Transcripts For CSPAN2 USAID Food For Peace Program 20171023

Challenge. Next years farm bill deliberations, we have an opportunity to do more with out having to spend your money. Little over half of our food aid is provided through the farm bill in our food for Peace Program. The farm bill requires aid to be sourced almost entirely from u. S. Farmers. Half of which must be shipped on u. S. Flagged vessels according to the rules. These restrictions result in spending as little as 35 35 40 cents on the dollar on food. Let me say this one more time. Because of these ridiculous requirements, only 35 or 40 cents of each dollar is actually used to provide food to people who are starving. If we relax the preference to meet the needs overseas, the cost would drop dramatically. U. S. Farmers would still play a vital role in the program and we would free up over 300 million in taxes to be used to feed up to nine and half 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 rules. Representatives of the shipping industry claim that food aid has a Significant Impact on u. S. Maritime jobs in military sea life capacity to move Defense Materials overseas. Ive asked our witnesses, we have two panels today to provide the committee with facts, analysis, and sound research to determine whether this is true. For example, the industry argues that 40 ships and 2000 mariners needed for military sealift are at stake should we reduce the amount of food aid we shipped from the u. S. A simple review of usaid data shows in 2016, only five u. S. Flagged ships out of a fleet of 175 arguably rely on food aid shipments to stay afloat. Let me say this. Only one of which is even capable of carrying military cargo. One. Some have even questioned why we have cargo preference at all since there is little supporting evidence that the requirement effectively secures sealift capacity. For example, the vast majority of food aid is moved on ships incapable of moving military cargo. The ones that can already receive a 5 milliondollar. Year subsidy. According to the navy officials, briefing our Committee Earlier this year, we maintain a strategic sealift officer reserve program that can meet virtually all of our mariner sealift mobilization requirements. We also cannot forget the human toll of commodity and cargo preferences with millions and millions of people who go hungry each year, unnecessarily because of these two ridiculous requirements. One of our witnesses, doctor barrett of Cornell University will testify later that Research Suggests at least 40000 children die annually who would otherwise be saved if we reformed the system. There are a few areas in government where we can have more impact on lives without Additional Resources them by modernizing the food for Peace Program. I urge all my colleagues to listen to todays testimony, work with us to make common sense changes in food aid that are long overdue. I spoke to the tennessee farm bureau. The audience was aghast at the fact that here in washington, those people who represent them would. 1 of all u. S. Ag exports going to this. Not 1 ,. 1 . They were aghast that congress had people appear in the name of protecting them. These are good people who care about their communities. They care about people around the world. They were aghast at the fact that congress had these ridiculous requirements in place and that people are starving because of these ridiculous requirements when their goal is to feed america and to feed the world. With that, Ranking Member carter. Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for conducting this hearing. I think every member of this committee very much 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 dimensions of this problem. I dont think any of us have experienced the real fear of hunger, maybe because of our schedules, we might miss a meal, but we dont understand what 815 Million People globally face which is a real fear of whether they will be able to 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. It means people, especially women and children are dying of hunger. Dying of hunger. The un has called this the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. The chairman is right. This is an urgent issue and needs to be dealt with. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate that you and senator coons recently traveled to some of these countries to learn how the u. S. Can best help those in need and are working on legislation to modernize and reform the food aid program. Theyre not easy places to get to and we appreciate very much you taking the time to better understand by seeing the circumstances on the ground. I agree with you that our values as americans and as leaders in the Global Community means the United States must commit to improving how the world is tackling this crisis. That means taking a close and honest look at how our policies toward food aid and improving global Food Security can be most impactful. It means ensuring Adequate Funding for these programs. Adequate funding is important. Yes you can reform and you can get better use of our funds, but it does require we put up the resources. For more than 60 years, the United States has played a leading role in tackling hunger. We are still, by far, the Worlds Largest food aid donor in cases of disaster, natural or manmade, the American People are the most generous in the world. As we look to modernize the food aid program, we should not only look at the shipping requirements, but also address issues related to prepositioning food aid in the region, concerns about monetization practices, options for increasing cash space options, and support local and regional purchasing programs. We also should be sure to adequately fund our Food Security efforts that invest in local agricultural markets such as feed the future which helps mitigate the need for emergency food aid to help foster thriving communities. Our Development Programs require Adequate Funding. As we embark on this effort to reform our food aid program, there will always be a space for food grown in the u. S. To be shipped abroad. Sometimes its just not possible to address the needs in the local market. Our focus should be given the flexibility to use the best method for each situation. With a tailored approach aimed at providing as much choice as possible, we can feed more people and save more lives. I do look forward to all of our witnesses but i want to particularly acknowledge bill okeefe who is here. We take particular pride because their presence in baltimore, we admire greatly the work that they do globally and were glad to have him on our second panel. Thank you very much. I saw bill earlier this morning and our other witness at the second panel, thank you for your comments. Our first witness is the acting director for the food for peace ait, matthew nims. He manages both our International Food assistance programs, reformed Emergency Food Program we authorize last congress, and the reform authorized in the farm bill. Thank you for being here. We understand you can summarize your comments in about five minutes. Any information you have will be entered into the record. Thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our country. Thank you. Chairman corker, Ranking Members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today about how to increase the Cost Effectiveness and agility of the food for Peace Program. We are grateful for your support to humanitarian efforts at this critical moment in history. As the Committee Members know, we are facing unprecedented levels of global Food Security tackling some of the comments on the Opening Statement of Ranking Member cardin. In conflict zones of south sudan, somalia and yemen alone, more than 20 Million People are atrisk of hunger or se starvation. The u. S. Has provided assistance helping to stem nutrition and contain deadly disease like cholera. These countries present only a small fraction. Global hunger increased in 2017 for the first time in more than a decade. Food insecurity now and affects 11 of the worlds population for that is 815 Million People going to bed hungry each night. More than twice the population of the United States. In response to this great need, the office has provided lifesaving Food Assistance for people in need in about 50 countries. Providing Food Assistance to the most Vulnerable People reflects americas compassion and generosity. Its also critical to our National Security. Where hunger persists, instability grows. U. S. Food assistance in all forms contributes to a more stable world where people have a chance to lead healthy, productive lives. Given these challenges and the need to improve Cost Effectiveness and efficiency, the logistics is incredibly important. Today i will focus on one challenge, how we procure and ship commodities through the title to program. Under title ii we received funds to purchase u. S. Commodity such as wheat, rice and flour gum and other products. Working closely with our partners, we identify when and where u. S. Commodities are needed and we arrange for the them to be shipped from the u. S. Port to their destination. Upon arrival the food is distributed in various ways, always prioritizing the most vulnerable, usually children under five, pregnant women and other vulnerable populations. The shipment of commodities overseas is a critical step in the title to process. The cargo preference acts require that at least 50 of the gross tonnage of the u. S. Ocean cargo must be transported on u. S. Flagged, privately owned commercial vessels to the extent those vessels are available at fair and reasonable rates. However, in many cases, food for peace has found the u. S. Flag fleet is not always available to provide services needed. In 2017 we did not receive a single offer from the u. S. Flagged vessels on over 250,000 metric tons of commodity we offered. The majority of our bulk cargo is carried by only for u. S. Flagships which can tribute to the challenges to respond in emergencies. Another obstacle is the lack of direct shipping services to certain regions. Food for peace destinations in u. S. Flagged vessel routes are not always matched. Flag services do not exist to most of our destination ports directly, particularly in western and Southern Africa. Finally, there is a matter of cost. In fiscal year 2016, it cost food for peace more. Ton to use flagged vessels. This had a Significant Impact on programs. Cargo preference requirements mean we pay millions more for Ocean Freight out of the food for Peace Program budget each year. Now more than ever, every dollar counts. Our primary concern at food for peace is to stabilize, relieve suffering and reach people in need. Too do this, the best we can, we are constantly looking to put improve our performance reach as many people as possible and ensure we make the most Cost Effective use of american tax dollars. Thank you again for your invitation today. Im happy to take your questions. Thank you. I typically dont ask questions first but i am today. I will try to be brief. Maritime industry claims 40 u. S. Flagged ships rely on these shipments to stand business and provide hours military was sealift capability. I want to reiterate some of the things youre saying. Five ships carried 66 of all food under the cargo preference law that you are having to adhere to. The rest of such food aid was spread amongst 19 ships to thats just 24 total ships with only five that rely arguably on food aid to stay afloat. Is it typical for such a small concentration of the u. S. Flagged vessels to carry such a large percentage of u. S. Today . Thank you for the question senator. In the past two years, that has been the norm where very small number of ships carry the majority of our bulk cargo. To be clear, 2016 we had five ships that carried the majority but in the middle of the year one of the ships was scrapped by industry so it became for ships that carried over 60 of our cargo. And why is that the case . Because we have to rely on u. S. Flagged ships, theres a concentration in these two companies on the ships, is that correct and theres Just Two Companies that provide those for ships . Those for ships or five ships are owned by two companies. They do have the appropriate ships to carry u. S. Cargo and we are not receiving other offers from other shipping lines available. If they want u. S. Flagged, would you receive other offers from other companies . Yes. To put it in perspective, we had 26 ships we used for u. S. Flags, we had over 90 ships that werent flagged. How many or even capable of providing sealift capacity for military cargo. I would defer that to my colleagues on whats military useful or not. What is proven useful for use are the bulk carrier. How much does it cost leadership on u. S. Flagged vessels than foreign vessels. Using 2016 to give you that answer, we paid on average. Ton 135. Metric ton on u. S. Ships. On foreign ships we paid on average 65. Ton. I think ill stop. I can imagine why because people around the world to start to support two Companies Based in new york. Somebody else may have a rational reason for that but i will defer to the ranking membe member. And want to go into the areas of reform that we had in the 2014 farmville that allowed additional flexibility in regards to inkind and commodity based food aid and allow the use of the a id disaster accounts for emergency Food Security programs. Could you just, as to those changes, how they have impacted our ability to respond to the global needs . Thank you for the question senator. The addition or the emergence of the Disaster Assistance funds have been instrumental for us to combat Food Insecurity around the world. There are several areas where inkind 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 inkind title to Food Assistance would not have an impact that our voucher in tax based assistance have allowed. Its also helping us lead innovation. For example, for voucher programs outside of syria, we have developed scans to ensure the people weve identified are those people receiving the food vouchers. In addition, it has allowed us to buy food locally and regionally to be able to respond in a much more quick basis. The fear of being able to move the appropriate commodity to the place in a small amount of time is crucial to save lives. They have given us that flexibility to do exactly that. Our ultimate goal is to have selfsustaining countries on their own food supply, resiliency. Can you just tell us how the flexibilities that you had the use of these funds, are they being targeted so that we do aim to achieve the resiliency so that the local communities can in fact one day be able to handle their own food needs . Thank you for that question. Most definitely. When we use the funds, we do a marketbased assessment to ensure the markets are there and able to support this. Sometimes, by incentivizing the market were making it stronger to allow the area affected by this crisis to more quickly recovery. In a sense, instead of bringing in words inappropriate, for commodity and disrupting and having negative Market Impact, were actually incentivizing the market. Most definitely, these programs, they give us the flexibility where appropriate and our teams to the study to ensure this is the case. Where appropriate, we are actually strengthening market and getting the group back on her feet more quickly. I think i understand why we do want to try station, this is a source of funds and otherwise you cant get the funds unless you use this method, it seems terribly inefficient to ship food overseas, sell it in order to get money for the programs that you need. Isnt there a better way . Monetization is part of the farmville at this time and it stipulates we do 15 to do monetization. It has been a way to generate those crucial funds as you said. We are losing, on average, 75 cents on the dollar, if not more when we have done traditional monetization programs in the past. We have one program in bangladesh that fulfills the requirement and that is not the most efficient ways to generate the funds to support those development program. I understand th the requirements and the thirdparty need for funds and this is one of the ways they can get funds, but i think youd be answering my question, this is not the most efficient way to be able to get resources to deal with problem. This is not the most efficient way to do that, yes, and i believe, im hopeful that as we go forward we can develop new ways or more efficient ways to provide that necessary cash aspect. Thank you. 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, this is a big issue to us. With our program where we would like usaid to help countries be self sustainable, thats our goal, over time these countries, through our program we take our commodities, ship them overseas, lose 70 cents on the dollar and then sell them submarket prices in the market and destabilize the very farmers and those areas that were hoping over time could build the capacity to feed their people. Its the most idiotic requirement one could possibly come up with. Again, the entire program is. 1 of what our whole u. S. Ag output is. Meaning, it has no effect on our agriculture community. I reserve my seven seconds. Youre absolutely right, if we appropriated the money so they had the money, this is done because of local agricultural interest but supported by thirdparty groups because of the source of funds they couldnt otherwise get. We would need to make sure its appropriated in another part and allow you and others to carry this out. I agree that one 100 . Its really an issue of staffers keeping under their wing additional dollars that the ag community doesnt want them to keep. But anyway, senator young. Thank you chairman. Its good to see you again. You testified before my subcommittee on july 18 and i was grateful for that. I would like to follow up with you and 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 cholera. Could you kindly provide a quick summary . Think of a question. Yes, yemen still represents one of the most largest public humanitarian crisis in terms of numbers. An estimated 17 Million People out of a population of 27 million are food insecure at this time. 7million of those completely dependent on humanitarian assistance for their survival at this time. Since last time we spoke, the cholera epidemic continues. We have over 770 documented cases from the World Health Organization with over 2000 deaths, mostly in elderly and children. In our subcommittee hearing, you identified the port of david as the critical point of entry for humanitarian supplies to mitigate and alleviate the suffering. Can you explain the importance of that port to relief efforts and how the delivery of funded cranes would facilitate delivery of food and medicine through the port. I definitely affirm that it is the principal lifeline for humanitarian operations as well as commercial activities. Yemen is dependent upon 90 exports to receive its food. It is crucial and how this goes forward. You are correct that usaid did sponsor and purchase for cranes on behalf of the World Food Program to improve Port Operations. Those cranes remain in saudi arabia in the warehouse. They were denied entry by the coalition of forces at this time. Usaid maintains that the addition for these cranes to Port Operations would greatly improve the throughput of that port to allow additional humanitarian and commercial cargo to more quickly throughput through the port and have an impact on the situation. You mention saudi arabia. I think you meant to say the cranes were in dubai. Correct. Since you mentioned saudi arabia, i will move on to that. On june 27 the World Food Program sent a letter to the saudi government asking permission to the liver the cranes which were turned back by the Saudi Coalition some time ago. The content of the letter was again seeking permission to deliver those cranes to the port to execute the delivery of the humanitarian assistance. The argument we keep hearing, which is consistently met with a compelling counter argument is that there is a large scale of humanitarian assistance to the port and they say weve had no evidence of any largescale or systematic communitarian diversions occurring at the port at all. Is that still accurate . Yes. Would you say the humanitarian access and flow of aid into yemen continues to be a leading challenge. They are seeking to control access to the beneficiary communities. Thats something youve gone on record saying here today and before. Before youve indicated its a tool for advancing their cause. I want to put that in laymans terms to make clear what youve indicated. Are you saying today that the participants in the conflict in yemen are deliberately restricting food or medicine to vulnerable populations to advance their aims . Yes. Are those political aims . Yes. Are those war aims . Yes. In u. S. A id assessment or your assessment, are those participants including in the tabulated coalition . [inaudible] both sides are responsible for that situation. So it is your assessment that it includes the Saudi Led Coalition. Correct. Thank you. To be clear and add some clarity to our discussion related to yemen emma you just testified saying essentially the Saudi Led Coalition is using food as a weapon of war in yemen. They are a large part of the program, no doubt, but i believe we should use our partnership with the saudis to bring this unacceptable practice to an end without delay. Thank you. Thank you. You have mastered in the subject no doubt and we appreciate it very much. Senator tunes. Thank you. Thank you for this important hearing on an intolerable situation that is a requirement in statute that you and many other professionals do your best to execute on. Im grateful for your service and for the fact that we as a generous nation continue to try to meet the unbelievable challenge of 20 Million People starving or at risk of starving across just for 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 and so 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 my good friend senator isaacson in the chair and many others on the global Food Security act which permanently authorized emergency Food Security program and providing flexibility to the liver emergency food aid. As senator cardin reminded us, there will always be a role for u. S. Commodities in response to crises, but we can and should Work Together to find ways in advance of this coming farmville to remove some of these harmful restrictions and requirements that i think are so inefficient. Earlier this year, senator corker and i visited northern uganda and we were grateful for you joining us on that trip and both there and south sudan i had a chance to visit sites were people depend on food aid for their existence. Later, in august, i traveled to northeast nigeria were millions have been displaced, mainly by boko haram. I was struck by an Innovative Program that this is an example from save the children that i suspect is well known to you. When we talk about a cash assistance program, were not talking about sending out envelopes full of cash. We are talking about this, this is a card from a real specific individual in an idp camp that allows her to go out and buy locally, food that is appropriate for her and her children and it changes the relationship between this refugee camp and the Community Around it. It provides for stability in the local market, it provides for better relationship with tween the Refugee Community and the community that is hosting them, and it gives more control for individuals for how they feed their children, and frankly its much more traceable, transparen transparent, and efficient. I would like to ask a little bit more about these so called cash or voucher programs because i think theyre dramatically more efficient than the average person might realize. When i first heard about changing from sending shiploads of gat grain to cash, i thought thats not a good idea but thats not what were doing. Were doing it through very sophisticated means rather through cell phones or retinal scan so we actually have a very good idea whos getting mucwhat money to what purpose. Could you first speak to how u. S. Experience in the regional procurement has worked out so far and what are the benefits and the difficulties to some of these innovative, i need a better word than cash. Some of these innovative direct transfer food programs and how they help you respond to these food crisis. Thank you for that question. Thank you for again inviting me on that trip. What we are now calling these programs is marketbased assistance which means our teams on the ground work very hard to understand the market conditions, and to be clear there are some places in the world where there are no market in our crisis sees that exist and we are inclined Food Assistance can still play a role. , local procurement side, we work very hard with our partners to identify those areas, the markets that exist whether inside a country or in a region or different markets of africa where we can buy the needed commodity that does not exist in a place we need to go in a different location. Have our partners have the ability to buy this, adhering to the same rules and governance of procurement that we would use in the United States to ensure we get the right quality of food, a good quality of food. By doing that, the time saved is huge because the ocean lag is not there. Combined with the Market Impact system in the community of where we are working. What we have developed over the years is to ensure we are not having a negative impact, we are increasing prices or buying the wrong commodity or contributing to an existing crisis that might be there. That takes a lot of expertise of our partners to ensure that is happening. On the local procurement it has saved us both time and money and become more effective as an agency in addressing these concerns. On the other programs, these voucher programs for the programs that allow a Family Member to go to a local market or Grocery Store has developed the industry in these retinal scans or in this mobile money to ensure that the person too, the person that is supposed to receive the aid does receive that. to ensure that we are targeting those most food insecure and that we are having an impact. One more question, mr. Chair. The german anothers, we have spoken about the danger of monetization. I understand the benefit to the ngos, that the inefficiency is just sending. What are the negative and the resiliency of monetization . Shipping u. S. Commodities so they can be resold they are. At 75cent. I want to take this opportunity to correct that number. It was a 25cent loss on the dollar. Turn the record that is a 25cent loss on the dollar. Thank you for that question as well. There are urged those, primarily the balm in determination, which ensures that when we go into a country that we do look at the Global Market in that country to ensure that what we bring in has no impact on the market. We take that seriously and we have done not for quite some time. To answer your question, minimal detrimental impact on the market of the given country is what we strive to do because of what we have been doing. For usaid and food for peace, the biggest achievement as we lose 25 cents on the dollar and it does require that our partners who sell this food develop ways to be able to solve this food. They are not commodities brokers and it takes a Specialized Skill to do this effectively and not takes a lot of time and effort batters at running programs as opposed to being commodity brokers. Thank you, mr. Nims. We have it sustained u. S. Assistance while working together to make it more efficient given the scale and scope of the humanitarian aid around the world. Thank you for the hard work to make this massive humanitarian need. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I apologize, mr. Nims for being late by mr. Testimony. Food aid happened a few years ago. On a Small Company in georgia, you probably are familiar with man, which produced a threepoint night on Peanut Butter paste in a packet in huge volume and at the way you can actually keep children and adults alive and avoid malnutrition for a sustained period of time. Im not selling for mistake here, but the peanut is a great product and it tastes good on top of everything else. I got in the middle of trying to help them and found out there is a lot of politics going on in his food gets sent overseas and who takes it in particular in terms of nutrition. It was a French Company that really cornered the market in sustaining packets of vitamin fortified foods. In this case, it was somalia. Are there still a lot of companies that tried and cornered the market and not . How competitive is the standpoint of lowering the cost of price and maximizing the amount of food you can get overseas . Senator committee met for the question. Usaid in particular are incredibly proud of the red sea is therapeutic and Supplementary Food you mention both friend to other companies here in the United States as well as a geisha. We see this as a huge success that weve been able to work with these companies, u. S. Companies to develop this incredible crucial commodity that exists to save starving children and we realize that effectively over the last four years and increase 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 restrictions where we can program that food in our partners have accepted the fact regardless of the source we can use out where needed. We see that the price over time has become very competitive in the world market and we look at continuing to use this product because of the success. Usaid, i know, and his usda also provide food for overseas use . Yes, they do appear to make you work with them was that a separate function . We work very closely with them. Elements of usda purchased without and we work closely within the 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 those are actually sourced. Is that correct . Correct. They are a contractor. In this particular case of specialized nutrition products, and usaid food for peace, we purchased those directly ourselves. In word you get those . Is there an incentive to buy those in countries from developing nations beginning a program to reinforce what they are trying to do . We would be using our International Assistance fund to do that. If there are companies or facilities overseas, outside of europe that are able to produce a product that meets the requirements of the United Nations, unicef or partners, we would purchased 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 come our partners have purchased those using the disaster funds in our programs. Ive traveled the senator cruz anothers quite a bit and many of those are developing Sustainable Agricultural programs in everything we can do to reinforce that by buying their product will be used to keep other kids from going hungry would be a two for one win for us from the usaid in the country. I agree, sir. Thank you for what you do. Thank you. Thank you for a much presented her machine. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today and thank you are the hard reputed to make sure people get fed. You referred in your testimony to the amount of money that has been appropriated to help address for families that are going on right now. Can you be a little more specific about how much of that money has been dispersed from the holidays he means, what the progress and roadblocks we are experiencing in the distribution of food that are being bought by those dollars am just a followup up on senator youngs comments, clearly we are having a problem in yemen with trying to get help to people who need it. Can you talk more specifically about what is going on. Thank you for that question. I will attempt to answer that the best i can and is there something i of the file. First off, just a thing congress writ large for the incredible amount of Financial Support that food for peace received in 2017. As weve all said there is an unprecedented need in the world and i can say that for a fact or partners on the ground have not seen. We thought el nino in 2016. 2017 is unprecedented. Not just a scientific and defense. We have not seen this. In my correct, there was a report this week that talked about the direction the number of people who were food insecure is going up for the first time in a number of years. Youre absolutely correct, senator. Report that just came out, and it said in the first year in the past 10 years, malnutrition has increased. In other words, we have nsa World Community decreasing Food Insecurity around the world. This year the number has gone back the other way. This is the beginning of a very unfortunate and serious 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 was enough food being produced in the world to feed the hungry people. This is a direct cause of the conflict, the growing conflict existing in the world that is causing now. Of those four areas where seen famine case in point. Most directly as well as the democratic republic of the congo. Elements still in parts of the horn of africa continue to have conflict and cause this problem, yes. In response to your question, 990 million out of directly towards this combating famine. All of the 990 million was spent and all those four primary countries, both in the form of international Disaster Assistance, iea and its also utilize. We can pay the 990 million was all spent this year into the four countries indicated towards the end of the year, and of the fiscal year we really started getting that out the door in large volumes as well as making sure those primary partners and operations received funding and has been expended. We are carrying forward money from 2017 in 22018, which is not enough normal occurrence and will be carried forward. We are closing the books that we will be carried forward title ii resources as well as iba resources, the office of foreign Disaster Assistance and usaid. At are the claims that senator got referred to, where they purchased out of those dollars . They were purchased in 2016 if im correct and those were not part of the 2017 funds and they were purchased using international Disaster Assistance funds, yes. Can you talk about who are the next countries that are working in those four areas that have provided funding to try and address the prices . We can get back to you on the exact levels and assistance as we understand it at this time. Each one of those places are most, the highest honors may be different little bit between between the countries, but maintain the european union, what we call echo, in other words, they are group. The british government, the United Kingdom is usually in the top one or two. Theory of right now, 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 either saudi arabia or any of those countries are writing humanitarian assistance in yemen to address the crisis they are 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 are the saudi arabia government say that they are providing assistance, but it is not through the traditional ways that we have been able to see. 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. Im unaware of our partners, maybe certain ngos or the u. S. Have direct evidence of this. Thank you. Thank you. Senator marquee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director nims. Right now, we have been horrific crisis with the ethnic cleansing in burma and half a million refugees passing across the border to bangladesh. An enormous number of people will continue. I think 20,000 in the last week or two another 20,000. So use an example of poly crisis is developing, how you respond currently and how you can respond more effectively. Thank you for that question. What we have seen to put it in context, we have seen numbers now are six, almost 700,000 from burma, dmr, and has lead to bangladesh. To put this in perspective, when we went to bitty bitty camp, over a five to six months. We stopped upwards of 250,000 people across the border from south sudan into uganda. What we are seeing in bangladesh is in a three to four week. Close to six to 700,000 people crossing over into an area, a very small area. Just to put that in context, we are at the beginning of a very huge humanitarian crisis. The next of their days, your team is in this business of responding. What is it you are doing and palace how changes in the obstacles you face could enable you to be more effective, get there more quickly, more assistance, different types of Food Assistance. What is happening in the short version and how could you have been more effective if we change some rules or regulations . That far, food for peace is primarily charged in people across the border to feed the refugees of partners. We work in very good coordination with state Department Office of population on refugees and migration and they take the leading role as far as helping to set up the camps are the partners, whether it be unhcr and the international migration. I can say that the sparc prm and food for peace on the ground have been intimately involved in what is going on and it worked diligently together. Yours. Where is the worth of food coming from, dear planes in the air, are you requesting the planes, are there obstacles you run into . Are some people going to starve before we get there effectively . Im happy everyones working together. What is happening and how can it be approved . Because we have a relatively large operation, we can use or our Development Resources and partners to ensure food has arrived there. We are well fed through our partners to buy locally through the i. D. A fence to make sure they are ready to go. Because of the remoteness which also had to improve logistics to get there. What could we do with the increase of flexibility to allow her office, whether it is shipping in more quickly, the foods senator isakson talked about, we are all able to do that with the funds we have now and we are doing that. In these dynamic situations, having flexibility to do this, to be able to respond to the changing needs of those will give us better ability to handle this effect to leave. I would say that we are well fed right now and we have been as we look forward to the increase accessibility we have or can have will enable us to ensure we are doing this. Thats very vague. I will followup with you. You have a command center. Do you have a command center where you have experts in all the logistics say we need bulldozers to get roads in there, gravel, how are you going to do that. Everyone in that area is already starving, so how does that change it. What we have preposition, where is about, how is it impacted, do you have a command center like that to respond to these world emergencies . We do not have a command center here in the u. S. Right now to respond to that. We do have are people on the ground. U. S. Food for peace has sent two additional staff to augment the mission team that is their, prm has also sent additional staff to the area. That type of coordination is happening on the ground right now. Thank you. If i could come in the Quick Response youve been able to have here is because youre using the ida funds we give you the flexibility you spirit is that correct . And if youre using commodities that might take four to six months or even get the food there in the first place. Is that correct . Yes, as i said we do have Development Partners there so we would be using some of their food, the you are exactly correct. So the flexibility that we have given them have allowed him to more fully respond to this. If we could do even more about, more people could be held. We thank you for your service. And its a shame we dont have a leader in burma that cares about the ratings as in the first race that could keep the military from doing what they are doing to route these people across the border. I hope she will be devised by every world leader on the face of this earth for her insensitive handling of what is happening there. It is something she herself is helping create. With akamai thank you so much for your testimony and service to our country. Thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] i want to thank mr. Nims again 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. Let me apologize in advance. We will have some people disappearing because of the. This testimony will be very important as it relates to us moving ahead. First witness is mr. Tom alito, director of International Affairs and trade at the Government Accountability office gao. Our second witness is mr. Christopher berry at, professor of economics and agriculture at Cornell University has done some outstanding work on this topic. Third witness is mr. Bill okeefe was referred to earlier, Vice President for Government Relations and advocacy for relief services. We thank you are you in and your organization does in this regard. With that, each of you could summarize in about five minutes if you have any been written in the record without objection it will be and if you could begin in the order of introduction we appreciate it. Thank you all for your tremendous efforts. Thank you. Chairman corker, Ranking Member cardin, never said the committee for thank you for the opportunity to discuss her 2015 report in the United States shipped about 125 million major tons of food aid in 2015. Under current u. S. Law, 50 of u. S. Food aid must be shipped on five vessels which was reduced from 75 in 2012. Usaid administrator programs to the department of transportation d. O. T. Is responsible for monitoring usaid adherence requirements. Our remarks today address three topics. First, cargo preference impact on food aid. Second, the extent to which carbon preference attribute to the capacity and third dimaggios recommendation. Regarding the first topic without cargo preference increase the cost of shipping food aid to usaid and usda by 107 million in april 2011 through september 2014. Vessels charged on average 25 with five vessels and according to d. O. T. , this difference is due to several factors including higher crew come in the instant overhead class. The higher shipping rates and use foreign flagged vessels because of differing applications of preference requirements between the two agencies. According to the law, compliance tracked by Geographic Area but the trend is not defined. Pursuant to a court order, usc must measure compliance on a country by country basis forcing them to use only u. S. Five vessels to countries where theres just one chip in a year. This preventive benefit from the lowering of the cargo preference rate. However, they benefited more to fighting Geographic Area in the global basis and regionally. Regarding the second topic, cargo preferences capacity carrying food aid has steadily declined despite the application from 20052014, the number of vessels carrying food aid to clients or 89 to 38 and the number of narratives fell from 1300 positions through approximately 600. According to the department of defense officials, available vessel in capacity has historically been sufficient to meet all of the defense needs. However, the most serious scenario have full activations for an extended period of time including the use of some commercial lift. Under this extreme scenario, estimated 13,000 mariners are required military commercial needs to go the coast guard showed over 16,000 potentially qualified, d. O. T. Stated only 11,000 mariners would be readily available. However, transportation estimates did not include the 2000 officers in the program of foam over 1000 were not actively failing in could potentially be called a. We requested d. O. T. Providers to underline its estimate. Dear to did not provide the methodology to us. The recommendations had one monitor for congressional consideration to the secretary of transportation. Regarding the congressional consideration despite two recommendations, and u. S. Agencies have not agreed based on Geographic Area. Congress should consider clarifying cargo preference legislation regarding the definition of the area to fully utilize the Flexibility Congress granted them when it lowered the carbon requirements in 2012. The goal qualifying mariners inactivation. D. O. T. Concurred with the recommendation that remains unimplemented. In september 2016, d. O. T. Tested availability for an initial lack of a shame. However, this exercise did not gauge availability of the most severe scenario where they previously predicted a shortage. Chairman corker, Ranking Member cardin and member subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. It will please respond to any questions you have. Thank you very much. Talk to barry. Chairman corker, Ranking Member bear corker, thank you for the opportunity to summarize food aid policies and how we might more effectively use those resources to address mobile Food Insecurity. Usaid food programs have saved world Countries Worldwide for 200 years. Sadly the need for International Food assistance is growing. For the First Time Ever in 2017, the United Nations declared for nations in famine or near famine conditions in the claim that the largest humanitarian crisis in the u. S. Creation in 1945. Budgetary resources have shrunk by 76 in inflationadjusted terms since the 1960s. As a result the agencies that provide frontline humanitarian assistance are chronically underfunded. With food aid funding scarce for a needs greater, we must get smarter in how we use these resources. Congress should make two reforms in particular to enhance a costeffective use of increasingly scarce food aid resources to eliminate the cargo restrictions and 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 anywhere from 50 to 150 million a year in the prevailing rates. Meanwhile cargo preferences to backtrace military readiness beyond what is already provided for by the separately funded maritime Security Program. Most preference vessels are not militarily useful by dod criteria because of their age, size or vessel types. 60 plus years under cargo preference the pentagon has never mobilized the mariner or vessel from the noncargo preference flea. Nor do they preserve an American Fleet the daily operating costs of flagships averaged 270 more than comparable foreign vessels partly because of the fact the slower, smaller and older than their competitors. Cargo preference also generates negligible gains for the maritime work for us because food aid represents less than 23 of merchandise exports in the United States and even in those that handle shipments, it is less than 1 of their merchandise export volumes. It matters only for a very small number of owners of bulk ships with limited alternative commercial uses. In 2016, 13 vessels from only three companies accounted for 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. Furthermore, many vessels are ultimately owned by Foreign Corporations to the profiteers from the anticompetitive statutory restrictions on food aid are not even American Food companies. The second major restrictions for food and peace commodities. The most efficient and effective means is typically to provide them with cashbased electronic transfers for food purchased locally or regionally, socalled lrp. Far more often than not, cash or electronic transfers save time, money and lives while providing food that are equally healthy and safe and preferred by recipient over commodity shipped from the United States. U. S. Government has experienced such modalities especially through the emergency Food Security program and part of the global Food Security act of 2016 lead at this committee for which i applaud all of you. Experience demonstrates these flexible methods typically outperform food aid. Some claim food aid purchased in the u. S. Somehow helps american farmers. No credible study exist to support such a claim. U. S. Food aid programs handle hundreds of millions of dollars worth of commodities, but the u. S. Agricultural market is several hundred billion dollars in tightly integrated into a 4 trillion global agricultural economy. Farm prices and incomes are driven by Global Markets. They are not driven at all by the u. S. Food aid program. Its another restrictions on u. S. Food aid have real consequences. American taxpayers spend far more in shipping and handling the nonfood. Every tax dollar spent on u. S. Food aid yields only 35 cents to 40 cents a commodity to hungry people in the human cost is dark because saving lives and disasters is actually relatively cheap or the 300 to 400 million wasted on the various restrictions effectively cost is Something Like 40,000 childrens lives every year. What is the congress buying for an extra 40,000 annually . Tragically very little. The fraction of 1 of the food market through u. S. Ports, militarily useful vessels and maritime workforce is far too small to boost farmers incomes are mariners and comes noticeably or to enhance military readiness. What should the congress do . Give the secretary administrator the flexibility to end ploy best this. You have a choice to maintain the status quo and thereby keep diverting u. S. Taxpayer money to foreign companies, should nothing significant for military readiness for american incomes or we can make changes that can help us better serve the worlds hungry and honor this great nations long heritage of humanitarian leadership by providing assistance to the downtrodden throughout the world. Thank you very much for your time and interest. The night thank you for the outstanding testimony, mr. Okeefe. Thank you, for this opportunity to provide testimony on the food for Peace Program. The food for Peace Program and committed staff of the opposite food for peace has been a mainstay of the American West wants to longer for 60 years and it reflects the generosity of the American People. Since its founding its only gotten better and today is a Dynamic Program effectively delivering a hand out to people in and communities otherwise left out of foreign assistance. Natural conflict emergencies, food for peace with millions of people in vulnerable communities experiencing chronic conger developing programs built with resilience and prevent people from falling into desperation. Last year at eastern and Southern Africa were hit by the most severe el nino drought in a generation but an anticipated famine in ethiopia never materialized because food for peace, partnering with other u. S. And international entities, Catholic Relief Services and other groups had to the resilience of communities in drought prone areas and expanded Emergency Assistance to those who needed it. Similarly in malawi on neighboring communities needed emergency food aid, those who had participated in a developing programs that it ended two years prior were able to provide for themselves without emergency help. On behalf of these anothers reserve, especially by the preacher tony hancock proposed in the fy we must improve and expand food for peace and other foreign assistance programs. My written testimony provide sitespecific suggestions for food for peace. First eliminate the monetization requirement for Development Food for Peace Program, second, operates Community Development Fund Mechanism which replaces to a significant extent in supplements the cash funding that the 2014 farm bill increase. Third, streamline regulations and reporting for food for peace in the emergency Food Security program for more seamless responses. Fourth, elevate past performance is a critical factor in determining winning bids for contracts for any food shipped and finally eliminate the requirement on all food aid programs. I focused the rest of my marks uncarved preference briefly peer Catholic Relief Services in major implementers food aid programs including the food for Peace Program managed by usaid and the food for education and food for progress programs managed by usda. The cargo preference requirement only 50 of the food must be on u. S. Vessels. We wish you in 201320142015. And conduct analysis. We learned that programs during that time with all the food shipped for usda and usaid and we discover that over the period from the u. S. Flag carriers were 18 to 15 than foreign flag carriers the year by year and they were 80 to 162 then usda programs. If u. S. Flag carriers have matched the average foreign flag rate in each of these years, we would have spent 23. 8 million months in shipping during this threeyear period and we did a little back of the envelope math and we think that comes up to about half a million additional emergency food aid recipient we couldve held. Annual congressional appropriations pay for shipping with a u. S. Or foreign flag as part of our nations response to hunger and poverty around the world. Extra money spent on shipping is money not spent feeding hungry people. Im not qualified to judge whether the cargo preference requirement to choose the necessary National Security objective of maintaining sea lift with a laudable goal of providing jobs tied to that capacity. However we are Catholic Relief Services deeply appreciate the service and sacrifice of mariners who will deliver food aid for the last 60 years. We welcome your contribution in ways that do not reduce the programs ability. Surely there are other ways of supporting and maintaining our nation without indirectly penalizing hungry people. Short of eliminating the cargo preference requirement, we do have specific recommendations that could be considered to reduce its unintended negative consequences. Id be happy to discuss these or any other issues of interest to the country. That some of the best testimony weve had before our committee and i rest my case. I will defer my questioning time to senator cardin who is going to defer his times to senator mccain who showed up late as usual. The late as usual part is a joke. I want to correct our chairman. I might have a few questions for the record but we are tight on time. Lucas senator mccain an opportunity to question. At 10 00 scholar. Good testimony. I want to direct my question to mr. Okeefe. In your experience working at the food for Peace Program, i would love to hear your assessment of aspects of food aid relative to the cashbased assistance. We have been in a couple years into that if you could share your days on our rebalancing it right now. That would be helpful. Absolutely. Thank you, senator. In our assessment, cash is a very important tool to have in our toolbox and we deeply have appreciated the additional flexibility of the program has granted in the efs the program authorized by this committee as part of the global Food Security act. We still need food aid in very specific situations. In ethiopia for example where the need is huge and critical. In south sudan wireless two years ago the overall lack of food available in the unbelievable need and Food Assistance from outside. In terms of cash assistance, over the last year, crs is providing 77 million of cash marketbased assistance of the type we have been discussing in this hearing. That is doubled since fy fit teen unanticipated will continue to grow. From Northern Nigeria have a safe program is an excellent one similar to one we are also doing and you can get that somewhere, but we are the one thing i want to add to that is that not conflict situation, we are able to track and monitor the Food Distribution through this marketbased system on a card they use to buy food in the store. We can monitor through the internet who is buying that was stored in real time. In places where we cant actually go safely so it allows us to extend further than we might normally be able to do because theyre just security situations. The balance i think is Getting Better certainly in cash is critical. Do you think the balance is Getting Better and the usaid family regional leaders have the tools they need to decide how to address the balance to properly account for whats best in any circumstance . I think that there is still situations where the right tool is not available at the right time. But i dont have an aggregate sense worldwide of kind of what is holding that. I can say for the essay topic relief services, having to make the market in the people we are assessing is absolutely critical which is what weve been advocating for increased flexibility if you can ask whether you have any significant difference of opinion with what mr. Okeefe has said that cash in direct food aid you i completely agree. While i studied food programs come especially there is considerably greater flexibility youre using it quite well and i applaud usaid. The labor extremely well against constraints by statutes, but those are biting their strengths. They slow delivery and cost money. Groups are being efficient and creative but we could do better. Mr. Melito. We have consistently called in a i. D. To make sure they have been sent directly to choose the right modality. The red option, but sometimes its actually bringing commodities. To know the underlying problem first. You can hit inflation. The last question on squid 30 seconds left as are we doing enough with their Ngo Community to promote the growth of the Agricultural Sector of economies that are hard hit. Obviously i see a real correlation between strong Agricultural Production and that is an important question that they can address their doing enough they are. We can certainly do more. The addition, they have a sword of moving up the market chain of involvement in the Us Government has now placed the food for Peace Development program which helps support communities, farmers to become market ready in the future program which helps those who are already beginning to participate in the market to engage and earn more income and then become fully selfsufficient and leaders in their community. Having all those tools in place is very important. They are not mutually exclusive. They dont overlap completely and we need the food for Peace Development program on a part of our agricultural strategy. We could all agree to that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, chairman and mr. Ranking member. Direct my questions to you, mr. Melito appears appreciative gao and all the reports are produced in the recommendations you make. As of yesterday, department of state had 119 open recommendations, 20 of which are still up in. Usaid had 42 open recommendations, 11 of which are priority. 20 of those recommendations relate directly to Food Assistance and five of those are priority, so its really important to my mind that these recommendations are addressed on the accounts of efficiency and effectiveness. It is my belief that if they were adopted the efficiency and effectiveness of the food sufficiency of programs do you share that . Not very much so. There have been a number of recommendations for a i. D. On food aid, but the remaining ones should also be close. I want to commend the agency for a closing note, but theres still a lot of important work to do. February 16 i introduced the department of state usaid accountability act of 2017 and it would require congress to receive a report from agencies like state in a i. D. About each of these open recommendations. We want them to identified an implementation timeline, reach out to any gao recommendation or an explanation as to why they dont intend to implement. It seems reasonable. So its able to work with the chairman and his staff to get that included in the department of state authorities still and there was a legislation we include in this Years National Defense Authorization act. Im working on broader legislation. An undercurrent is actually an original cosponsor of this legislation that would require all federal agencies report outstanding recommendations from the ig and the gao is part of the annual budget justification. Do you believe this type of legislation would improve the efficiency and affect the massive agencies across our federal government . Cares very deeply about the recommendations. We strive for 80 of our recommendations to be close. Any effort on part of the congress to improve visibility and awareness and use pressure on the agencies to close recommendations is welcome. Thank you so much. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to a genuinely excellent panel providing detailed and thorough testimony on some of the maddening ongoing restrictions on the effectiveness and efficiency in u. S. Food aid in genuinely inspiring efforts we are making jointly to meet the hungry world. Might ask about the Maritime Program because weve explored a little bit but theres a lot of other issues at the maritime Security Program is designed to ensure the department of defenses ondemand access during times of war or national emergency. He noted in your written testimony the department of defense has never mobilized a mariner or vessel from the cargo preference fleet. Is there any evidence youve come across in your many years of working on this field to support the idea cargo preference is necessary for a military sea lift capacity . Thank you for the question, senator cruz. No come the simple answer is no sqrt note. The military readiness for the cargo preference freak is quite low. We have a large fleet that is military ready but its in the Ready Reserve fleet, the military sea lift command and the Maritime Program which is a call option on up to 60 lists paid 5 million year for being prepared to mobilize for the pentagon if and when needed. The pentagon is never needed in recent times of war to activate those three types of resources, Ready Reserve fleet in the maritime sea lift command and msp. Cargo preference does not enhance military readiness. With plenty of of readiness or other mechanisms you thank you and one other question if i may. Our friend and colleague from maryland, former senator mikulski very pointedly asked me if we were to shift to a predominantly cashbased system of Food Assistance, wouldnt that undermine the coalition of groups, shippers, maritime unions, commodity groups that have historically advocated actively for a title ii bleeding through reduction in overall food aid assistance, thus actually leaving if your hungry people getting fed. Would any of the three of you care to comment on that assertion . Senator cruz come is certainly true there is an Unusual Alliance of shippers, ngos and a few over the years to support title ii. This committee and the congress have advanced alternative mechanisms that prove much more efficient in many mentors give Emergency Food Program in particular. If title ii were to go away and im a fan of title ii, but if you were to go away and they were to be augmentation, we would see enhancement in the service of emergency effective populations around the world. Title ii is declining steadily. Keep in mind as i testified earlier in the 76 decline in u. S. Food aid programs since the heyday in the 1960s or the coalition is that maintaining the real purchasing power of the programs. When you say 76 you may not those dollars dedicated to purchasing u. S. Commodities and shipping them overseas . The overall budget has declined by 76 and the margin that differentiates foreign flags from u. S. Flag carriers has actually grown so the decline in true commodity terms is deeper still. Thank you, senator for that question, obviously an incredibly important one. I think we as a country must do the right thing for the people who are trying to serve and continue to find ways to learn from what we are doing and to improve it and we are certainly committed to the relief services. But caution is my understanding in europe and dr. Barrett and mr. Melito may know more, but when they went from an inkind to cashbased system, the total amount of resources went down enough that the efficiency gain did not kind of keep a period so i just think that has to be thought through. I dont think that is a good excuse for doing things that are in effect did for an efficient, that maintaining Political Support for helping hungry people is something we have to exercise care about. The last thing ill say in terms of the farmers, i do think the farmers here understand farmers overseas than the ones ive talked to dont understand the dynamics and they made this point very clearly in her meeting with the Tennessee Farmers association. They dont understand how it works in the kind of an effect to miss, but it does mean something to damage a human level that means that they produce end up in the mouths of people who need it. I think that is something we should not toy with. I too have spoken to the farm bureau in my state about this issue. There is a deep and deserved pride in americas Agricultural Community and being the most credit to farmers on earth, feeding a hungry world, but when they hear about the numbers and inefficiency of how we currently do it, farmers tend to be thrifty people. It makes them crazy and concern that we be more efficient. Im determined to work with all of you to sustain our support for u. S. Food assistance. U. S. Programs to efficiently meet the needs of the hungry world rather than celebrating efficiency of the least a few were being fed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We have about 30 seconds left. There were three votes. And when to close out the meeting as soon as senator murphy finishes, but im going to close out now for my participation. Im going to think the three witnesses for being here. The record will remain open until the close of business monday. I assume senator markey wont launch a nuclear war or do anything while we are going to vote. And please to enjoy your time, sir and i will announce the committee adjourned as soon as you finish. Thank you for being here. Appreciate that. Thank you so much. You can trust me with my finger on the button. But i think we need a hearing. Just one question, mr. Okeefe. Catholic charities, how can the u. S. Food aid programs better complement other humanitarian response effort so that u. S. Assistance also addresses the root causes of Food Insecurity, political conflict, how can we do that . Thank you so much, senator. Catholic League Services does think about this important question, particularly those us in the humanitarian side or work closely together a year ago to prepare for the world humanitarian summit to develop a whole set of recommendations on humanitarian system reform that we look to drive forward. The most important thing for us is to continue to increase resources to go to hungry people to address the Emergency Needs in the kind of creative ways weve been discussing as part of this hearing to continue to support an expanded food for Peace Development effort that allow for getting people at the bottom of the income scale to develop the capacity to begin to connect with markets and how the pathway to sustainability and through feed the future to continue to expand marketbased ways to get millions of farmers and people selfsufficient and addressing their own concerns about malnutrition and other Food Security challenges. The tools are coming into focus and expanding them and the last thing ill say and this was alluded to earlier, so many of the problems we face are political. We sometimes feel like we are picking up the pieces of problems that are outside of our hands. The people need this assistance but we need to find Political Solutions to these conflicts. Thank you. Thank you for that excellent answer. Thank you for your testimony here today on this annual event budget with 10, 20, 30 vote today. The way in which today is going to be conduct it, but it doesnt in any way reduce the impressive nature of your testimony. Thank you so much. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. A look at this video from cspans video library. [helicopter sounds] [helicopter sounds]. If they approve that, it will allow congress to proceed to tax reform. The Senate Returns at three eastern to consider the three and have billiondollar emergency supplemental for hurricane and wildfire relief passed by the house. A procedure about to advance the bill is set for 5 30 p. M. Eastern. As always, you can follow the house live on cspan and the senate live on cspan2. This is lois kim, executive director with the texas book festival and we are super excited to have the book festival november 4 and 5 in and around the State Capitol in downtown austin. We will be welcoming over 300 authors, over 150 panels and we are expecting a huge turnout of 50000 on saturday and sunday. Joined book tv for the texas book festival live from austin saturday and sunday november 4 and fifth on cspan2. For more information visit our website at tv. Org. Russian foreign minister recently gave his thoughts on the iran nuclear deal. He spoke at the annual moscow nonproliferation conference for about 30 minutes. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, i am very pleased to be here at this conference, this nonproliferation conference. I can see a lot of familiar faces here. My