To 162 more per metric ton than foreign flag carriers for usda programs. If u. S. Flag carriers had matched the average foreign flag rate in each these years, we would have spent 23. 8 mmm less for shipping. And we did a little back of the envelope map and we think that comes out to about 500,000 in foodd theyd we could have helped. Extra money spent on shipping is money not spent feeding hungry people. Im not qualified to judge whether the cargo preference requirement achieves the necessary National Security objective of maintaining sea lift with the goal tied to that capacity. However, we at cathly Relief Services deeply appreciate the service and sacrifice of mariners who have helped deliver food aid for the last 60 years. We welcome their contribution that did do not diminish the programs ability. Surely there are other ways of supporting the mariners and maintaining our nations sea lift capacity without penal lizing vulnerable and hungry people. Short of eliminating the cargo preference requirement, we do have some 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 committee. Thank you so much for this opportunity. That is some of the best testimony weve had before our committee and i rest my case with the three of you testifying. So im going to defer my questioning time to senator cardin who is going to defer his time to senator cain who showed up late, as usual. The late as usual part say joke. I would agree with our chairman, i thought your testimonies were very specific and we appreciate that very much. I might have a few questions for the record, but were going to be tight on time so well give senator kaine to question. I was a 10 00 scholar coming in late for panel two but good testimony. I want to direct my questions to mr. Okeefe. In your experiences in working with the food for peace program, i would love to hear your view kind of assessment of potential aspects of inkind food aid relative to the benefits of the cashbased assistance. So, you know, we have been in per suing a different direction and a couple years into that if you could share your perspectives are we balancing it right now that would be helpful. Absolutely. Thank you, senator. So, in our assessment, cash say very important tool to have in our toolbox and we deeply have appreciated the additional flexibility that the program has granted and the efsp program authorized by this committee as part of the global Food Security act. We still need inkind food aid in very specific situations. In ethiopia for example where the need is huge, inkind food aid is critical. In south sudan where i was two years ago visiting and sought dysfunction of markets rrts overall lk of food available and the unbelievable need, we need to bring in 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. Thats doubled since fy 16 and we anticipate it will continue to grow. Senator coons for example from Northern Nigeria of the safe program is an extent one similar to one were also doing. But we are the one thing i wanted to add to that is in that conflict situation where we were able to track and monitor the food distributions through this marketbased system, in other words ksh on a card thats used to buy food in a store, we can monitor through the internet who is buying at what store in realtime. When in place wheres we cant actually go safely. So it allows us to extend further than we might normally be able to do because of just serious security situations. So the balance i think is Getting Better, certainly, and cash is a critical tool in our toolbox. And do you think the balance is Getting Better and, you know, in the usaid family regional leaders have the tools they need to decide how to adjust that balance to, you know, properly account for whats going to be best in any circumstance . I think that theres still situations where the right tool is not always available at the right time and so but i dont have an aggregate sense worldwide of whether of kind of whats holding that up. I can say for us at catholic Relief Services having the ability to macon contact specific recommendations based on the market and the people who we are assessing is absolutely critical. Which is why weve been advocating for increased flexibility. I could ask my other two witnesses whether you have any significant difference of opinion about what mr. Okeefe said about this balance between cash and direct food aid. I completely agree. Things have changed dramatically over the past 15, 20 years. Ive studied u. S. Food aid programs, especially thanks to esfp, theres credibly greater flexibility afforded to humanitarian agencies and theyre using it quite well and i applaud usaid. But those are binding constraints. They really slow delivery and they cost money. Groups are being very efficient and creative, but we could do better. Mr. Ma lito. Geo has consistently called on aid and choose the right modality for it. Cash is often the right option but sometimes because of droughts and conflict its actually bringing commodities. And then the commodities can be brought in from the u. S. Or locally regionally. But the key is to know the underlying problem first. The problem is if you were actually to provide cash in a situation where theres a shortage of food, you could get inflation in which case youd drive more people into hunger. The last question ill ask with 30 seconds left is are we doing enough through usaid, our Ngo Community to promote the growth of the Agricultural Sector of economies that are hard hit . I mean, obviously i see a real correlation between strong agriculture and reduction in hocker, a hunger. And thats something other agencies can address are we doing enough there . We can do more, but the addition of the crs has a build, grow sort of recover, build, grow view of ago tooult culture where we are helping people to move up the market chain of involvement. And the u. S. Government has placed the food for Peace Development program which helps the poor communities, farmers to become market ready. And then feed 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. Theyre not mutually exclusive. They dont overlap completely and we need the food for Peace Development program as a key part of our agricultural strategy. The resources are never enough. They are not enough and i think we could all agree to that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator young. Thank you, chairman and mr. Ranking member for holding this important hearing. Id like to direct my questions to you, mr. Ma lito. So appreciative of gao and all the important reports you produce and more importantly the recommendation us make to various agencies. As of yesterday, department of state had 119 open recommendations, 20 of which were priority recommendations that are still open. And 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 account of efficiency and effectiveness. Its my belief that if they were adopted, the efficiency and effectiveness of our Food Assistance programs could certainly improve. Do you share that view, sir . Very much so, senator. Over the last ten years there have been a number of closed recommendations for aid and food aid and that has improved the program but the remaining ones should also be closed. So i want to commend the agency for closing those, but theres still a lot of important work do. Exactly. On february 16 i introduced s 418 its a department of state accountability act of 2017 and it would, i congress to receive a report from agencies like state and aid about each of these open recommendations. We want them to identify an implementation timeline for each outstaid standing gao recommendation or an kpa nation as to high they dont intend to implement. Seems reasonable. I was able to work with the chairman and his staff to get that included in the department of state authorities bill and then there was a variant of the legislation we include in this Years NationalDefense Authorization act. Im working on broader legislation, senator coons is actually an original cosponsor of this legislation that would, i all federal agencies to report on outstanding recommendations from the ig and the gao as part of their annual budget justification. Do you believe this type of legislation would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agencies across our federal government . So gao cares very deeply on our recommendations. We strife for at least 80 of our recommendations to be closed. So any effort on the part of congress to improve the visibility and awareness and even pressure on the agencies to close a recommendations is wem welcome. Thank you. Thank you so much. Senator coons. Thank you, mr. Chair mapp. Thank you to a again withinly excellent panel providing detail and thorough testimony on some of the maddening ongoing restrictions on effectiveness and efficiency in u. S. Food aid and some of the genuinely inspiring efforts we are making jointly to meet a hungry world. Let me ask dr. Baird a question if i might about the Maritime Security program. Weve explored it a little bit but theres a lot of other issues. The Maritime Security program is designed 10 to Surety Department of defense has ondemand access to southeasterly capacity during times of war and national emergency. You noted in your written testimony that the department of defense has never mobilized a mayorer in or ves fret the nonmsp cargo preference fleet spt there any evidence that youve come across in your many years of working in this field to support the idea that cargo preference is necessary for our military sea lift capacity . Thank you for the question, senator coons. No. Simple answer is no, as you alrea already know. The military readiness of the cargo preference fleet is quite low. We have a large fleet that is militarily ready but its in the Ready Reserve fleet, in the military sea lift command, and in the Maritime Security program which is essentially a call option on up to 60 ships, each made 5 million a year for being prepared to mobilize for the pentagon if and when needed. The pentagon has never needed even in vent times of war to activate that whole set of those three types of resources, Ready Reserve fleet, military sea lift command and msp. Cargo preference does not enhance military readiness. We have plenty of readiness through other mechanisms. Thank you. Ill ask one other question, if i might. Our friend and colleague from maryland former senator mckuls sky 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 title two in kind donations leading to a reduction in overall food Aid Assistance thus actually leading to fewer hungry people getting fed . Would any of the three of you care to comment on that assertion . Senator coons, its certainly true that theres been an Unusual Alliance of shippers, fgos and a few millers processors over the years to support title two. This committee and the congress have advanced alternative mechanisms that prove much more eefficient. The emergency Food Security program in particular. If title two were to go away, and i am a fan of title two, but if it were to go away and there were to be augmentation of the efsp budgets were rewould see enhancement in the service of emergency effective populations around the world. The title two is declining steadily, keep in mind as i testified earlier, we have a 76 decline in inflation adjusted terms in u. S. Food aid programs since the heyday in the 1960s. So that coalition isnt maintaining the real purchasing power of the programs. When you say 76 , you mean of those dollars dedicated to purchasing u. S. Commodities and shipping them overseas. Actually the overall budget has declined by 76 in inflation adjusted terms. And the mar ghan differ rent eights in car iers has grown. So the decline in true commodity terms is steeper still. Mr. Okeefe. Thank you, senator, for that question and its obviously an incredibly important one. And 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 flern what were doing and to improve it and were certainly committed to that at catholic Relief Services. The caution just is, my understanding in europe and drdr. Dr. Barrett and mr. Mow lito may know more. But when they went from an inkind cash system the total amount of resources went down enough to that the efficiency gain did not kind of keep up. And so i just think that has to be thought through. I dont think thats a good excuse for doing things that are ineffective or inefficient, but i think 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 that farmers here understand farmers overseas and the ones ive talked to dont understand the dynamics and i think senator corker you made this point very clearly in your meeting with the Tennessee Farmer association, they dont understand how it works and that the kind of ineffectiveness at an aggregate level. But it does mean something to them at a human level that things that they produce end up in the mouths of people who need it. And i just think that thats something that we should not toy with. Thats rule, human and american. I too have spoke tont farm bureau in my state about this issue. Theres a deep and deserved pride in americas Agricultural Community and families in being the most productive farmers on earth, in feeding a hungry world. But when they hear about the numbers and inefficiency of how we currently do it, farmers tend to be pretty thiftty people, it makes them crazy and concerned that wed be more efficient. So 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 a hungry world rather than celebrating efficiency that leads to fewer being fed. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We have about 30 seconds left on the first vote. There are three votes. Im going close out the meeting as soon as senator markey finishes but im going to close it out now for my participation. I want to thank the three witnesses for being here. Its been outstanding. The record will remain open until the close of business monday. I assume senator markey wont launch a nuclear war or do anything of that short while were going to vote, but please enjoy your time, sir, and im going to announce the meeting adjourned as soon as you finish. Thank you for being here. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. I think you can trust me with my finger on the button, but im not sure. I think we need a hearing on all the people have their finger on the button. So just one question, mr. Okeefe. Catholic charities, how account u. S. Food aid programs better compliment other umantarian response efforts so that u. S. Assistance also address dollars the root cause of food and security, political conflict, violence, other issues . How can we do that . Thank you so much, senator. Catholic Relief Service disease think a lot about this very important question, particularly those of us in the humanitarian sector worked very closely together a year ago to prepare for the world humanitarian support summit and developed a whole set of system reform that we look to drive forward. The most important thing for us is to continue to increase resources that go to hungry people, to address both the Emergency Needs and the kind of creative waves wa creative ways that weve been discussing in this hearing, to expand the feed for Peace Development of forts for allowing people at the bottom of the income scale to develop the capacity to begin to connect with markets and have a pathway to stain ability and then through food the future continue to expand particular ketbased ways to get millions of farmers and people selfsufficient and addressing their own concerns about malnutrition, income, and other Food Security challenges. So the tools, i think, are coming into focus and its a question of expanding them. And then the last thing ill say is just, you know, so many and this was alluded to earlier. So most problems we face are at their core political and so we sometimes feel like we are picking up the pieces of problems that are outside of our hands. The people need this assistance but its we need to find Political Solutions to these conflicts. Thank you for that excellent answer and thank you all so much for your testimony here today. Were in something thats annual event, the budget, with ten, 20 were 30 votes maybe today. So we apologize to you just for the way in which today is going to be conducted. But it doesnt in any way reduce the thanks that we have for you and impressive nature of your testimony. Thank you so much. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. House ways and means chair kevin brady speaks to real clear poll licks tuesday about the congressional efforts to reform the tax code. Thats live at 8 oo 00 eastern on cspan 2. And later in the morning, health and Public Safety officials testify on the recent r