For Peace Program is the focus on the Senate Foreign relations hearing. We will hear from the director, Catholic Relief Services an official from the Government Accountability office. This runs about an hour and a half. Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. We are currently facing a humanitarian crisis with over 800 Million People worldwide in need of food aid. The us continues to be the world leader providing more than a third of all food aid. Over 2 billion annually. Sadly despite our generosity there are shortfalls for whats needed due to other donor nations not meeting the challenge and in next years farm bill deliberations women opportunity to do more without having to spend more money. A little over half of our food aid is provided through the farm bill with our food for Peace Program. The farm bill requires aid to be sourced almost entirely from us farmers after which must be shipped on us vessels according to cargo preference rules. Of these restrictions resulting spending as little as 35 to 40 cents on a dollar on food let me say this one more time. Because of the ridiculous utterly ridiculous requirements only 35 to 40 cents of each dollar is it used to to provide food to people who are starving and if we relax the commodity preference to match the needs oversees the cost would drop to medically. Us farmers would still play a vital role in the program and we would free up over 300 million in the taxes to be used to feed up to nine and a half million more starving people each year. One of the major obstacles to modernizing food for peace are those who continue to support them profit from cargo preference rules. Representatives of the shipping industry claim food aid has a Significant Impact on us maritime jobs and our military capacity to move defense material overseas. I have asked our witnesses to provide the committee with facts, analysis, sound research to determine if this is true. For example the industry argues that 40 ships in in 2000 mariners needed for sealift are at stake should we reduce the amount of food aid we ship from the us. A simple review of data shows in 2016 only five us flagships out of a fleet of 175 arguably rely on food aid shipments to stay afloat. Lets 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 caveat that the for example the vast majority of food aid is moved on ships incapable of moving military cargo and the ones that can already receive a 5 milliondollar year according to Navy Officials briefing our Committee Earlier this year we maintain a strategic sealift officer reserve a that can meet virtually all of our mariner sealift mobilization requirements and also cannot forget the human toll of commodity and cargo preferences with millions of people who go hungry each year unnecessarily because of these two ridiculous requirements that congress places on food aid. One of our witnesses of Cornell University will testify later that Research Suggests at least 40000 children die annually who would otherwise be saved if we we formed the system there are few areas in government where we can have more impact on lives without Additional Resources than by modernizing the food for Peace Program. We have colleagues today that will listen, make work with us and make common sense food aid changes that are long overdue. I spoke to the tennessee farm bureau, each estate has one. The audience was aghast at the fact that here in washington most people who quote quote represent them with. 1 of all us agricultural exports going to this not 1 ,. 1 , and they were aghast at the fact that congress had people up here in the name of protecting them. These are good people they care about their community and the 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 feed the world. With that, Ranking Member. First, thank you for inducting conducting this hearing. I think every member of this committee very much admires your passion on this issue and leadership on this issue so america can more effectively deal with world hunger issues, so we are proud to be part of your team to figure out a better way to get this done and i think we need to understand the dimensions of this problem. I dont think any of us have experienced the real fear of hunger, may be 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 literally to survive. Our world produces enough to feed all its inhabitants. However, this year over 20 Million People in four countries alone south sudan, nigeria, somalia and yemen are threatened by famine. Declaration of famine as in the case of south sudan means people especially women and children are dying of hunger, dying of hunger. The value and has called this the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. Of the chairman is correct, this is urgent and needs to be dealt with. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate that you and senator kunz recently traveled to some of these companies to learn how the us can best help those in need. You have gone there and they are not easy places to get to and we appreciate you taking the time to better understand by seeing the circumstances on the ground. I agree with you that our values as americans and our place as leaders in the Global Community means we must commit to improving how the world tackles this crisis meaning taking a close and honest look at how our policies towards food aid in improving Global Security can be most impactful impactful as a means of securing Adequate Funding for these programs, Adequate Funding is important. Yes, you can reform and get better use of our funds, but it requires we put up the resources therefore more than 60 years the us has been a leading role in tackling hunger and are 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 and as we look to modernize programs we should not only look at the shipping requirements, but address issues related to prepositioning food aid in the region and concerns about monetization practices, options for increasing cash base options and support local and regional purchasing programs. We should fund our sick Food Security efforts that invest in local agricultural markets such as feed the future to mitigate the need for emergency food aid by creating resiliency and foster healthier thriving communities. Our programs require Adequate Funding and as we embark on this effort to reform our Food Aid Program i want to point out there will always be a place for food grown in the us to be shipped abroad. Sometimes its not possible to buy enough to address the needs in the local markets. Folks should be on organizations on the ground to use the best methods for each situation. With a tailored approach aimed at providing choice we can feed more people and a save more lives. On the forward to our witnesses, but i went to particularly acknowledge Vice President for Government Relations for the catholic services. We take pride because the Catholic Relief Services are in baltimore and we admire greatly the work they do globally and its glad to good to have him on our second panel. Thank you very much. Earlier this morning and are other witnesses on the second panel, thank you for your comments. Our first witnesses back eating acting director at usaid. He manages both of our International Food assistance programs. Reforms emergency Food Security program with authorized last congress and food for Peace Program. Thank you for being here and i know you can summarize your comments at about five minutes and any written material without objection we enter into the record and if you would begin we would appreciate it and thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our country. Microphone. Sorry about that. Thank you. Members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today about how to increase the Cost Effectiveness and agility for the food for Peace Program. We are grateful for your support as Committee Members know we face unprecedented levels of global Food Insecurity echoing some of the comments of the echoing state Opening Statements. In conflict zones of south sudan, somalia, nigeria and yemen alone more than 20 people arent risk of severe hunger or starvation. The us has provided humanitarian assistance hoping to contain deadly diseases like cholera cholera, but it represents only a small part of the global Food Insecurity. Global hunger increased for the first time in 2017 and Food Insecurity appears now affects 11 of the worlds population, 815 Million People going to bed hungry each night or more than twice the population of the United States a response to this need that office has provided lifesaving assistance to food in need in about 50 countries this shared. Providing assistance reflects americas compassion and generosity and is critical to our national security. Where hunger persists, instability grows in us Food Assistance in these forms contribute to a more stable world where people have a chance to lead healthy lives. Given the global challenges and the need to improve costeffectiveness of food for Peace Programs the logistics is important and today i will focus on one challenge to improve efficiency. How we should commodities. Under title ii, we receive the funds to purchase Us Commodities such as wheat, rice and sorghum to meet emergency food needs working closely with our partners, Catholic Relief Services and Un World Food Program we identified where these are needed and arrange for them to be shipped to look upon arrival is distributed, always prioritizing the most vulnerable , usually children under five, pregnant and lactating woman. The shipping of commodity overseas is a critical step. The cargo preference act requires at least 50 of the gross tonnage of us ocean cargoes must be transported on us flag privately owned commercial vessels to the extent of those vessels are available at reasonable rates. However, in many cases the us flag is not always available to provide services needed. Example, 20 year 2017 we did not receive a single offer from us flag vessels on the commodity we offered and the majority of our boat cargo is carried by four us flagships contributing to challenges to respond in emergencies and another obstacle is the lack of direct shipping services. Food for peace destinations in us flag meso rows arent always a well mapped and regular flag services dont exist to most destination ports directory directly. Theres the matter of cost. In 2016, the cost of food for peace was more per 10 with us flag vessels compared to foreign flag vessels. s has a Significant Impact on the program. Cargo preference requirements means we pay millions more for Ocean Freight out of the food for Peace Program budget each year. Every dollar counts. Our primary concern at food for peace is to save lives, relief suffering and reach people and that need to to do this, the best we can we are cost silly looking to improve our performance to reach as many people as possible and insure we make the most costeffective use of of american tax dollars. Thank you for your invitation today and im happy to take your questions. I typically dont ask questions first. I will try to be brief. Maritime industry claims 40 us flagships rely upon food aid shipments to stay in business and provide military was to lift capacity, but according to your data from last year i want to reiterate somethings you are saying, five ships carried 66 of all food aid on us flagships under the cargo preference law that you have to adhere to. The rest of food aid was spread amongst 19 ships, 24 total ships with only five that relied arguably on food aid to stay afloat. Is the typical for such a small concentration of us flag vessels to carry such a large percentage of us food aid . Thank you for the question. In the last two years especially that has been the norm, where a small number of ships carry the majority of our bulk cargo. To be clear, 2016 we had five ships that carried the majority and in the middle of the year one of that ships was wrapped by industry, so for ships to carry over 50 of our bulk cargo. Why is that the case . Because we have to rely in us flagships in the concentration of these two companies if you will on these. Is that correct . And theres Just Two Companies that provide those for ships . Those two those for ships or five ships are owned by two companies. They do have the appropriate ships to carry us cargo and we are not receiving other offers from other shipping lines available. If they werent us flags would you receive other offers from other companies . Most assuredly, yes. To put it in perspective we had 26 ships were used for us flags and over 90 with foreign flags. Of the five or four us flags with one scrapped, how many are capable of providing sealift capacity for military cargo . I do for that question to my military colleague. I will say whats useful and proven useful for title ii of the bulk carriers. Let me answer it for you. Its one. A much more does it cost you to ship on us flag vessels than florida foreign flag vessels . Using 2016 for the answer, we paid on average per ton 135 per metric ton for us ships and on foreign flagships we pay on average 65 per ton. I think i will stop. I can imagine why we cause people around the world to starve to support two Companies Based in new york. Someone else may have a rational revision reason, but i will defer to the Ranking Member. I want to go into the areas of reform that we had in the 2014 reform bill that allowed additional flexibility in kind and commodity based food aid and allowed the use of the usaid International Disaster assistance account for emergency Food Security programs. Could you comment as to those changes and how they have impacted our ability to respond to the global needs . Thank you for the question. The emergence of the International DisasterAssistance Fund for food for peace has been instrumental for us to combat food and sick Food Insecurity around the world. Inkind us Food Assistance is not the appropriate tool used to fulfill our mission and primary among those would be syria. Inside and outside syria inkind title ii Food Assistance would not have the impact that our voucher and cash based assistance has allowed. In addition outside of syria we have developed retinal scans to ensure the people identified are the people receiving the food vouchers. In addition, its allowed us to buy food locally and even regionally to be able to respond on a much more quick basis. In the fear beaming able to move the appropriate commodity to the place in a small amount time is crucial save lives. Our ultimate goal is to have selfsustaining countries on their own food supply, resiliency. Can you tell us how the flexibilities that you have use of these funds, are they targeted so we do aim to achieve the resiliency so the local communities can in fact one day be able to handle their own food needs this . Most definitely yes. When we use the id eight funds we do a market based assessment to ensure the markets are they are enabled to support this and in sometimes by incentivizing the market will make a stronger to allow the area affected to more quickly recover. In a sense instead of bringing in which an appropriate foreign commodity into a system disrupting have a negative market are actually incentivizing the market, so most definitely these programs are geared the idea gives us flexibility where its appropriate and our teams do the studies to make sure this is the case. We are strengthening marketing and getting them back on their feet more quickly. I think i understand why we do a source of funds and otherwise you cant get funds unless you use this method. It seems terribly inefficient to ship foods overseas in order to get money for the program you need. Isnt there a better way . Monetization is part of the farm bill at this time in the farm bill stipulates we do 15 for monetization and it has been a way to generate crucial funds as you has said and we lose on average 75 cents on the dollar if not more when we had done traditio