Transcripts For CSPAN USAID Food For Peace Program 20171019

Examining the u. S. Agency for International Developments food for peace program, as well as ways to distribute food more effectively around the world. The Foreign Relations committee will come to order. We are currently facing an historic a humanitarian crisis. The United States continues to be a world leader in providing more than a third of all emergency food today, over 2 billion annually. Sadly, despite our generosity, there are shortfalls due to other nations not meeting the challenge. In that years deliberations, we have the opportunity to do more without having to in more money having to spend more money. A little more than half of our food date is provided by the farm bill, saddling our fees a program with u. S. Commodity and cargo preference requirements. Requires aid to be sourced almost entirely from u. S. Farmers, half of which must be shipped on u. S. Flagged vessels. These restrictions result in spending as little as . 35 to . 40 on a dollar on food. Let me say this one more time. ,ecause of these ridiculous utterly ridiculous requirements, each dollar . 40 of is actually used to provide food to people who are starving. If we relaxed the commodity preference to match the needs overseas, the overhead cost. Ould drop dramatically u. S. Farmers would still play a vital role in the program, and we would free up over 400 million in taxes to be used to feed up to 9. 5 million more starving people each year. One of the major obstacles to modernizing food for peace are those who continue to support and profit from cargo preference. Ules representatives of the shipping industry claim that food aid has a Significant Impact on u. S. Maritime jobs and our militarys sealift capacity to move Defense Materials overseas. I have asked our witnesses to provide the committee with facts , analysis, and sound resources to determine whether this is true. For example, the industry argues that 40 ships i and 2000 mariners are needed. Data shows usaid that in 2016, only five u. S. 175 ships out of a fleet of rely on food aid shipments to stay afloat. Let me say this only one of which is even capable of. Arrying military cargo, one some have even questioned why we only have cargo preference at all, since there is little supporting evidence that the requirement effectively should enable sealift capacity. For example, the vast majority of food aid is moved on ships and capable of moving military and the ones that can already received a 5 million a year subsidy. According to Navy Officials briefing our committee, we maintain a strategic sealift thater reserved program can meet virtually all of our mobile sealift requirements. Millions of people go hungry each year unnecessarily because of these two ridiculous requirements that congress places on food aid. One of our witnesses will testify later that Research Suggests at least 40,000 children die annually to what who wouldsaved otherwise be saved if we reformed this system. There are a few areas in government where we can have more impact on lives without Additional Resources than by modernizing the food for peace program. Iron ridge all my colleagues to listen to the days testimony, work with us i urge all my colleagues to listen to the days testimony, work with us. I spoke to the tennessee farm bureau. The audience was aghast at the fact that here in washington, those people who represent all u. S. Act1 of exports going to this. They were aghast at the fact that congress had people appear in the name of protecting them had people up here in the name of protecting them. These are good people. They were aghast at the fact that congress had these ridiculous requirements in place, and that people were starving because of these ridiculous requirements, when their goal is to feed america and feed the world. With that, Ranking Member clark. Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for conducting this hearing. I think every member of this committee admires your passion on this issue, and your leadership on this issue, so that america can more effectively deal with world hunger issues. We are proud to be part of your team to figure out a better way to get this done. I think we need to understand the die mentions of this problem the dimensions of this problem. I dont think any of us have expressed the real fear of hunger, maybe because of our schedules that we might miss a meal, but we dont understand what it hundred 15 Million People globally face, which is a real fear of whether they will get the nutrition they need in order to survive. Our world produces enough to feed all of its inhabitants. However, as we sit here, over 20 Million People in four countries alone south sudan, nigeria, somalia, and yemen, are threatened by famine. Of famine means people, especially women and children, are dying of hunger. Dying of hunger. The u. N. Has called this the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. , this isman is right an urgent issue and needs to be with. Ith dealt mr. Chairman, i appreciate that you have traveled to some of these countries to learn how the u. S. Can best help those in need. You have gone there, and they are not easy places to get to. We appreciate you very much taking the time to better understand by seeing circumstances on the ground. I agree with you that our values as americans and our place as leaders in the Global Community means the United States must improve how the world is committing to this crisis, and that means taking a look at how our positive our policies toward global Food Security can be most impactful, in terms of ensuring Adequate Funding for these programs. Adequate funding is important. Yes, you can reform and get better use of our funds, but it does require that we put up the resources. For more than 60 years, the United States has played a leading role in tackling hunger. We are the Worlds Largest food aid donor in cases of disaster, natural or manmade, the American People are the most generous in the world. Food look to modernize the aid programs, we should not only look at the shipping requirements, but also address issues relating to prepositioning food aid in the region, concerns about monetization practices, options for increasing cashbased locals, and result purchasing programs. We should also be sure to adequately fund our food markets,efforts in such as speed the future such as feed the future. Our Agriculture Development programs require Adequate Funding. As we embark on this effort to reform our food aid program, i want to point out that there will always be a place for food growth in the United States. Possibes it is not in sometimes it is not possible to address the needs in the local markets. A tailored approach with a tailored approach, we can feed more people and save more lives. I look forward to all of our witnesses, but i want to particularly acknowledge the Vice President for Government Relations for the Catholic Police services. We take great pride on their presence in baltimore. We admire the work they do globally. Thank you very much. Our first witness is math demands. He manages both of our International Food assistance programs. We thank you for being here and. We thank you for being here. Begin, weld appreciate it. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. Chairman corker, Ranking Member cardin, and members of the community, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today on how to increase the Cost Effectiveness of the food for peace program. We are grateful for your support of humanitarian efforts. We are facing unprecedented levels of global Food Security, echoing some of the comments on the Opening Statement of Ranking Member cardin. , more than 20nes Million People are at risk of severe hunger or starvation. The United States has provided lifesaving humanitarian systems. Four countries represent only a small part of global Food Insecurity. Global hunger increased in 2017 the first time in more than a decade. Food insecurity now affects 11 of the worlds population. That is 815 Million People going to bed hungry each night, or more than twice the population of the United States. Of food for peace has provided lifesaving assistance to people in need in 50 countries this year, providing assistance to the worlds most Vulnerable People reflects americas compassion and generosity. It is also critical to our national security. U. S. Food assistance in all of its forms contributes to a more stable world where people have the chance to lead healthy, productive lives. Given these challenges and the need for us to improve the efficiency of food for peace programs, they were just ask is incredibly important. I will focus on one challenge to improving efficiency, how we ship u. S. Commodities through the title ii program. Under title ii, we receive funds to purchase commodities and certain specialty Nutritional Products to meet emergency food news. Working closely with our partners, we identify when and where u. S. Commodities are arrange forwe these commodities to be shipped from u. S. Ports to our destination. The food is sorted in various ways, always prioritizing the most vulnerable, usually children under five and other vulnerable populations. Step in theitical title to process. The cargo preferences act requires that at least 52 of the gross tonnage must be transported on u. S. Flagged, privately owned commercial vessels, given they are available at reasonable rates. However, the u. S. Flag feet is not always available to provide the services needed. For example, in 2017, we did not receive a single offer from u. S. Flag vessels. The majority of our boat cargoes is carried by only four u. S. Flag ships, which can contribute to challenge is to respond. Another obstacle is a lack of direct shipping services to some regions. Food for peace destinations and u. S. Flag vessel routes are not always well matched. Services do not exist to most of our destination ports directly, particularly to western and southern africa. Finally, there is the matter of cost. In fiscal year 2016, it cost food for peace substantially more per metric ton for u. S. Flag vessels compared to foreign flagged vessels. This cost differential has Significant Impacts on our programs. Cargo preference requirements mean that we paid millions more each year. Now more than ever, every dollar counts. Our primary concern at food for peace is to stabilize relief suffering and reach people in need. To do this the best we can, we are constantly looking to improve our performance and an sure wed make the most Cost Effective use of american tax dollars. Thank you for your invitation today. I am happy to take your questions. Senator corker i typically dont ask questions first. I will try to be brief. The u. S. Maritime industry claims that 40 u. S. Flag shipments military would see that capacity. According to your data last year, i want to reiterate some of the things youre saying. Five ships carried 66 of all food aid on u. S. Flag ships under the cargo preference law that you are unfortunately having to adhere to. Aid weref such food spread amongst 19 ships, so thats just 24 total ships with only five that rely on arguably food aid to stay afloat. Is it simple for u. S. Flagged vessels to carry such a large percentage . Thank you for that question, senator. In the last two years, that has been the norm, where a very small number of ships carry the majority of our bulk cargo. To be clear, 2016, we had five ships that carried the majority. In the middle of the year, one of those was scrapped by industry. It has become four ships they carry over 60 of our cargo. Senator corker and why is that . He case because we are having to rely on u. S. Flagged ships, that is the concentration, is that correct . And it is Just Two Companies that provide those four ships . Those four ships are owned by two companies. The appropriate ships to carry u. S. Cargo, i am youre not receiving offers from other shipping lines available. Senator corker if they were not u. S. Flagged, would you receive other offers from other companies . Yes. To put into perspective, we had 26 ships that were u. S. Flagged, 90 ships that were foreign flagged. Five orcorker of the four, how many are capable of ofrying sealift capacity military cargo . To myill do for that colleagues. I will say what is useful or the bulk carriers. Senator corker let me answer that for you. Its one. How much more does it cost you to ship on u. S. Flagged vessels than foreign flagged vessels . Paid on 2016, we average per ton 135 for u. S. Ships. On foreign flagged ships, we gave 65 per ton. Paid 65 per ton. Senator corker i think i will stop. I cant imagine why we call people around the world to start to serve two Companies Based in new york. Somebody else they have a rational reason, but i will defer to the Ranking Member. Senator cardin it is one of the areas of reform that we had in the 2014 farm bill, that allowed additional flexibility in regards to commoditybased food at, and allowed the use of International Disaster Assistance Council for emergency Food Security programs. On those just comment changes, how they have impacted our ability to respond to the global needs . Mr. Nims thank you for the question, senator. The addition or emergence of International Disaster Assistance Funds through food for peace has been instrumental for us to combat Food Insecurity around the world. There are several areas where in time u. S. Food assistance is not the appropriate tool to use to fulfill our mission. Primary amongst those would be syria. Both inside and outside syria, title ii Food Assistance would not have the impact that our voucher and cashbased systems have allowed. In addition, we are also able to lead innovation. For voucher programs set up outside of syria, we have developed retinal scans to ensure the people identified are those people and are receiving those vouchers. In addition, it has allowed us to buy food locally and regionally to be able to respond much more quickly. And the emergency fear of being in ato move the commodity certain amount of time is crucial to save lives. Idea a has given us the flexibility for that. Senator cardin our goal is to have selfsustaining countries on our own food supply, resiliency. On their own food supply, resiliency. Could you tell us how the use of these funds are they being to achieve we do and the resiliency so the local communities can one day be able to handle their own food needs . Mr. Nims most definitely, yes. When we use the idea a the ida funds, we ensure the markets are able to support this, and sometimes by incentivizing the market, we are making it stronger to allow the area affected by the crisis to recover. Instead of bringing in, where wheret inappropriate, foreign commodities, we are actually incentivizing the market. Most definitely, these programs gives usd the ida the flexibility, where appropriate, and our teams do the studies where this is the case. We are getting that group back on their feet more quickly. Senator cardin i think i understand why we do monetization. You cant get funds unless you use this method. Toseems terribly inefficient ship food overseas and sell it in order to get money. Isnt there a better way . Monetization is part of the farm bill at this time. It states we do 50 to do monetization. It has been a way to generate crucial funds. We are losing . 75 on the dollar, if not more, when we have done traditional monetization programs in the past. Right now, we have one program in bangladesh that the fills our requirements, and that is not the most efficient way to generate the funds necessary. I understand the requirements and the third party needs of funds. This is one of the ways we can get they can get funds. This is not the most efficient way to get resources to deal with the problem. Mostims this is not the efficient way to do that, yes, and i believe i am hopeful that as we go forward, we can develop more efficient ways to provide that necessary aspect. Im going to use your remaining 39 seconds to embellish and say, look, we in our own country have issues with china dumping steel or dumping panels or whatever. Its a big issue to us. With our program, where we would like for usaid to help countries be self sustainable, that is our goal. ,ver time, these countries through our programs can we take our commodities, ship them overseas, lose . 75 on the dollar, and sell them at submarket prices in the market and destabilize the very farmers in those areas that we are hoping can hold the capacity to feed their own people. It is the most idiotic requirement one could possibly come up with. Again, the entire program is whole u. S. Actr output is, which means it has no effect on our agriculture community. Mr. Nims reserve my seven seconds. [laughter] are absolutely right. If we are appropriate of the money, so they had the money, this is done, yes, because of local agricultural interests, but supported by thirdparty groups because it is the source of funds they cannot always get. Need to maker we sure this is appropriated in another part and allow you and others to carry this out. I agree with that 100 . It is really an issue of staffers, ag staffers, keeping agitional dollars that the community does not even want them to keep. Nims,r young mr. Good to see you again. I would like to request an update on the situation in yemen, specifically the humanitarian crisis there, and the number of people who are food insecure and subject to the colorado to make. C colorado at the debt holera epidemic. Yemen still represents one of the largest Public Health crises in terms of numbers. Million are completely dependent on humanitarian assistance for their survival at this time. Since last time we spoke, the cholera epidemic continues. Over 2000 deaths, mostly in elderly and children. Young you identified the port of how data as one of the most critical points of entry to alleviate the suffering in the country. Could you explain the importance of that port to relief efforts, cranes the delivery of would facilitate the delivery of food and medicine through the port . I have firm that the port is a principal lifeline for humanitarian operations as well opportunities. Yemen is dependent on 90 exports to receive its food. It is crucial on how this goes forward. You are correct that usaid did sponsor and fund the purchase of four trains to improve cranes to improve operations. Those remain in saudi arabia in a warehouse. They were denied entry by the coalition of forces. Usaid maintains that the these cranes to Port Operations would greatly improve the throughput of that port to allow additional humanitarian as well as commercial cargo to more quickly throughput through the port and have an impact on the situation. Senator young you mentioned saudi arabia. I think you meant to say that the cranes were in dubai. Since you mentioned saudi arabia, i will move to that. Sent ald food Program Letter to the saudi government, asking for permission to try to deliver the cranes, which were turned back by the Saudiled Coalition some time ago. The content of that letter was to delivermission those cranes to the port to expedite the delivery of this muchneeded humanitarian assistance. The arguments we keep hearing, aich is consistently met with compelling and persuasive counterargument, is that there is a largescale diversion of humanitarian aid to ho hodeidah. You said we have no divergence occurring at the port at all. Is that still accurate . Mr. Nims yes. Mr. Del vecchio would you say the young would you say flow of humanitarian aid into yemen continues to be a challenge, sir . Mr. Nims yes. Participants in the conflict are seeking to control access to the beneficiary communities. It is something you have gone record saying here today, and before you have indicated it is a tool for advancing cost. I want to put that in laymans terms to make clear what you have indicated. Have you said, and are you saying today, that the participants of the conflict in yemen are deliberately restricting food or medicine to the vulnerable populations to advance their aims . Mr. Nims yes. Sen. Young are those political aims . Mr. Nims yes. Sen. Young are those war aims . Mr. Nims yes. Ian usaids assessment, those are those participants would it be the Saudi Led Coalition . Yes, both sides are responsible for the situation. Sen. Young so it is your assessment that includes the Saudi Led Coalition . Mr. Nims correct. Young to be clear, and you justarity, testified saying that essentially the Saudi Led Coalition is using food as a weapon of war in yemen. Believe we should use our partnership with the saudis to bring this on acceptable practice to an end without delay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You are a master, no doubt. Senator kunz . Sen. Coons thank you for this hearing on an intolerable situation. I am grateful for your service and for the fact that we has a generous nation continued to try to meet the unbelievable challenge of 20 Million People of starvingat risk across just four countries, and millions more globally going to bed hungry every night. The American People are generous. We have the most productive farms in the world. For decades, we have had a program that gives of our abundance to those in need around the world, but we do so in a strikingly inefficient way. I was proud to have a chance to work with senator isakson, the chair and ranking, and many on on the security act the global Food Security act. As senator cardin reminded all of us, there will always be a role for u. S. Commodities in response to crises, but we remove someways to of these harmful restrictions and requirements that i think are so inefficient. Earlier this year, senator corker and i visited a camp in northern uganda. I was grateful for you joining us on that trip. They are and in south sudan, i had a chance to visit sites were people defend on food a depend on food aid for existence. I traveled to nigeria, where millions have been displaced by boko haram. When we talk about a cash assistance program, we are not talking about sending out envelopes full of cash. This is a card from a specific individual in an idp camp that allows you to go out and buy locally food that is appropriate for children, and it changes the relationship. It provides stability for the local markets. It provides relationship between the Refugee Community and the community that is hosting them, and it gives more control. Frankly, it is much more efficient. I would like to ask you about the programs. It is not at all we are doing. We do cards are retinal scans to see who is getting want money for what purpose. An idea on howus it has worked out so far, and what are the benefits and difficulties to some of these direct transfer food programs, and how they help you respond to these two crises. These food crises. Mr. Nims thank you for that question, and thank you for inviting me on that trip. What we are now calling these programs is marketbased assistance, which means that our teams on the ground work very hard to understand the market conditions. To be clear, there are places in the world where there are crises that exist, and where food existence can still play a role. Side, local procurement we work hard with our partners to identify those markets that exist, whether inside the country or in a region in different markets of africa, buy a needed commodity that does not exist in a place where we need to go in a different location. Adhering to the same sort of rules and governance of procurement that we would use in the United States to ensure we get the right quality of food. By doing that, the time saved is huge, because the ocean length is not there. Combined with the Market Impact of the community in where we are working. What we have developed is to ensure we have not ensure we ,o not have a negative impact or that we are somehow contributing to an existing crisis. That is part of the expertise of many of our partners. For the local procurement, it has saved us both time and money and become more effective as an agency and its in addressing these concerns. On the voucher programs, the programs that allow a Family Member to go to a local market or is restore or grocery store, has helped to develop the industry in these rentals hands or cars or mobile money to ensure that the person targeted, the person that is supposed to receive the aid, does receive tot, and we have it in place make sure the right people are receiving assistance. And to ensure that only give money, we are having a Food Security impact, and that they are not using these funds for other commodities that dont have a Food Security impact, so we always want to ensure that we are targeting the most food insecure, and that we are having impact. Senator corker senator cardin one other question. I understand the benefit to the n. G. O. s but the inefficiencies are just what are the negative impacts on the ground in terms of instability in local markets and resiliencey of the practice of monday tiesation . Shipping u. S. Commodities to remote parts of the world so hey can be resold there . Mr. Nims i want to take the opportunity to correct that number. It was a 25 loss on the dollar. I got my numbers backward. I want to correct the record that it is a 25 cent loss on the dollar. Thank you for that question, as well. Monetizeation has been around for a long time and there are rules that govern how we do it. Primarily, the endowment determination which ensures whenever we go into a country we do look at the Global Market or universal market in that country to ensure that what we bring in has a very small mpact on the market. We take that very seriously with our colleagues at the department of agriculture and have done that for quite sometime. To answer your question very minimal detrimental impact on the market of a given country is what we strive to do because thats what we have been doing. For the usaid and my office for food for peace, the biggest detriment is that we lose 25 cents on the dollar. And it does require that our partners who sell this food have to develop ways to be able to sell this food. Ngos traditionally are not Commodity Brokers and it takes a Specialized Skill to do this effectively. That takes a lot of time and effort that could be better spent on running programs as opposed to being Commodity Brokers. Thank you, mr. Nims. I think we have a shared question about how we sustain u. S. Food assistance while working together to make it more efficient given the scale and scope of the humanitarian need around the world. Thank you for the very hard work you and your folks do to meet this massive humanitarian need. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I apologize to mr. Nims for being late. Sorry i missed your testimony. My biggest experience in food aid happened a few years ago when a Small Company in georgia by the name of manna you probably are familiar with manna. Yes, sir. Which produces a 3 1 2 ounce fortified Peanut Butter paste in a sealed packet in huge volume and it can keep children and adults alive and avoid malnutrition for a sustained period of time. The peanut, not selling for my state here but i might as well, the peanut is a great product. And it tastes good on top of everything else. [laughter] but i got in the middle of trying to help them and found out theres a lot of politics and brokerage going on in whose food gets sent overseas and where it goes and who takes it and everything else. In particular in terms of nutrition there was a French Company that really cornered the market and sustaining packets of vitamin fortified foods to get to various in this case if i remember correctly it was somalia. Is there still a lot of politics and are there still a lot of companies that try and corner the market . How competitive is it from the standpoint of lowering the cost and maximizing the amount of food you can get overseas . Mr. Nims senator, thank you for that question. Usaid, in particular my office food for peace are incredibly proud of the readytouse therapeutic and Supplementary Food you mentioned both from manna and two other companies here in the United States. And we see this as a huge success that we have been able to work with these companies, with u. S. Companies to develop this incredibly crucial commodity to, that exists to save babies, to save starving children. We have utilized that effectively over the last four years and increased our purchase of that product. In answer to your question, are there still politics involved, unfortunately, there are politics involved in everything but on this particular issue, sir, we no longer have any restrictions on where we can program that food and our partners have accepted the fact that regardless of the source, they can use that where needed. See it as a price over time has become very competitive in the world market and we look at continuing to use the product because of the success. Usaid i know is where youre under usaid. Does usda also provide food for overseas use . Mr. Nims yes they do. We work very closely with them. Elements of usda purchase all of our commodities, our contractors essentially purchase that and we work closely with the mcgovern dolce School Feeding program as well as food for progress. Most assuredly on the local level to ensure our programs are working together. So usda determines how the commodities are actually sourced, is that correct . Mr. Nims correct. They are our contractor. In this particular case of the specialized nutrition products, usaid food for peace, we purchase those directly ourselves. Where do you get those . Is there any incentive to try and buy those foods in countries that are developing nations that are beginning a food program to help reinforce what theyre trying to do . We would be using our International Disaster Assistance Fund to do that and there are cases if there are companies or facilities overseas outside of europe that are able to produce a product that meets the requirements of say the United Nations unicef or some of our partners, we would look to purchase locally those products as well. There are at least three, i believe, plants in africa that can produce a comparable product and we have purchased those, our partners have purchased those using International Disaster assistance nunds our program. That is exactly the genesis of my question because i traveled with senator coons and others to africa quite a bit and many of those programs are now developing agricultural programs in their country. It would seem like everything we can do to reinforce that by buying their product to stop people from going hungry would be a two for one win for us and usaid and for the country. Mr. Nims i agree, sir. Thank you very much for what you do. Thank you very much. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman, and, mr. Nims, for being here today and the hard work that you do to make sure people get fed in this world. You referred the amount of money that has been propose rated to help address four familiarins that are going on right now. Can you be a little more specific about how much of that money has been disbursed, how ts being used, what the progress and road blocks that were experiencing in the distribution of foods that are being bought by those dollars and just to follow up on senator youngs comments, clearly, were having a problem in yemen with trying to get help to people who need it. So can you talk more specifically about whats going on . Mr. Nims thank you for that question. I will attempt to answer that the best i can and, please, if there is something i leave out i think first off just to thank congress at large for the incredible amount of Financial Support that food for peace received in 2017. As weve all said there was unprecedented need in the world and i can say for a fact our partners on the ground have not seen we thought el nino was bad in 2016. 2017 is unprecedented in all senses of the word. We have not seen this. Am i correct there was just a report this week that talked about the direction and number of people being who are food insecure is going up for the first time in a number of years . Mr. Nims you are absolutely correct, senator. The report that just came out, state of the world on Food Insecurity. That said, the first year in over the past 10 years malnutrition has increased. So in other words, we have been as a World Community decreasing Food Insecurity around the world. This year that number has gone back the other way. This is the beginning of a very unfortunate and del tier yuss trend. The report further says the majority of this is due to the amount of conflict in the world. I want to be clear this is not because of International Development efforts. This is not because we as a World Community are trying to address Food Insecurity to increase food as the Opening Statement. There is enough food being produced in the world to feed the hungry people. In this incident, the direct cause of the conflicts, the growing conflicts in the world are really causing that. And those four areas where were seeing famine are cases in point. Mr. Nims most directly as well as, you know, the congo is now entering into this stage. Elements still in parts of the heart of africa continue to go plagued by conflict that causes problems, yes. In response to your question, 990 Million Dollars was a supplement congress added directly toward this combating famine. All of that 990 million was spent in all of those four primary countries, both in the form of i. D. A. , International Disaster assistance, and 300 million actually converted into title two and that was also utilized. We can say that the 990 million was all spent this year into the four countries and it came at, toward the end of the year, end of the fiscal year where we really started getting that out the door, both large volumes as well as making sure the primary, our primary partners in those operations received funding and it has been expended. We are carrying forward money from 2017 into 2018 which is not an abnormal occurrence. Well be carrying forward, still actually closing the books but carrying forward both title two in kind resources as well as i. D. A. Resources we share with our sister office, office of foreign Disaster Assistance and usaid and usda. Are the crains senator young referred to purchased out of those dollars . The koreans were purchased actually in 2016 the cranes were purchased in 2016 if i am correct and those were not part of the 2017 funds. They were purchased using International Disaster Assistance Funds, yes. And who are the next countries working in those four areas that have provided funding to try and address the risis . We can get back to you on the exact levels and assistance as we understand it at this time. Each of those maces the highest donors in each of those places the highest donors differ a little between the countries but maintain in the European Union what we call echo, in other words their disaster group. The british government, the United Kingdom is usually in the top one or two. Syria, right now, the germans have been very good partners as well. But in all cases the u. S. Government is the largest donor. Mr. Chairman, if i can ask one more question, are any of either saudi arabia or any of the gulf countries providing humanitarian assistance in yemen to address the crisis there . That we know of . They are not providing assistance through the u. N. Or other International Ngos that we have been able to track. We have heard the Saudi Arabian government say they are providing assistance, but we have not been it is not through the traditional ways we have been able to see. And do we have any evidence on the ground that there is assistance being provided by saudi arabia . Usaid does not have evidence at this time. I am unaware if our partners, maybe certain ngos or the u. N. Have direct evidence of this. Thank you. Thank you. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director nims. Ght now we have a horrific crisis with the ethnic cleansing in burma and half a million refugees passing across the border to bangladesh. An enormous number of people. The flow continues i think 20,000 the last week or two. Another 20,000. So use this as an example of how a crisis is developing, how you respond currently, and how you can respond more effectively. Thank you for that question. What weve seen to put it in context, weve seen actually numbers now are 6 to almost 700,000 from myanmar, from fleed to bangladesh. To put it in perspective when we went to the camp in over, you know, about a five to sixmonth period we saw upwards of 250,000 people at that that crossed the border from south sudan into uganda. What youve seen, what we are seeing in bangladesh is in a three to four week period close to six to 700,000 people crossing over into an area, a very small area. So just to put that in context we are at the beginning of a very huge amount of humanitarian crisis. So there is, your team is in this business of responding. What is it youre doing and tell us how changes in the obstacles you face could enable you to be more effective, get there more quickly, get there with more assistance, different types of Food Assistance as appropriate. Hats happening in the short version . And how could you have been more effective if we changed some rules or regulations . Ims thus far food for peace works in very good coordination with state Departments Office of population, refugees, and migration, and basically a leading role in helping set up actual camps through their partners whether it be un h. C. R. Or the International Office of migration. I can say thus far on the ground food for peace has been intimate hi involved and theyve worked diligently together. Here is what im looking for. How many ships do you have . Where is the food coming from . Is it prepositioned . Do you have plains planes in the air . Are you requesting cargo planes . Are there obstacles that you run into . So people will starve before we can get there effectively . Im happy everybody is working together. What is happening and how could it be improved . In this case, because we have a relatively large Operation Development program weve been able to use our Development Resources and partners to ensure food has arrived there. We are well set to buy locally through our partners through the i. D. A. Funds to ensure we have food there and ready to go. Because of the remoteness weve had to improve the logistics meaning roads even, construction to ensure partners get there. What could we do . The increased flexibility allows our office to do what is needed whether shipping in more quickly, the foods that senator isaacson talked about. We are able to do that with the funds we have now and we are doing that. But in these type of dynamic situations having flexibility to do this to be able to respond to changing needs over such a fast time will give us better abilities to handle this effectively. So i would say that we are well set right now to do this and have been as we look forward to as this crisis develops the increased flexibility we have or can have will enable us to ensure we are meeting needs. That is very vague. Ill follow up with you. Do you have a command center . If i walked in do you have a command center where your experts on all the logistics and you say hey we need bulldozers to get a road in there, we need gravel, how are we going to do that . Can we really buy locally . No because everyone in the area is already starving. So how does that change it . What do we have prepositioned . Where is it at . How can we recommend wii sigs it . How can we recommend wii sigs it . Do you have a command center like that to respond to the world emergencies . We do not have a command sent inner the u. S. Right now to respond to that. We have our people on the ground. U. S. Food for peace has sent two additional staff to augment the mission team there at the Usaid Mission team. That type of coordination is happening on the ground right now. Ok. If i could the Quick Response that youve been able to have here is because youre using the i. D. A. Funds we gave you the flexibility to use is that correct . That is correct. If you were using u. S. Commodities, to get there, it might take four to six months to even get the food there in he first place, correct . Yes, in that sense. We do have Development Partners so wed be using some of their food but you are exactly correct. Kind of the point of the hearing. The flexibility we have given him has allowed him to more fully respond to this. If we can do even more of that, more people could be helped. We thank you very much for your service. Its a shame by the way we ont have a leader in burma. That cares about the rohingyas in the first place that could keep the military from doing what they are doing to march people across the border. I hope she will be addressed by every world leader for her insensitive handling of whats happening there. Its something that she, herself, is helping create. With that, thank you so much for your testimony and service to our country. Ill move to the next panel. Thank you so much. Thank you, senator. Yes, sir. I want to thank mr. Nims for his outstanding testimony and service to our country and we will now move to our second panel. There are going to be some votes. We apologize. Let me apologize in advance. Well have some people disappearing because of votes. This testimony will be very important as it relates to us moving ahead. Our first witness is mr. Tom alito director of International Affairs and trade at the Government Accountability office g. A. O. Our second witness, i spent some time with him this morning, professor of agricultural at cornell university. He has done outstanding work on this topic. Our third witness is bill okeefe referred to earlier Vice President of Government Relations and advocacyy at the catholic relief services. We thank you for what you and your organization does in this regard. With that, if each of you could summarize in about five minutes if you have any written materials you want entered into the record without objection it will be. It you could just begin in the order of introduction we appreciate it and thank you all for your tremendous efforts. Thank you. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our 2015 report on congo preference for food aid. The United States shipped 1. 5 Million Metric Tons of food aid in fiscal year 2015. Under current u. S. Law at least 50 of u. S. Food aid must be shipped on u. S. Flag vessels which was reduced from 75 in 2012. Usaid and usda administered the food aid programs. The department of transportation is responsible for monitoring usaid and usda adherence to cargo preference requirements. Our remarks today address three topics. First cargo preferences impact on food aid. Second, the extent to which cargo preference contributes to sea lift capacity. And, third, g. A. O. s recommendations. Regarding the first topic, we found that cargo preference increased the costs of shipping food aid for usaid and usda by 107 million from april, 2011, through september, 2014. Flagged vessels charged on average 25 less for shipping than u. S. Flag vessels. According to d. O. T. , this is due to several factors including higher crew, maintenance, and overhead costs. We also found that usda paid higher shipping rates and used fewer foreign flag vessels than usaid because of differing applications of cargo preference requirements between the two agencies. According to the law, compliance for cargo preferences tracked by Geographic Area if this term is not defined, pursuant to court order usda must measure compliance on a country by country basis forcing them to use only u. S. Flagged vessels to countries where there is just one shipment per year. This prevented usda from realizing much benefit from the lowering of the cargo preference rate. However, usaid benefited considerably more since its not bound by the court order on a global basis for the packaged food and regionally for bulk food aid. Regarding the second topic, cargo preferences contributions to sea lyft capacity, the number of vessels carrying food aid and u. S. Mariners required to crew them has steadily declined despite the application of cargo preference. From 2005 to 2014, the number of u. S. Flag vessels carrying food aid declined from 89 to 38 and the number of mariners fell from about 1300 positions to approximately 600. According to the department of defense officials, available vessel and mariner capacities has been historically sufficient to meet all of the needs. However, defenses most serious scenario envisions a full activation of the entire reserve fleet for an extended period of time including the use of some commercial sea lifts. Under this extreme scenario, d. O. T. Estimated about 13,000 mariners from both military and commercial needs while the coast guard showed over 16,000 potentially qualified, actively sailing mariners, d. O. T. Stated that only about 1 is,000 mariners would be readily available. However, transportation estimates did not include the almost 2,000 officers in the strategic sea lift officer program of whom over 1,000 were not actively sailing and could potentially be called up. We requested that d. O. T. Rovide us the detailed methodology, however they did not provide the detailed methodology to us. For the third topic we had one method for congressional consideration and one recommendation to the secretary of transportation. Regarding the matter for congressional consideration, despite two past year recommendations, u. S. Agencies have not agreed on a consistent method to implement cargo preference based on Geographic Area. As such congress should consider clarifying cargo preference legislation regarding the definition of Geographic Area to ensure that agencies can fully unify for Flexibility Congress granted them when it lowered the cargo preference requirements in 2012. G. A. O. Also recommended the secretary of transportation study the potential availability of all qualified mariners needed to make a full and prolonged activation of the reserve sea lift fleet. In its written comments, d. O. T. Concurred with the recommendation but it remains unimplemented. In september, 2016, d. O. T. Tested mariner availability for an initial activation of the full fleet. However, this exercise did not gauge the manner, availability the mariner avail ability nder the most severe scenario. This completes my prepared statement. I will respond to any questions you may have. Thank you so much. Dr. Barret . Chairman corker, Ranking Member cardin, honorable senators, thank you for the opportunity to summarize what best recent Research Tells Us about food aid policies and how we might more effectively use those resources to address global Food Insecurity. U. S. Food aid programs have played a crucial role in saving and improving lives worldwide for more than 200 years. Sadly, the need for International Food assistance is growing. For the First Time Ever in 2017 the United Nations declared four nations in famine or near famine conditions and proclaimed this is the largest humanitarian crisis since the u. N. s creation in 1945. But budgetary resources have shrunk by 76 in inflation adjusted terms since the 1960s. As a result, the agencies that provide front line humanitarian assistance are chronically under funded. With food aid funding scarcer and needs greater we must get smarter in how we use these resources. Congress should make two reforms in particular to enhance the Cost Effective use of increasingly scarce food aid resources, first to relax or better eliminate the cargo preference restrictions, and, two, relax the restrictions that compel commodity purchase only in the United States. Anticompetitive cargo preference predictably drives up costs by an estimated 23 to 46 depending upon whose estimates you use, costing us from 50 to 150 Million Dollars a year depending upon prevailing rates. Meanwhile, cargo preference does little to nothing to buttress military readiness beyond what is already provided for by the separately funded Maritime Security program m. S. P. Most u. S. Flag cargo preference vessels are not military useful by d. O. T. Criteria because of age, size, or vessel type. In 60 plus years under cargo preference, the pentagon has never mobilized a mariner or vessel from the nonmsp cargo preference fleet. Nor does cargo preference preserve an american fleet. The daily operating costs of u. S. Flag ships average 270 more than comparable foreign vessels partly because of the fact that theyre typically slower, smaller, and older than their competitors. Cargo preference also generates negative religionable gains for port regions where the maritime work force. Because food aid represents less than 0. 3 of merchandise exports from the United States, and even in those ports that handle food aid shipments, it is less than 1 of their merchandise export volumes. Cargo preference matters only for a very small number of owners of bulk and break bulk ships with limited alternative commercial uses. In 2016, just 13 vessels from only three companies accounted for more than 83 of the u. S. Food aid shipments from this country. That sort of concentration would excite antitrust concerns in most sectors of the economy. Further more, many cargo preference vessels are ultimately owned by foreign corporations. So profit from the antistatutory restrictions are not even american companies. The second regulation congress should relax regards domestic procurement for food commodities. The most efficient way to meet the needs of hungry people is provide vouchers for cash based or electronic transfers or with food purchased locally or regionally, socalled , far more often than not cash or electronic transfers save time, money, and lives while providing foods that are equally healthy and safe and preferred by recipients over commodities shipped from the United States. The u. S. Government has experienced such modalities, especially through the Food Security program codified in law committee,d by this for which i applaud all of you. Their experience clearly demonstrates the more flexible methods typically outperform food aid. Some claim that food aid purchase in the u. S. Somehow helps american farmers. No credible study exists to support such a claim. U. S. Food aid programs support hundred dollars worth of commodities, but the u. S. Agricultural market is several hundred billion dollars, and is tightly integrated into a 4 trillion global agricultural economy. Farm prices and incomes are driven by Global Markets, not by the u. S. Food aid program. These and other restrictions on u. S. Food aid have real consequences. The u. S. Taxpayers earn more for in shipping and handling than on food. Every taxpayer dollars spent on food aid yields only 30 or . 40 of commodity to human people. Saving lives in disasters is relatively cheap. The 300 million to 400 million wasted on these various restrictions effectively costs us Something Like 40,000 childrens lives every year. What is the congress buying for an extra 40,000 child deaths . Very little. The fruit shipped from the u. S. Is a fraction of 1 of the Ocean Freight cargo from u. S. Ports, of usefulness aisles, and the deep maritime workforce is far too small to boost former or mariner boost farmer or mariner incomes. Congress should eliminate these restrictions. Usaid administrator the ability to exercise best practice. We can maintain the status quo and keep diverging u. S. Taxpayer money, accomplishing nothing significant for military americans incomes, while costing the lives of disaster affecting children, or we can better serve the worlds hungry and serve this nations great heritage of leadership by providing costeffective assistance to the downtrodden throughout the world. Thank you very much for your time and interest. Thank you for that outstanding testimony. Corker, you chairman cardin, ander members of the council for the food for peace program. The committed staff of the office of food for peace has been a mainstay of the american response to hunger for over 60 years, and it reflects the generosity of the American People. Since its founding, food for peace has only gotten better, and today is a dynamic program, effectively delivering a hand up to people and communities otherwise left out of foreign assistance. In natural and conflict emergencies, food for peace provides lifesaving food to millions of people in vulnerable communities. We believe this program now to go to a Live Campaign event for Lieutenant Governor ralph northam, who is running for virginia governor. The Campaign Event is in richmond