in need--children, mothers, families, the elderly, and the
ill.
The Importance of U.S. International Food Aid
Breedlove Foods is a small food processor with just 54 employees.
When confronted with the enormity of the world hunger problem, we
realize the importance of our partnerships through U.S. international
food aid.
According to statistics on World Hunger from the World Food
Programme:
Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food
to lead healthy, active lives.
Poor nutrition causes nearly \1/2\ (45%) of deaths in
children under 5, 3.1 million children each year.
One out of six children--roughly 100 million--in developing
countries is underweight.
One in four of the world's children are stunted. In
developing countries the proportion can rise to one in three.
Solving the world hunger problem requires a first step. In August,
Breedlove was privileged to host 4-H students from Nicaragua following
their tour of Washington, D.C. Some of these 40 students were
beneficiaries of Breedlove's feeding programs from 2002 to 2010 with
Fabretto Children's Foundation, a partner with Breedlove through food
aid programs with Food For Peace (photos attached). The ramifications
of food insecurity in Nicaragua are serious, with 23% of children
unable to reach their expected height due to stunting. In response to
high rates of undernourishment in Nicaragua, Fabretto Children's
Foundations implements a school lunch program that provides students
with a nourishing meal every weekday. Fabretto also prepares future
community leaders by teaching primary and secondary students about
sustainable agriculture through hands-on models such as 4-H clubs.
As we all visited that afternoon at Breedlove in Lubbock, Texas,
the signs of hunger without intervention could be seen clearly. Two
boys approached us to express their gratitude for hosting them that
day, but also for much more. One boy stood as tall as a normal growing
teenage boy--the other, a small-framed boy that appeared to be 8 or 9
years old. Both boys had been recipients of the food aid programs. The
smaller boy did not receive nutritional intervention soon enough to
avoid stunting--he actually is a teenager, close to the same age as the
other boy. The Fabretto feeding program certainly made a difference to
those 40 children!
Closing
What difference does U.S. international food aid make? Does a
soybean farmer in Illinois or a rice grower in Arkansas or a lentil
farmer in Minnesota touch the lives of at risk children in Nicaragua or
wasting mothers in Africa?
Yes. U.S. international food aid through Food For Peace can and
does make a difference.
There may be those that seek to marginalize the good that America
does. But among the children we feed today lies the future of all
developing nations, and the future friends of America and our children.
In closing, I wish to thank our leaders for allowing Breedlove to
continue our mission. For we see the faces of children we have saved
and can proudly proclaim that we made a difference.
Breedlove looks forward to continuing its partnership with Food For
Peace in international food aid programs.
Chairman Conaway, Committee Members, we appreciate the opportunity
to share Breedlove's story and to express our support of international
food aid.
Thank you.
Attachment
Breedlove Partners in Food For Peace Programs (49)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Call to Serve Hope Education Foundation
Amigos International International Crisis Aid
Batey Relief Alliance International Medical Corps
Bless the Children International Partnerships for
Human Development
Catholic Relief Services International Relief Teams
Center for International Health Joint Aid Management
ChildLife International Legacy World Missions
Children's Hunger Fund Medical Missionaries
Church of Bible Understanding Nascent Solutions
CitiHope International NOAH
Convoy of Hope OICI
Copro Deli Outreach Aid to the Americas
Counterpart International Planet Aid
Cross International Project Concern International
Evangelistic International Project Hope
Ministries
Fabretto's Children Foundation Resource & Policy Exchange
Family Outreach Salesian Missions International
Feed the Children Salvation Army WSO
Food for the Hungry Samaritan's Purse International
Food for the Poor SERV Ministries International
Global Hope Network Share Circle
Global Transitions United Methodist Committee on
Relief
Haiti Vision Uplift International
Healing Hands International World Help
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breedlove Food Aid by Country thru Food For Peace Programs (48)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angola Kyrgyzstan
Armenia Laos
Belize Lesotho
Bolivia Liberia
Burundi Malawi
Cambodia Mexico
Central African Republic Moldova
Central Asia (Region) Namibia
Congo Nicaragua
Dominican Republic Niger
Ecuador Peru
El Salvador Philippines
Ethiopia Romania
Georgia Senegal
Ghana Serbia
Guatemala South Africa
Guinea Swaziland
Haiti Tajikistan
Honduras Tanzania
India Uganda
Indonesia Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan Zambia
Kenya Zimbabwe
Kosovo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit to Breedlove Foods, Inc., August 2015. Fabretto
Children's Foundation and 4-H kids from Nicaragua visit
Breedlove Foods in Lubbock, Texas. Pictured, left to right top
row, Kevin Marinacci, 4-H student, Hope Floeck; left to right
bottom row, 4-H girl student, a stunted teenage 4-H student,
Elbia Galo.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit to Breedlove Foods, Inc., August 2015. Fabretto
Children's Foundation and 4-H kids from Nicaragua visit
Breedlove Foods in Lubbock, Texas.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Peanick.
Mr. Cowan, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WADE COWAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOYBEAN
ASSOCIATION, BROWNFIELD, TX
Mr. Cowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am Wade Cowan, a soybean farmer from Brownfield,
Texas, and President of the American Soybean Association. We
thank you for this opportunity to testify on the important role
that U.S. farmers play in providing international food
assistance, and the importance of addressing global food
security in coming years.
Since the inception of the Food for Peace program in 1954,
U.S. farmers have played a vital role in ensuring the
availability, quality, and nutritional value of commodities
that feed the world's hungry. The American Soybean Association
has a long history of supporting U.S. in-kind food assistance.
Soybeans and soy products have been staples in the Food for
Peace Program, which has provided food for more than 57 million
people in 46 countries experiencing crises.
U.S. commodities have been the backbone of the Food for
Peace program's success in alleviating hunger in both emergency
and development situations. USAID and USDA have established a
strong framework to ensure that commodities procured from U.S.
farmers and processed, easily used foods are shipped overseas
to meet the needs of hungry people. This framework represents
both the bounty of U.S. agriculture and the compassion of the
American people. ASA strongly supports the use of U.S.
commodities in emergency and development assistance, and
opposes cuts in developmental food aid funding to offset
shortfalls in emergency assistance.
Along with other farm organizations and the Congressional
Agriculture Committees, ASA participated in a comprehensive
review of the food aid program during consideration of the 2014
Farm Bill. After much debate among all interested parties, the
farm bill included changes to the Food for Peace program, as
well as inclusion of a new $80 million Local and Regional
Procurement Program at USDA. These changes are still being
implemented by both USDA and USAID, and their benefits remain
under review. Accordingly, ASA believes it would be premature
to reopen the farm bill and change the Food for Peace program
yet again before a full assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of these recently enacted reforms has been assessed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the important role
U.S. agriculture plays in international development assistance,
and on the importance of enhancing this role. As this Committee
knows, agriculture is the foundation of a nation's broader
economy. The more successful a country's farmers and ranchers
are in providing food and fiber, the more its society can
diversify into other enterprises. And the more affluent a
country becomes, the better able it is to improve its diet,
including by importing agricultural products from the United
States. This model has worked for developed and for emerging
market economies alike. Where it hasn't worked to date is in
the poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In
some of these countries, as much as 80 percent of the
population is engaged in subsistence agriculture. These are
also the countries where population growth is the highest, and
where demographic pressures over the next 20 to 30 years risk
outstripping economic growth and humanitarian assistance,
destabilizing civil society, and increasing political unrest.
ASA believes U.S. agriculture has much to contribute toward
addressing this looming crisis.
The Department of Agriculture, its extension service, and
our land-grant institutions are well equipped to assist small
holder farmers in increasing their yields and productivity. Our
farmers have practical know-how and our agribusinesses have
experience in how to build local markets. These resources can
and must be more directly focused on the needs of the poorest
countries through international development assistance efforts.
ASA has been working for the last 15 years through the
World Initiative for Soy in Human Health, or WISHH, to achieve
these goals. More broadly, ASA has helped form a coalition of
farm organizations, agriculture-based foundations, and
development implementers to push for a more central role for
USDA and our agricultural system in the U.S. international
development programs.
Our coalition recently sent a letter asking your Committee,
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and your counterparts in the
Senate, to codify the role of USDA through a whole-of-
government approach to global food security. We want to thank
you and your Committee for taking the time to review this
important issue. It is vital for the Secretary of Agriculture
to have a seat at the table with the Administrator of USAID in
developing and implementing international development policies
and programs that are focused on agriculture. We also believe
that U.S. agricultural institutions and organizations that are
guided by farmers can play a very important role in helping to
transform agricultural systems and markets in food-insecure
countries.
Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to work with your Committee
and the Foreign Affairs Committee to move legislation forward
that will achieve a truly whole-of-government approach to
global food security. Given the urgent and growing food
insecurity of poor countries abroad and the need to make the
most efficient use of limited resources, we believe this is an
important priority that Congress should act on in the coming
months.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cowan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wade Cowan, President, American Soybean
Association, Brownfield, TX
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Wade
Cowan, a soybean farmer from Brownfield, Texas, and President of the
American Soybean Association. We thank you for this opportunity to
testify on the important role that U.S. farmers play in providing
international food assistance, and the importance of addressing global
food security in coming years.
The Food for Peace Program
Since the inception of the Food for Peace program in 1954, U.S.
farmers have played a vital role in ensuring the availability, quality
and nutritional value of commodities that feed the world's hungry. The
American Soybean Association has a long history of supporting U.S. in-
kind food assistance. Soybeans and soy products have been staples in
the Food for Peace Program, which has provided food for more than 57
million people in 46 countries experiencing crises.
U.S. commodities have been the backbone of the Food for Peace
program's success in alleviating hunger in both emergency and
development situations. USAID and USDA have established a strong
framework to ensure that commodities procured from U.S. farmers and
processed, easily-used foods are shipped overseas to meet the needs of
hungry people. This framework represents both the bounty of U.S.
agriculture and the compassion of the American people. ASA strongly
supports the use of U.S. commodities in emergency and development
assistance, and opposes cuts in developmental food aid funding to
offset shortfalls in emergency assistance.
Along with other farm organizations and the Congressional
Agriculture Committees, ASA participated in a comprehensive review of
the food aid program during consideration of the 2014 Farm Bill. After
much debate among all interested parties, the farm bill included
changes to the Food for Peace program, as well as inclusion of a new
Local and Regional Procurement Program at USDA. These changes are still
being implemented by both USDA and USAID, and their benefits remain
under review. Accordingly, ASA believes it would be premature to reopen
the farm bill and change the Food for Peace program yet again before a
full assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of these recently
enacted reforms can be assessed.
Agriculture's Role in International Development Assistance
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on the important role
U.S. agriculture plays in international development assistance, and on
the importance of enhancing this role. As this Committee knows,
agriculture is the foundation of a nation's broader economy. The more
successful a country's farmers and ranchers are in providing food and
fiber, the more its society can diversify into other enterprises. And
the more affluent a country becomes, the better able it is to improve
its diet, including by importing agricultural products from the U.S.
This model has worked for developed and for emerging market economies
alike.
Where it hasn't worked to date is in the poorest countries,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In some of these countries, as much
as 80 percent of the population is engaged in subsistence farming,
where a family is barely able to feed itself, much less provide food
for others. These are also the countries where population growth is the
highest, and where demographic pressures over the next 20 to 30 years
risk outstripping economic growth and humanitarian assistance,
destabilizing civil society and increasing political unrest.
ASA believes U.S. agriculture has much to contribute toward
addressing this looming crisis. The Department of Agriculture, its
extension service, and our land grant institutions are well equipped to
assist small holder farmers in increasing their yields and
productivity. Our farmers have practical know-how and our
agribusinesses have experience in how to build local markets. These
resources can and must be more directly focused on the needs of the
poorest countries through international development assistance efforts.
Efforts To Support Global Food Security in Fragile Economies
ASA has been working for the last 15 years through the World
Initiative for Soy in Human Health, or WISHH, to achieve these goals.
WISHH recently concluded projects in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and
Liberia, and is working in Ghana, Mozambique, Pakistan, and other
countries to develop soy, food, feed and livestock value chains. More
broadly, ASA has helped form a coalition of farm organizations,
agriculture-based foundations, and development implementers to push for
a more central role for USDA and our agricultural system in U.S.
international development programs.
Our coalition recently sent a letter asking your Committee, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and your counterparts in the Senate, to
codify the role of USDA through a whole-of-government approach to
global food security. It is important for the Secretary of Agriculture
to have a seat at the table with the Administrator of USAID in
developing and implementing international development policies and
programs that are focused on agriculture. We also believe that U.S.
agricultural institutions and organizations that are guided by
farmers--including our own WISHH program--can play a very important and
positive role in helping to transform agricultural systems and markets
in food-insecure countries.
Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to work with your Committee and the
Foreign Affairs Committee to move legislation forward that will achieve
a truly whole-of-government approach to global food security. Given the
urgent and growing food insecurity of poor countries abroad and the
need to make the most efficient use of limited resources, we believe
this is an important priority that Congress should act on in the coming
months.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Warshaw, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES WILLIAM WARSHAW, CHAIRMAN, FOOD AID
SUBCOMMITTEE, USA RICE; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FARMERS RICE
MILLING COMPANY, LAKE CHARLES, LA
Mr. Warshaw. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member
Peterson, and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for
allowing me to testify today on behalf of the U.S. rice
industry. My name is Jamie Warshaw. I am CEO of Farmers Rice
Milling Company, a small milling company in Lake Charles,
Louisiana, which employs about 90 people. I currently serve and
testify today here for not only what I believe but also for the
beliefs of the U.S. rice industry.
In addition to milling rice for both domestic and export
customers, Farmers Rice Milling has provided rice to feed
hungry people as part of U.S. food aid programs globally for
many years. Over the past 10 years alone, our mill has provided
300,000 metric tons of rice to successful food aid programs
such as USAID Food for Peace; USDA Food for Progress, and
McGovern-Dole Food for Education. These programs have had
measurable successes reducing hunger and malnutrition while
also supporting education and democracy in vulnerable
populations throughout this world.
Over the past 60 years, the United States has provided
significant quantities of food assistance, credited with saving
billions of lives from starvation and malnutrition and
fostering goodwill amongst the recipients of the aid.
The U.S. rice industry plays a vital role in making this
process work. Since 2007, over a million metric tons of rice
have been delivered to hungry recipients in the form of global
food assistance. To put it in perspective, that is 2.2 billion
pounds of rice. Basically a serving is \1/4\ pound of rice, and
we have reached ten billion people since 2007 through these
feeding programs.
By far, rice is the most consumed commodity in the world.
Fifty percent of the people depend on rice for the majority of
their caloric intake every day throughout this world.
There are things happening in the rice industry that are
changing and play a vital role in what we are doing, going
forward, and that is fortification of rice, which provides
eight critical micronutrients including iron and Vitamin A. One
of the cutting-edge products that we are developing is
fortified rice.
USA Rice is continuing to work with USAID and USDA, and
other aid organizations to increase the successful and
effective use of fortified rice in food assistance.
Unfortunately, despite all the efforts of the United States and
other countries, there is still a significant number of people
across the world that are considered food-insecure. I
appreciate efforts by USAID and various Members of Congress who
are looking for ways to make food aid programs more effective,
but I have serious concerns about many of the policy proposals
and reforms that have been laid on the table this year.
In-kind food aid has been an essential part of the U.S.
Global Food Assistance Program since its inception. When I sell
rice from our mill to be used for food aid, I know it is grown
in the United States, it is processed in the United States,
packed in the United States and distributed in bags that
feature the label, ``From the American People.'' This is a
clear statement of the commitment the United States has to
fighting global food insecurity and is a symbol that is
intended to help foster international goodwill. A simple symbol
is a huge benefit nonetheless.
Proposed methods of replacing in-kind aid with cash
vouchers or local and regional procurement have serious and
extensively documented flaws. A recent internal audit of World
Food Programme initiative and USAID's Emergency Food Security
Program found that aid was being distributed in conflict zones
like Syria with little to no oversight, in some cases via cash
in envelopes. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in international studies
to know that injecting cash with little to no monitoring of how
it is used into a war zone will only lead to dangerous
consequences. The lack of oversight and diversion of aid was
also noted in the same audit of its cash voucher process.
Another proposed reform to food aid programs is the
utilization of local and regional procurement where commodities
are purchased locally in food-insecure areas and distributed to
needy recipients. By increasing the local demand for
commodities, LRP can spike the cost of food, widen the circle
of food insecurity, and turn many of those that could have
afforded food prior to the intervention into recipients of food
aid themselves.
Additional issues with food quality and food safety
concerns have arisen with products purchased overseas. In 2014,
just a year and a half ago, a farm bill was signed. These
proposed reforms of food aid would expose all the programs your
Committee worked so hard to sign into law. It is important to
me running an agricultural business and to the rice farmers
that I serve that we work to keep the farm bill intact and
maintain some sense of certainty over a 5 year period in its
authorization. The continued delivery of in-kind food aid will
help to avoid many of these potential consequences of program
reforms.
U.S. grown and processed commodities are without question
the safest and highest quality products available, and what I
feel is one of the most important distinctions, in-kind allows
farmers to contribute something tangible to the benefit of
those less fortunate across the globe. It is a program that I
am proud to supply rice to, and I hope the Members of the
Committee will continue to allow U.S. agriculture to play a
central role in combating global hunger.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Warshaw follows:]
Prepared Statement of James William Warshaw, Chairman, Food Aid
Subcommittee, USA Rice; Chief Executive Officer, Farmers Rice Milling
Company, Lake Charles, LA
Introduction
Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the
Committee, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing
regarding U.S. international food aid programs. I appreciate the
opportunity to offer my testimony on behalf of USA Rice.
My name is Jamie Warshaw and I am a native of Lake Charles,
Louisiana, where I currently live and serve as the CEO of Farmers Rice
Milling Company. I have been with Farmers Rice since 1986 and have
managed the company and its nearly 90 employees as the CEO since 1996.
In addition to my paid position, I have spent nearly the last 20
years volunteering through leadership positions with USA Rice, the
trade association and global advocate for all sectors of the U.S. rice
industry. My most important role with the organization was several
years ago when I served a term as the Chairman of the USA Rice
Federation, overseeing the Rice Millers' Association, USA Rice
Producers Group, USA Rice Merchants and the USA Rice Council.
I currently serve as a member on several of the organization's
boards and committees but most appropriately for today's hearing, I
serve as the Chairman of the USA Rice Food Aid Subcommittee of the
International Promotion Committee.
U.S. Rice Involvement in Food Aid
In addition to milling rice for domestic consumption and for our
export customers, Farmers Rice Mill has provided rice to feed
populations in need as part of U.S. international food aid programs.
Over the past 10 years alone our mill has provided 300,000 metric tons
of rice to successful food aid programs such as the U.S. Agency for
International Development's (USAID) Food for Peace, United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole
Food for Education. These programs have had measurable successes
reducing hunger and malnutrition while also supporting education,
democracy, and agricultural development in vulnerable populations
throughout the world.
Over the past 60 years that the Food for Peace program has been in
operation, the United States has provided significant quantities of
food assistance, credited with saving billions of lives from starvation
and malnutrition and fostering good will amongst the recipients of the
aid.
Rice plays a vital role in making this process a success. Since
2007 over 1 million metric tons of rice have been delivered to hungry
recipients in the form of global food assistance. As the most consumed
commodity worldwide, rice is leading the way in developing new cutting-
edge products that not only meet the demands of hunger but also curb
persistent nutritional deficiencies.
Through the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, USDA
conducted a series of micronutrient pilot programs. The first
successful result was a school feeding intervention in Cambodia using
fortified rice which provides eight critical micronutrients including
iron and Vitamin A.
USA Rice is continuing to work with USAID, USDA, and other aid
organizations to increase the successful and effective use of fortified
rice in food assistance.
Unfortunately, despite all the efforts of the United States and
other countries, there is still a significant number of people across
the world that are food insecure. Therefore, I appreciate efforts by
USAID and various Members of Congress who are looking for ways to make
food aid programs more effective, but I have serious concerns about
many of the policy proposals and reforms that have been laid on the
table.
U.S. Food Aid Reform
In-kind food aid has been an essential part of our nation's global
food assistance programs since their inception many years ago. The
label on our commodities alone carries some heavy significance. When I
sell rice from our mill to be used for food aid, I know with confidence
it will be grown in the U.S. and packaged and distributed in bags that
feature the label, ``From the American People.'' This is a clear
statement of the commitment the United States has to fighting global
food insecurity and is a symbol that is intended to help foster
international good will. While this may not be quantifiable and is
often ignored by those that seek to make changes to the program, it is
a benefit nonetheless that cannot be overlooked.
Proposed methods of replacing in-kind aid with cash vouchers or
local and regional procurement have serious and extensively documented
flaws.
A recent internal audit of World Food Programme initiatives and a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of the Emergency Food
Security Program administered by USAID exposed some of the flaws. The
GAO report found that aid was being distributed in conflict zones like
Syria with little to no oversight, in some cases via cash in envelopes.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in international studies to know that injecting
cash with little to no monitoring of how it is used into a war zone
will only lead to dangerous consequences. The lack of oversight and
diversion of aid was also noted in the same audit of its cash voucher
process.
Another proposed reform to food aid programs is the utilization of
local and regional procurement (LRP) where commodities are purchased
locally in food insecure areas and distributed to needy recipients. By
increasing the local demand for commodities, LRP can spike the cost of
food, widen the circle of food insecurity and turn many of those that
could have afforded food prior to the intervention into recipients of
aid themselves. Additionally, issues with food quality and food safety
concerns have arisen with products purchased overseas since they are
not subject to the same extensive food safety regulations as U.S.-
produced food.
Conclusion
As an industry we've invested significant capital, time and effort
in being a timely and reliable supplier of food aid for the various
program currently in use. Looking forward we are developing fortified
rice and rice products aimed to reduce global hunger and malnutrition,
particularly in women and children. We have had great success so far
but as I said, global food insecurity is a challenge we're still
facing. The continued delivery of in-kind food aid is necessary to help
avoid many of these potentially serious consequences of program
reforms.
U.S.-grown and processed commodities are without question the
safest and highest quality products available. And, what I feel is one
of the most important distinctions is that in-kind food aid allows
farmers to directly contribute something tangible to the benefit of
those less fortunate across the globe.
I am proud to supply rice toward international food aid programs
and I hope that the Members of this Committee will continue to allow
U.S. agriculture to play the central role in combating global hunger.
Again, thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to
offer my testimony this morning. I look forward to working with you and
your staff and will be happy to respond to any questions you might
have.
The Chairman. I thank the panel of witnesses.
The chair will remind Members that they will be recognized
for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here
at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be
recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate the Members'
understanding. And with that, I will break with tradition and
go to the Chairman of the Subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr.
Rouzer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Koach, my question is for you. As we continue to look
at food aid programs, I can appreciate that there may be some
examples when using cash or buying regionally can save money.
However, in the Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee
just a few weeks ago, we heard from GAO about their March 2015
report that found over a 4 year period, the World Food
Programme implemented more than 80 percent of cash-based food
aid programs under ``an abbreviated review process,'' which
basically means they do not go through the more rigorous review
required of U.S. nonprofit organizations.
Now, that leaves me with concerns on whether we can
guarantee that cash-based assistance is being effectively
delivered to recipients, and given those concerns, can you
share with me what kinds of challenges that you all have faced
delivering cash and emergency aid response?
Mr. Koach. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer.
Food for the Hungry doesn't implement any cash or voucher
programs. The programs that we are implementing currently are
the development Title II programs under Food for Peace that I
spoke at some length about. But nevertheless, your concerns are
well cited. That GAO report does cite many concerns merely
seeing the spike in the Emergency Food Security Program. The
account that funds those has seen a 440 percent spike between
Fiscal Years 2010 and 2014 from $76 million to over $409
million, and so there is a lot of money going out through that
program, and GAO's findings are sound and should be taken into
advice that there needs to be a closer examination on how they
are monitored, if there is indeed an open and thorough bidding
process that goes with them that we do currently experience
under traditional Title II provisions.
Mr. Rouzer. Talk to me a little bit of how in-kind food aid
has helped you achieve your goals.
Mr. Koach. Sure. I like to say it is more than food, just
as our name, Food for the Hungry. It is more than food, and
that is sometimes where people get stuck. The Food for Peace
Program, by statute is required that 75 percent of the
commodities are to be used for developmental purposes. As I was
citing, the inverse has become the case as we have had more
emergencies come up around the globe and those developmental
programs have unfortunately been whittled away. But we know
that to use these resources in a smart way, we need to help
build local capacity, and you have to work in a multi-sectoral
fashion. So there is the food aid that is brought that are
being used during the hungry months, during the often dry
months where chronic hunger and severe malnutrition is a very
pressing, urgent issue, but then the program support that comes
with the programs, called the section 202(e) support, that is
the money that is used for the programming to develop the
maternal and child health care groups.
If you go to caregroupsinfo.org, you will see at great
length where this has been developed with tremendous science
where community leaders are designated and identified to
cascade very key health messages for lactating mothers and
particularly for children under 2 and then under 5 and beyond.
It includes restoring household assets so we have--often there
are food for work programs, so we are doing that in the
northern region of Amhara. Senator Stabenow recently visited
with a group of Senators this summer to see that region where
over 90 percent of Ethiopia has unfortunately experienced
deforestation, and that is leading to tremendous erosion of
topsoil. So while we are doing the immediate relief kind of
work, we are doing reforestation to preserve topsoil so water
tables are recharged and can bring recharged wells into those
local communities.
As we teach ag development inputs, we are seeing increased
diet diversity scores. They are becoming healthier, and what is
happening now, they are developing a surplus and now will be
able to link those surplus of agricultural goods to local
markets. We have savings groups. These folks can even access
microcredit in small towns. They have literally village savings
and loans groups.
So, I would like to say our brand is important on the bag
but the real branding of these programs is in these leaders.
These programs are often designed by local communities, local
faith leaders, local government leaders, local NGOs that we are
helping raise and build up the capacity.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Peterson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dills, in your testimony you note that the GAO has
concluded that monetization is an inefficient practice, but you
also describe CRS monetization projects in Burkina Faso,
Philippines, Tanzania and Nicaragua as a great success. Is it
fair to say that the CRS regards monetization as a useful but
imperfect tool to address humanitarian needs around the world,
or what is your take on that?
Ms. Dills. Thank you, Congressman Peterson.
I actually had to monetize in Madagascar while I lived
there for 3\1/2\ years, and I found it to be very extremely
risky due to fluctuations in commodity markets, currencies,
cargo preference requirements and getting the commodities to
the country on time so that they could be monetized, as well as
the political situation in the country. So from our
perspective, we have had huge risk monetizing commodities in
countries around the world. We barely made cost recovery
efforts of 70 percent, and in some cases fell very short.
Catholic Relief Services believes in serving the people
that are greatest in need. If the only way we can receive funds
is through monetization, we certainly will do that so that we
can serve those people, but it is not how we would like to
program. We appreciate that the Committee raised--the farm bill
allowed for more flexibility with cash so that we could program
these different interventions like with John Clement that I
talked about. So it is a very risky business, and we certainly
will continue to do it if it is the resource available to serve
the people in need.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Mr. Koach, you mentioned that local and regional
procurement can integrate local ingredients in food aid if it
is well planned and it can stimulate local production and
processing. Can you give us some examples of where local
procurement has worked well and how it stimulates local
production and processing. Is it because it increases local
demand and prices, and does it ever have an adverse effect on
food security in those recipient countries?
Mr. Koach. Yes. Again, just for the record, FH has not
directly implemented a local and regional purchase program but
we have studied this policy at length with many of our PVO
colleagues. We applaud the USDA Local and Regional Purchase
Program pilot, and we have seen very good indicators there. We
certainly applaud the farm bill's authorization of LRP programs
at $80 million and hope we will see appropriations towards
those ends. And so there are good indicators that we are seeing
from LRP schemes.
I think we have to be cautious as we scale local and
regional purchase as we have to screen for food safety concerns
sometimes regionally or locally that don't quite meet the U.S.
product standards. Aflatoxins, for example, can be an issue in
some regions. And moreover, we want to make sure that they will
continue to scale and these programs will be readily available
in future appropriations.
So we see good signs; but, as we look at local and regional
purchase, we must be also cognizant--I know we are eager to
save costs on how we can do food aid more effectively and
efficiently--that most of local and regional purchase
programming shipping costs are not in the transatlantic
shipping, it is in the inland transportation shipping and
handling, called ITSH. About ten percent on average, the pilot
program found, was on the high seas transatlantic or
transoceanic shipping. Most of it was incurred locally, and you
are going to incur those either way.
And oftentimes these commodities are not available locally.
Sometimes it is presumed that you can just get that locally.
Well, you can't always get them locally. And when you start
going to regional schemes, then you are almost working on
global markets where U.S. commodities could be relatively
competitive in those types of schemes.
So we applaud it. I want to see it encouraged, but we
should continue to be cautious of some of those pieces.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Austin Scott, 5 minutes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I only have one question, but before I ask that, I wanted
to thank you for what you do and talk a little bit about a
mission that was started by Mark Moore in Fitzgerald, Georgia.
I don't know if any of you have seen this pack before but it is
ready-to-use therapeutic food. It is three packs a day for 6
weeks. It takes a child from being malnourished to certainly
healthy by that part of the world's standards. I would suggest
that this little pack, what they have done is, they have put
peanut butter paste and milk powder and vitamins in here, and
that little packet has 500 calories in it. Three packs a day
for 6 weeks transitions that child from somebody who is quite
honestly probably going to die to somebody who can have a
healthy life.
I know that we have talked about other people who are doing
the same thing, but my question is, a group like MANA, we can
manufacture enough in Fitzgerald, Georgia, they can manufacture
enough in Fitzgerald, Georgia, for about 4,000 children per
day. So it is not a matter of being able to produce what the
people need with our technology and food supply in the United
States, it is the logistics of getting it to the people who
need it, and if you could just in general, are there barriers
that we could help remove that you see? Are we doing things
right with the logistics of getting the aid to the children who
need it? I recognize this is one specific aspect, the severely
malnourished children, but I am interested in any suggestions
you have for us on how we do a better job with the logistics.
Ms. Dills. Certainly, Congressman.
I think that we have studied, and there is information
available that using U.S.-flag vessels to ship food aid is more
expensive than using foreign-flag vessels, and in some cases,
it costs 2.7 times more to operate these vessels that carry
U.S. flags to countries. I just wanted to give you a good
example in Madagascar that I experienced this past year. We
should have received eight shipments to the country for four
different types of commodities. Unfortunately, because
Madagascar, most people know it by the movie, not where it is
actually located, it is a very difficult country to get to in
the Indian Ocean and so U.S. vessels actually don't arrive in
Madagascar; they unload in another port of call and they have
to find another vessel to deliver shipments. So instead of
receiving eight shipments, we received 23 shipments over 4
months for what we called forward, and that increases huge
amounts of cost at the port to clear commodities, the
paperwork, storage, staffing. So this is where CRS is
recommending to eliminate the requirements of the minimum
tonnage that is calculated based on countries and geographic
regions, and we also would like Congress to consider
eliminating or reducing the minimum tonnage required to ship on
U.S.-flag vessels. Thank you.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Anybody else with any comments
on that? If not, that is fine.
Any specific recommendations that you have after the
hearing is over, if you could get them to us in writing, I
would very much appreciate that. I think that a lot of us would
be certainly willing to help you resolve those issues. The goal
is to help those children and those people, and if we have
things that are barriers to that that are simple to remove,
then we have a responsibility to do that.
Mr. Didion. There are barriers to the development of new
products. You have a good example of one. We have one in CSB or
Super Cereal Plus. Those barriers are, my belief, in part the
country or program directors don't even know that these
products exist and that they are available for use. If there
isn't a consistent ordering or consistent procurement, the cost
of the product is driven much higher than it could be if we
could operate consistently and efficiently.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And any----
Mr. Didion. And so--I am sorry.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. No, go ahead, please.
Mr. Didion. And so to the extent that USAID could make the
information more available on new products and their uses to
program directors, it would be very productive.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my time has
expired. If I could have the courtesy of one more quick
comment?
General Kelly, who I have a tremendous amount of respect
for, from Southern Command, made one suggestion on the products
that we deliver, and that would be that the American flag be
prominently displayed on it, that the respect for the American
flag overseas and understanding that that is a safe product
being delivered by America. He felt that that American flag on
the products would help.
Thank you. I yield the remainder of my 1 minute that I ran
over.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McGovern, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking all of you for the incredible work
that you do. It is lifesaving work, and it represents the best
of this country, and so let me begin by saying thank you.
I am interested, ultimately, in developing a strategy to
end global hunger, not just to manage it or contain it or limit
it, but to actually end it, and we need to understand that to
do that, we need to scale up some of these programs. I mean, we
are not investing enough, the world is not investing enough to
get to the point where we can actually talk seriously about how
we are going to eliminate hunger. We have all these different
goals but somehow the resources don't always follow those
goals.
I have had the pleasure of visiting Food for Peace programs
when I have traveled aboard, McGovern-Dole programs, Feed the
Future programs, and I know that the demand is much greater
than what we have available. There are dozens and dozens more
applications for McGovern-Dole funds to set up school feeding
programs in poor countries than there are resources available,
and so we need to acknowledge that. And I do think that we
ought to have a hearing at some point not just in the
Agriculture Committee but maybe in conjunction with the Foreign
Affairs Committee and Appropriations Committee about how do we
develop a long-term plan to actually end this, end hunger, and
it is not just a nice thought. It is doable and it is doable in
a way that is sustainable, and a lot of the things you all
talked about here today, that this is not just about delivering
food to somebody and saying okay, we will feed you for a week.
You are also involved in projects whether they are school
feeding projects or development projects to help people be able
to provide for themselves, to help school feeding programs be
self-sustainable, to help provide help with local economies.
We talk a lot about national security here in Washington,
and that is what we are all obsessed with, but I think that our
food aid programs do more to contribute to our national
security than almost any other investment that we make. I know
we have limited budgets and we have to prioritize but I mean,
we ought to be thinking seriously about whether or not if the
United States and other military powers around the world took a
small percentage of what we invest in weapons and diverted it
to some of the programs that you talked about whether or not we
would be better off. I think we would be more secure. I think
the world would be more stable. I think it would be less
violent. And we would also be fulfilling our moral obligation
to feed the hungry. But we need to make choices.
And I want us to think bigger than just how do we tweak the
programs that you all represent, and I appreciated your talks
about some of the flexibility. I believe that you ought to have
the maximum amount of flexibility as possible in delivering
your programs because I have also learned that one glove
doesn't fit all, and in some places there is a demand for U.S.
commodities and other places it makes more sense for cash. In
some places it is a combination of all kinds of things. But
wherever you get the biggest bang for your buck, that is what
we ought to be doing, and we ought to kind of stand out of the
way and make sure that you get what you need.
I also should say that we talk about increased funding. We
ought to provide greater funding to Food for Peace on their
emergency humanitarian side because every year there is a
shortfall, and we are always in a panic when that happens, but
we are facing the greatest refugee crisis in the world since
World War II. I don't think anybody in this room actually
believes that next year will be better. I hope I am wrong on
that, but the odds are that it will be just as bad, nor that
there will be fewer refugees and humanitarian crises due to
conflict, war and natural disasters.
I am running out of time here but we need to kind of
enlarge this discussion to figure out how do we solve the
problem of hunger, how can we scale things up, and how do we
provide you with the maximum amount of flexibility so that
whatever you are doing, you are doing it in the best possible
way.
Mr. Koach. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. It is a real honor to
even hear from you. We know of your tireless activity around
global hunger issues, as Chairman of the Congressional Hunger
Caucus, and so your tireless leadership is of great value and
of tremendous importance to this ongoing effort. So we thank
you for your tireless activity.
I think you are spot on and that we need to have an
increased comprehensive strategy to eradicate extreme poverty
in our lifetime. There are good indicators in the right
direction but there are also tremendous challenges and crises
like you said. We are now facing 60 million displaced persons
around the globe, more than any other time since World War II,
and we are cognizant and sobered by that.
But I tell you, even because of that, not in spite of that,
we need all the tools on the table to address this issue, and--
--
The Chairman. Mr. Koach, I am going to ask you to suspend,
and we will come back for a second round.
Mr. Crawford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to direct a question to Mr. Warshaw. I come from the
largest rice-growing district in the country so I am very
familiar with your business model. Given that rice is a staple
for nearly \1/2\ the world's population, fortified rice, as you
alluded to, seems to be a promising new commodity to address
nutrient deficiencies in poor and hungry populations. Does the
rice industry have the ability to provide a fortified variety
of rice to food aid programs at this time?
Mr. Warshaw. Thank you for the question.
Yes, we do, and fortified rice has been around a long time.
Everything that is served or you eat in the United States is
fortified or enriched with certain micronutrients that make
rice more nutritious. The same is happening now in the food aid
program. We are developing and putting into the marketplace a
fortified product that adds specific micronutrients, vitamins,
iron that will go a long way to reduce birth defects,
malnutrition, other issues that are very prominent in famine
areas. It is an interesting way to work because rice is a
staple, and we found a way to improve that staple. We are not
asking anybody to change their diet. We are formulating a
product that will be better for them when they eat it. So, it
is very exciting for the industry. I think it has a great
opportunity in trying to help improve both starvation,
malnutrition and other issues that we face in this world. Thank
you.
Mr. Crawford. Mr. Koach, the U.S. Government has invested
millions of dollars and years of research in studying new
fortified food assistance products to deliver targeted
nutritional value to hungry people, as Mr. Warshaw just
indicated. Does your organization use these types of products
such as fortified rice or Super Cereal Plus, and what kind of
efforts are being undertaken to incorporate these products into
your aid delivery?
Mr. Koach. No, we do not deliver or implement those types
of products. Our current programs are development programs that
are using some traditional commodities including wheat and peas
and lentils and vegetable oil, are our largest ones.
Mr. Crawford. Any particular reason why you are staying
away from the fortified varieties?
Mr. Koach. Yes. Those are used in very severe, acute
malnutrition situations. We do have some small programs, but
again, not in a major sense that are implementing those. Those
are used for very quick onset and fundamentally for children to
stabilize their nutrition situations. They can be used for
other populations but that is the target.
They are good products. The nutrition strategy by USAID
recently published has helped boost that awareness. But they
are also very expensive to process, and again, they are
processed and priced efficiently and effectively but they are
still expensive.
The best nutrition as we are looking to get people out of
those acute, severe hunger situations and stabilize them over
the course of 5, 6 years because they are going to hit those
hungry months again is getting those nutrients largely to
lactating mothers, elevating the virtues and importance of
breastfeeding, stabilizing health, water projects and
rebuilding livelihoods so that over time they can reduce their
reliance on those emergency products.
Mr. Crawford. Mr. Warshaw, is there a price disparity there
that you see as significant between conventional varieties or
traditional varieties versus a fortified varieties?
Mr. Warshaw. I can't speak for any other than rice. The
additional cost of rice is fairly minimum. It would be less
than five percent of the value of the product. And it works. We
use it here in the United States. It is mandated by law that we
fortify our products here in the United States--the bread you
eat, the rice you eat, the milk you drink. So it works across
all sectors. So I would think it would also work even better in
areas where you have malnutrition and you have people that are
starving. It is giving them the basic food and it is giving
them the vitamins and the micronutrients to allow them to live
a healthier life.
Mr. Crawford. So the cost doesn't seem to be that much of
an impediment there, so I am just wondering, Ms. Dills, do you
share that sentiment? Is it a cost issue? Is it an issue for
the difference between children and adults or lactating mothers
and adults? It seems to me like the fortified varieties seem to
be a pretty good value proposition.
Ms. Dills. Congressman, sometimes it is actually cultural
preferences. Sometimes these are commodities that are
unfamiliar to populations, and so it is very hard. It takes
years to get them to accept different tastes, different
textures. And so I fully agree with fortified foods.
There can also be challenges with local governments
accepting certain types of commodities into their countries.
There are actually complexities around this issue but we of
course have used fortified foods in many of our country
programs.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Aguilar, 5 minutes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
your testimonies and for being here today. We have hit some
important topics that need to be addressed, and I appreciate
your candid views of the food-based programs as well as the
cash or voucher programs and the role they play.
I am interested to know a little bit on the effectiveness,
how you measure the effectiveness and sustainability of your
programs. Moving forward, this group will ask tough questions
of all sides, and I think that how we measure our effectiveness
is important, and if Ms. Dills and Mr. Peanick could start in
how you measure the effectiveness of your programs and things
that the Committee should be aware of, moving forward.
Ms. Dills. Certainly. Thank you.
Yes, it is important not just to count numbers, people that
are served, but actually look at the impacts of the people that
we are serving. Through our Food for Peace programs that I am
more familiar with, I have worked in six different countries
for CRS on Food for Peace programs and we have found that there
are very specific indicators that measure impact, and one of
them is food availability. At the start of a program, we
measure how many months of food that households have available
and looking at that at the end of the program. In the recent
program that I oversaw in Madagascar, we saw it went from 7.7
months of the year to 9.1 months. So that is a very good
indication that there is more food security for those
households that we reached.
Certainly, when I mentioned John Clement, we are weighing
children, we are measuring their height to weight, their weight
for age and tracking those indicators over a period of time to
see how many children are successfully rehabilitated if they
are undernourished. So there are a variety of indicators. I
think technology is helping us collect this information faster,
more real time. CRS is very proud of using mini iPads and
actually providing beneficiary cards that have QR codes and so
that you can scan--when a mother arrives for a distribution on
a monthly basis, we can scan her card and we know what mothers
come to for the distribution on a monthly basis and what
mothers are absent that we can follow up afterwards.
It allows us to track other services because it is multi-
sectoral. It is not just food. It is looking at, she needs to
be participating in a care group, she needs to be going to
prenatal visits, she needs to be looking at hygiene in the
household. So all of these things can be tracked more easily
with technology and provide real-time information to our donor.
Thank you.
Mr. Peanick. Well, Breedlove takes a slightly different
approach. We ship to roughly 65 countries in our 21 year
history, worked with over 50 different PVOs at the same time,
so it is difficult, not impossible, given our lack of
resources, to do research projects on each of those feeding
programs.
What we do try to do with the grants that have been given
us is to leverage as much as possible, and as I said, 1.5
billion servings of this food, which is nutritionally dense. It
is packed with many of the micronutrients that the local food
doesn't have. So it is a misnomer to equate hunger with
malnutrition, so that one way to leverage the program is to
make sure that the food that is being provided is nutritionally
fortified.
Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Koach?
Mr. Koach. Yes. Thank you.
As far as oversight and evaluation of our programs, USAID
and USDA require a results framework showing linkages between
our program objectives, activities, indicators that do measure
outputs and outcomes. They both require us to indicate certain
indicators such as reduced stunting in children, increased
incomes or production so they can track progress across
programs and across sectors. Private volunteer organizations
also share lessons learned in a formal manner through technical
working groups like the Core Group or TOPS that are meeting
regularly. So now both USDA and USAID require an independent
contractor to collect our baseline data before our programs get
going, conduct a midterm evaluation, see if there are any
efficiencies or corrections that need to be made, and then the
final evaluations.
So we hope that adequate funding will be available so we
can use topnotch researchers and evaluators from land-grant and
other universities who can also provide feedback about which
particular types of activities work best.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Benishek, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here this morning. I appreciate your
input. I have a couple questions based on your testimony.
Ms. Dills, tell me about this risk that you are talking
about. You said that there is a lot of risk involved with the
cash-based, and I can, from my own mind, understand the risks,
and some of the other Members over here brought it up too, but
you have actually done this then, right? So tell me a little
bit more specifically about the risks that you have seen.
Ms. Dills. Certainly. I think that there is a time and
place appropriate for all types of programming. I actually
arrived in Haiti right after the earthquake in 2010, 7 days
after the earthquake, and we needed to provide different items
for different types of beneficiaries to build back better. I
think that in our programs an assessment has to be done on what
can work in that particular place at that particular time.
There are risks, but my organization, Catholic Relief
Services, we have tried to minimize those risks when we
implement cash or voucher programs. We certainly prefer more
voucher programs. So a voucher has a barcode on it. The
beneficiaries receive these vouchers and then they go to
vendors that have been pre-approved by CRS so they have been
vetted appropriately, and they are selling appropriate items to
the beneficiaries. So the beneficiaries choose what they want
to buy. And in these cases, in our food programs in many of our
cases, they are buying local food products so they are buying
fish, they are buying eggs, they are buying greens. These are
high in protein for beneficiaries. So our program, it is a
voucher program. Some people would call it a cash program but
it is actually not providing cash directly to the
beneficiaries. We at CRS actually reimburse the vendors once
the beneficiaries purchase the products.
Mr. Benishek. No, I can understand that. That seems like a
reasonable way of doing it.
I just have a couple other questions, and they are kind of
technical because I don't understand how this all works,
frankly. You know what I mean? When you talk about the
difference between development and emergency, I understand
development is helping those farmers and small landholders to
do a better job with their own agriculture and that. I
understand that. But I don't understand how do you determine
when an emergency exists or when you need to act in an area
that, say, you haven't been to in a while or you are not
familiar with. How does that occur?
Ms. Dills. So certainly Catholic Relief Services works with
local partners that are consistently on the ground, even in
places like south Sudan where we implement a Food for Peace
program. We have people out in very remote opposition-held
areas that we stay in contact with and continue to provide
services to the most needy. Again, it is based upon the needs
of the people at the time.
Mr. Benishek. Who do you have in the south Sudan that you
talk to?
Ms. Dills. We have local partner and then our own staff.
Mr. Benishek. Who would be a local partner?
Ms. Dills. A local community-based organization so it could
be a church, it could be a small church group, it could be a
community-based organization.
Mr. Benishek. Okay. Let me ask you one more thing that came
up in your testimony that I didn't understand, this cargo
preferences that you referred to a couple of times. Tell me
about that.
Ms. Dills. Again, we find that U.S.-flag vessels cost 2.7
times more than foreign-flag vessels. So we are in the business
of serving the most people who have the most need, and if there
is a discrepancy of apparently in the last GAO report that $107
million----
Mr. Benishek. I know, but your colleague over here says
that that shipping part is not the major part of the expense;
the shipping part is only a part of the expense, and there is a
reason that we have these rules in place so that we can
maintain the shipping industry in this country for multiple
reasons but----
Ms. Dills. Certainly.
Mr. Benishek.--I don't think that is going to change, so
can we talk about the--and I am out of time.
The Chairman. Well, I would point out that we are going to
have a separate hearing next month on the maritime portion of
this issue, so we will have plenty of time to go through that.
Mr. Benishek. All right. So this cargo preferencing that
you are bringing up is simply the use of the U.S.-flag vessels?
Ms. Dills. That is certainly one, but also the reducing the
minimum tonnage required to be shipping on U.S.-flag vessels is
another consideration, and eliminating requirements for minimum
tonnage.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Dills. Sorry.
The Chairman. We are going to have experts in on the
shipping issue next month.
Mr. Abraham, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dills, I was in Haiti too just a few days after the
quake and I was aware of y'all's efforts there, a phenomenal
job in a very tough environment, so kudos to you guys for that.
Mr. Warshaw, I am a Louisiana boy. I have a lot of rice in
my district of north central and in the Florida parishes. I
guess the question I want to ask is, let's compare Louisiana
rice to, say, a locally resource-insecure country, and I will
just pick Cambodia as an example. Comparing the two types of
rice, is there a different between the safety and nutritional
value between rice that we grow in Louisiana and, say, an
resource-insecure country as Cambodia?
Mr. Warshaw. Again, thank you for the question. I think
beyond a shadow of a doubt, the United States produces the
safest food supply that is out there in the world, and
depending on regions around the world, there are issues. There
are issues with water quality. There are issues with what kind
of herbicides and pesticides that are used, farming practices,
storage practices. By far, what we supply through the in-kind
programs is a superior food, which can be supplied timely and
it can be supplied in a cost-effective manner.
When you go to a local or regional purchase program, you
often distort the market locally, and then the pure cost of
that product may change, but specific to your question, yes,
there are no doubt problems when you try to put together a
large quantity of an agricultural product in a country that
doesn't really have it available with its quality. There is
really no testing or protocol or adherence to any standards,
and we see this in the commercial export industry, not just in
emergency food aid. We are living by USDA and FDA and \1/2\
dozen other agencies that are watching what we do every day in
the food-processing industry here in the United States. Hardly
any of that exists in the major rice-producing areas around the
world, surely not to the scrutiny level that we have.
Mr. Abraham. And I was going to go to the ``why,'' but you
have answered that question.
In your mills that our rice goes through in Louisiana,
certainly I am assuming there is more regulation than rice
going to locally in these countries that are in need. Is that a
fair statement? And what regulations are you having to jump
through hoops to get rice certified?
Mr. Warshaw. I can't speak for every country out there but
surely in the United States, with Food and Drug, with USDA,
with Federal Grain Inspection Service, with APHIS, these are
all requirements that we have to go through. We have Federal
Grain Inspection Service employees that live in our plant.
Everything we ship, they certify. We have APHIS. Everything
that ships out of the country is certified through APHIS. We
have, more than I would like to count, agencies looking over
our shoulder making sure that we put out both for domestic and
export consumption the products are safe. By far, and I think
it is well documented, that the food coming from the United
States, whether it be Food for Peace or Progress or for export
or commercial, is a safe product.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you.
My last question will also be to you, and I want to read
this one. Has the agricultural community been sufficiently
involved in the discussion of any potential changes that may be
made to the Feed the Future initiative?
Mr. Warshaw. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Abraham. Yes, sir. Has the agricultural community been
sufficiently involved in the discussion of any potential
changes that may be made to the Feed the Future initiative or
other broader reform?
Mr. Warshaw. The farm bill that was just signed into law
that you all worked so hard to get signed into law gave some
flexibility to do in-kind. It gave some flexibility for cash
and for local regional purchases. So I think that gives these,
I guess, non-in-kind programs an opportunity to prove
themselves, do they make sense. Specific to our industry, the
fortified rice is a very, very interesting product that is
coming out, and yes, we are engaged in trying to push this
forward because we are not asking people to eat something
different; we are asking them to consume exactly what they have
been consuming all their life, and in reality, taste, texture
and color will be the same. It will give an added benefit.
So we are trying to improve most of all the food processors
in the United States that put Food for Peace products out there
to make a better product that has a better value for the end
consumer and ultimately produces a better outcome. That is the
goal.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bad part about
leaving the room for other meetings is, you come back and you
get immediately surprised as to whether or not you are here, so
I have to get my questions that I wanted to actually ask and
get answers.
But I just wanted to, number one, thank each and every one
of you. This is an extremely important issue. I am surprised
today that my colleague, Mr. Rouzer's head wasn't in the way to
stop you from seeing me. I joked at an event last night about
that.
But I do want to ask some questions to Mr. Cowan. As
somebody who comes from Illinois, we are blessed with some of
the best producing farmland on Earth, as many of your members,
I am sure, talk about. Unfortunately, though, many other
countries, they are not lucky with their agriculture
production, and because of their land issues, it makes the
production very limited. Do you think the in-kind donations of
U.S. agriculture products help offset some of those
limitations?
Mr. Cowan. Congressman, without a doubt, the in-kind
programs and the commodities that we send overseas, they are
not only more reasonably priced as American farmers, we are not
scared of any market producing against anybody in the United
States. We provide the safest, lowest-cost food that anybody
can. As you know, from Illinois, with the blessings that you
all have up there and the big crops that you have had, we need
to keep these markets. The thing that we have with in-kind that
I see and as I go overseas, U.S. commodities are seen as the
very best. When I travel to China, anywhere in the Far East,
when I travel to Europe, there is no question that those
commodities that come from American producers and are processed
in American facilities are viewed as the gold standard on
Earth. When you move away from that as an American farmer, when
you move to more cash, I worry not only about looking at that
gold standard, I look at the fact that as farmers, we are some
of the most supportive people in the country as far as being
able to deal with charity. I know the Breedlove facility very
well at Lubbock. I have been involved in the past with donating
commodities to them because I know that that commodity that I
donate to them is going to go and do good somewhere else in the
world. And so it is very important that we do that and that
product doesn't come from another area of the world where it
may not be as nutritious or as safe as it would be from the
American producer.
Mr. Davis. I personally agree with a lot of your comments,
especially the one about blessings in Illinois with our
agricultural production.
Mr. Cowan. Well, for somebody from Illinois that realizes
those blessings and then you are from west Texas where we farm
the most harsh environment in the United States, I often get
kidded by that from the people from the Midwest.
Mr. Davis. Well, take it well because I get kidded back
from the Chairman behind me about Texas and Illinois often.
Last question for you, Mr. Cowan. Are you concerned that
the local regional procurement programs will result in the use
of U.S. taxpayer dollars to purchase commodities from your
overseas competitors?
Mr. Cowan. Of course, and when we do that, when you have
purchases that are cash-based instead of in-kind commodities,
you also leave the discussion up to what technologies, what
advancements we have made being able to get into those
countries. One of the things that we have problems with
overseas continually is markets that don't allow the newer
varieties of soybeans into their markets because of not
approving those traits into the market. Biotech soybeans are a
prime example. That is another product that can improve the
nutrition of those overseas, and as we keep in-kind, then that
kind of pushes that envelope to where if they are having to get
U.S. products and we can show them that very best in the world
product and as we can get it to them. And so I really worry
about when you give cash that it goes to the supplier of lowest
cost, and a lot of times that is also the supplier of the
lowest quality.
Mr. Davis. I am glad you mentioned biotech and
biotechnology. I was recently at a Pioneer facility in my
district where they talked about one of the traits that they
are developing for a soybean that has zero trans fats, and I
thought to myself, how can that be bad? We are actually taking
a nutritional advantage with an American product through
biotechnology, and you are right, we have to do more on that
aspect.
Thank you for your time. Thank you all for our opportunity
to hear from you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself
for 5 minutes. Again, I thank the panel for being here.
The previous discussion talked about the big picture and
solving hunger around the world, and in fact, that is the
stated goal of the Global Food Security Act. It is pretty clear
to me that throughout all those discussions, production
agriculture as well as the resources at USDA, are not
necessarily at the table as that conversation is going on.
Can I get each of the panelists just to give me a quick
sentence or two on your support or lack of support for the
Global Food Security Act?
Ms. Dills?
Ms. Dills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From our reading of the bill, there are no substantial
changes to international food aid programs, and for us at
Catholic Relief Services, we are hoping for better coordination
between Feed the Future and international food aid programs
where appropriate. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Koach?
Mr. Koach. Yes, we too support the Global Food Security Act
that helps ensconce a lot of the U.S. Government's global food
security strategy, but Mr. Chairman, your points are right,
that it is important to keep these key constituencies engaged
as U.S. food assistance is the only foreign assistance program
that this Committee had jurisdiction over, has robust
jurisdiction over every 5 years pursuant to the farm bill.
Particularly with the food aid and food security, the
assessment demonstrated is that these programs that are being
discussed this morning provide a vital linkage to what the
Global Food Security Act and Feed the Future is helping
developing.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Didion?
Mr. Didion. Yes, sir. As an American and a humanitarian, I
am for feeding people around the world, whether that is our
product or any other nutrient-dense product. The best product
for the application, in my opinion, is a nutrient-dense
product. It has been talked about, the inland cost of
transportation sometime is equal to or greater than the
commodity itself, and so highest-value product delivered in
country best, absolutely.
The Chairman. Mr. Peanick?
Mr. Peanick. Having been newly posted to this position, I
am not intimate with the Global Food Security Act, but I am
confident that involvement of this Committee would protect the
interests of the ag producers and the food processors and
ultimately end up with getting the most bang for the buck to
those that need it the most, and that is the hungry kids.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Cowan?
Mr. Cowan. Mr. Chairman, ASA has been a longtime supporter
of agriculture development abroad to promote greater food
security. This is shown through the work of the World
Initiative for Soy for Human Hunger and Health, which is the
agriculture development arm of ASA. WISHH recently concluded
projects in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Liberia and is working
in Ghana, Mozambique, Pakistan and other countries to develop
soy food, feed and livestock value chains. However, the Global
Food Security Act as currently written falls short of its goal
to create a whole-of-government approach for addressing global
food security strategy. ASA applauds this Committee for taking
a second look at the text and at the important role that the
Department of Agriculture and the U.S. agricultural system can
play in maximizing the effectiveness of our international
agriculture development programs.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Warshaw?
Mr. Warshaw. I think it is a pretty simple answer, that
agriculture has to have a seat at the table in these
discussions and have input so that we can work for the
betterment of what we are all trying to accomplish.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you. And again, I thank our
panelists for being here today to talk to us about this. It is
pretty clear to me that each of you has a real heart for your
work and that is important.
We will have a struggle in this arena of where that line is
ultimately drawn between all in-kind and all cash or all
vouchers. If you look at the last 100 years, there has never
been a country that has done as much good for the rest of the
world as the United States and ask so little in return--and
much of that has been feeding people. So, as we set priorities
and we try to draw those lines, maintaining support across a
broad section of Americans for these programs is going to be
vital. As we look at scarce resources, and as we move the line
towards less in-kind and more cash assistance, then we begin to
eliminate natural support systems within the American populace.
If most Americans see a 100 pound sack of rice being given out
to a hungry group of folks, and it has the American flag on it
they will be darn near unanimous in their support. And so that
emotional attachment to helping people is important to what you
do and why you do it. Likewise, we have to maintain that link
with our folks and can do so by having the backbone of that
system on the production side at the table in the conversations
and being supportive of whatever it is we are trying to do.
I don't know that our guys here would argue that it ought
to be 100 percent in-kind, and I don't know that you are
arguing it ought to be 100 percent cash. But wherever that line
gets drawn, we are going to have to do it thoughtfully. We
think the 2014 Farm Bill gave some flexibility, and we are
keenly interested in the evaluation process rather than a rush
to judgment to increase that flexibility further.
So thank you very much for your very thoughtful testimony
this morning. It is clear that each of you is a part of the
solution. So I appreciate each of you being here.
Under the rules of the Committee the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplemental written responses from the
witnesses to any questions posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement by Navyn Salem, Founder, Edesia Inc.
Edesia appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the House
of Representative Agriculture Committee Hearing on International Food
Aid. Edesia is a Rhode Island-based nonprofit manufacturer of high
quality, peanut-based ready-to-use therapeutic and supplementary foods
that are used to treat malnutrition in children around the globe.
Edesia understands the importance of U.S.-manufactured, in-kind food
assistance. Since our inception in 2010, we have reached three million
children in 46 countries with our products. This includes over 8,000
metric tons of products for programs supported by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA)--equivalent to providing over one million children
with lifesaving treatments. We are proud of the part we play in helping
to save the lives of children around the world--children who would not
be saved without the generosity of the American people and the hard
work of USAID and USDA.
Edesia's work supports the second sustainable development goal
``Zero Hunger'' with a target of ending all forms of malnutrition by
2030. For this to become a reality, we will need a balance of
international food aid that is flexible to meet the needs of the
various populations and situations that are presented to the
humanitarian community. The root cause of malnutrition is poverty;
economic development and increased resiliency must be part of the long
term strategy for improved nutrition. For this reason, we also support
local and regional procurement in situations where a faster response is
possible. Additionally, we feel a new emphasis on nutrition security
and aid that is fit-for-purpose, such as specialty nutritional products
for treating malnutrition, will be increasingly important in order to
reach the world's goals for 2030. Edesia stands ready to assist
Congress, USAID and USDA in meeting these goals.
Our partnerships with USAID, USDA, and UN agencies not only allow
us to reach children in need, but also allow us to create economic
growth at home. Our work helps to support American agriculture--we use
peanuts, sugar, oil, soybeans, and dairy commodities from all over the
country. Since our opening in 2010, we have grown from a company of 20,
to today having a team of 75. Next year we are expanding to a new
82,000 square foot facility in the hopes that we can continue to reach
nutritionally vulnerable children around the world.
Thank you for providing Edesia the opportunity to submit testimony.
As international food aid programs are reviewed by your Committee we
hope you will use us as a resource; we are highly experienced in the
area of specialized food aid, and as a nonprofit business, we
understand the economics while also remaining committed to the goals.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if the Committee has any questions
or would like further information.
[all]