U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–113PDF 2010

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASES:

OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE U.S. FOOD AID

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 4, 2009

Serial No. 111–75

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

NOELLE LUSANE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

SHERI RICKERT, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ANTONINA KING, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Thomas Melito, Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, United 

States Government Accountability Office .......................................................... 6

Mr. Jon C. Brause, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, 

Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, United States Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 21

Mr. Bud Philbrook, Deputy Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services, United States Department of Agriculture .......................................... 30

Ms. Jean McKeever, Associate Administrator, Business and Workforce Development, Senior Program Manager, Office of Cargo Preference Program, 

Maritime Administration, United States Department of Transportation ....... 37

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Thomas Melito: Prepared statement ............................................................... 9

Mr. Jon C. Brause: Prepared statement ................................................................ 23

Mr. Bud Philbrook: Prepared statement ................................................................ 32

Ms. Jean McKeever: Prepared statement .............................................................. 39

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 50

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 51

(1)

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PURCHASES: 

OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE U.S. FOOD AID 

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Donald M. Payne, 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me call this hearing to order. I was waiting for 

the ranking member but many of you may know that he is involved 

in a very intense case of a constituent who is in Brazil, and the 

constituent’s son is in a legal entanglement. I assume he will be 

here if his schedule permits, but we will move forward. As you 

know, there are always many conflicts in our schedule. 

Let me certainly welcome all of you here this morning for this 

very important continuation of the subject that we have been dealing with here at the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health for 

several years. Let me welcome all of you to the fourth hearing that 

we have had of the subcommittee this year; today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘Local and Regional Purchases: Opportunities to Enhance U.S. 

Food Aid.’’ The hearing will be followed by a briefing of the same 

title. 

This is the third in a series of hearings we have held on U.S. 

food aid programs and security. The hearing will focus on the results of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, which I 

requested last year, related to the role that purchasing food locally 

or regionally can play in improving efficiency and effectiveness of 

the U.S. in-kind food programs. 

The 2007 GAO report has shown that there was a great room for 

improvement within our traditional in-kind food aid programs. 

Local and regional procurement (LRP) and we will be using the acronym for local and regional procurement. LRP is the purchasing 

of food commodities in countries with emergency food needs, or in 

another country within the region to be provided as food aid. 

As we will hear today, this approach is already being put to use 

to some extent in U.S. programs and is used extensively by the 

World Food Program, the WFP. As many of us know, the U.S. is 

the largest food aid provider in the world. In 2008, the U.S. gave 

$2.1 billion in U.S. commodities for WFP emergency food operations. Almost all U.S. food aid is provided in the form of U.S. commodity donations and it has been that way for the last 50 years. 

Other donors such as the EU, the second largest provider of food 

2

aid, have switched over almost entirely to cash donations to WFP 

to purchase food aid. In 2008, the WFP purchase more than $1 billion worth of commodities or 2.1 million metric tons worldwide. 

More than half of those commodities were purchased in developing 

countries. 

In recent years, LRP have been discussed as a cost-efficient time 

saving option to be employed to meet emergency food needs, and 

it has been explored through several programs. The food aid budget 

requests for Fiscal Year 2006 through 2009 include language authorizing the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 

to allocate up to 25 percent of funds for food aid, Title II of P.L. 

480—or as it has been recently renamed, Food for Peace—to local 

or regional purchase. The justification for this request was that it 

would increase timeliness and effectiveness of our response to 

emergency food aid needs. The language did not make it in the 

final bill. 

The former administration’s foreign bill proposal also authorized 

P.L. 480 funds for LRPs. The 2008 Farm Bill did include a 5-year 

$60 million U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pilot project 

for LRP. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) 

provided $125 million to implement LRP in developing countries 

through Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. 

There are currently several LRP initiatives before the 111th Congress. President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal has, in 

addition to other food security-related items, $300 million in international disaster assistance (IDA) funds for LRPs, cash transfers, 

and cash vouchers to meet emergency food needs. 

Additionally, the President announced, at the G–20 meeting in 

April, his plans to double agricultural assistance toward helping 

nations around the world reach and sustain food security. Secretary Clinton has begun the plans, and we look forward to holding 

hearings and working closely with the administration on these new 

critical initiatives to see just what form the new administration’s 

programs will take. 

Also under consideration are the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act and a similar measure in the House, to be led by Congresswoman McCollum, which I am collaborating with her as this legislation moves forward. 

Some of the questions which has been raised by LRP include the 

following: One, could the U.S. respond to emergency food needs at 

lower cost in a more timely manner if commodities were purchased 

in locations closer to where they were needed? 

Two, what risks would be associated with LRPs that would make 

it a less effective response to emergency food needs and provisions 

of U.S. commodities? 

Three, could LRP contribute to agricultural development, increased production, productivity, development of markets for small 

holders or low-income farmers in developing countries? 

Finally, could LRP adversely affect agriculture development and 

make poor consumers more food insecure? 

So there is still a number of questions that need to be answered 

as we move forward. It is not as simple as it might seem at first 

blush. 

3

The GAO report found that, overall, LRP is more cost effective 

and arrives quicker than U.S. in-kind donations. In fact, 95 percent 

of WFP’s local procurement in sub-Saharan African costs roughly 

34 percent less than similar food purchased by USAID which was 

shipped from the United States to the same countries between 

2001 and 2008. This is quite remarkable. 

The report also mentions, however, some of the challenges that 

prevent wider use of LRP. These include a lack of reliability suppliers, poor infrastructure and logistical capacity, weak legal systems, timing and restrictions on donor fundings, and quality considerations. 

There are also questions about the disruption factor on local markets by LRP, a feature of the in-kind approach which we have long 

decried. These issues highlight the need for greater United States 

investment in these areas in Africa, particularly in infrastructure 

and legal systems for long-term development. 

Other issues include the limitations on LRP due to cargo preference requirements that 75 percent of the gross tonnage of agricultural foreign assistance cargo be transported on U.S.-flag vessels. These and other issues have been addressed in the GAO report and will be discussed in this hearing. 

It is my belief that we must begin to think more creatively about 

our food aid program. Ultimately the objective should be the elimination of food assistance. This can only be reached if we focus on 

development of agricultural systems and infrastructure, among 

other things, particularly in Africa. However, food aid, including inkind aid, will likely be a feature of U.S. Government programs for 

a very long time for several reasons. 

One, there will always be emergencies. The global population is 

set to increase dramatically over the coming decades, and increasing industrialization across the globe will lead to more urbanization 

and less agricultural production, and we can see that in the United 

States. As we continue to see industrial development, we see 

former farmlands being taken for housing developments and industrial developments, et cetera. So this is going to be a worldwide 

trend, especially in new industrialized countries like Indian and 

China, countries that are large food consumers. 

In other words, there will likely always been the need for food 

assistance somewhere in the world. It is incumbent upon our generation to think strategically about how to strike a balance between 

meeting the world’s emergency food needs and working toward 

long-term food security and the elimination of chronic hunger 

among the world’s poor. 

I welcome the testimony of our distinguished panel. We will hear 

from Tom Melito of the GAO; John Brause of the U.S. Agency for 

International Development; Bud Philbrook of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture; and Jean McKeever of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Following their testimonies and members’ questions, we will be briefed by Allan Jury of the World Food Program. 

The committee thanks each of you for your participation today. 

I will open our panel for remarks from our members, and then I 

will introduce our panelists. We will start with our representative 

from California, Congresswoman Watson. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

4

Just to follow up with your opening, I would like to take a few 

minutes to discuss the monumental nature of world hunger. 

A child dies every 6 seconds because of malnutrition-related 

causes, and already there are 963 million people worldwide who go 

to bed hungry or malnourished. Two-thirds of the world’s hunger 

live in the Asian-Pacific region. Around the globe the need for food 

assistance is on the rise as a result of warfare, natural disasters, 

crop failure, or the inability to work due to medical and illness reasons. 

In the future, climate change too will play a role by exacerbating 

water shortages in some areas while flooding others. 

As most of you may already know, UNICEF’s humanitarian and 

action report of 2009, which was released just this past weekend, 

found they required a 17-percent increase from its 2008 funding 

level to meet emergency response needs worldwide. This report also 

noted hunger is at a 40-year high in South Asia, especially in 

Nepal, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. This is in addition to the doubling in emergency needs in Eastern and Southern Africa. 

Through U.S. food aid, and though it does not solely focus on 

emergency funding, it is a large function of the provided aid irrespective of agency. The U.S. has traditionally provided in-kind food 

aid which ensures quality and reliability rather than contributing 

cash funds. In-kind aid requires over 100 days to reach its destination and in many instances it is excessively costly. That is 100 days 

that food victims are without food. With local and regional procurement, food aid can reach those in need in a third of the time and 

at a lower cost. 

In addition to speed and costs, local and regional food and procurement provides incentives for farmers to raise cash crops and 

government to invest in infrastructure building. I am aware that 

local and regional procurement faces its own set of problems. Small 

farmers are subject to the whims of the environment, and thus cannot always deliver their promised crop or the crop may not be up 

to standard. However, I feel that local procurement holds much 

promise. 

Each situation is unique, and we must concentrate on developing 

a method to evaluate the best method of delivery, be it in kind or 

aid or cash aid. 

We must consider the rising fuel cost, the availability of food in 

the locality, and the sustainability of the programs. We must not 

forget our goal, and that is to end hunger. We must feed the hungry and teach them to feed themselves as well, and I hope the panelists can enlighten us on how best to do just that, and with that 

I yield back my time, and thank you for the opportunity, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson. Another Congressperson from California, Congresswoman Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think what I am going to be listening for today, I am so thankful to have such a great panel, is how with 850 million malnourished people in this world of ours and 30–40 percent of them in Africa, how we are going to sort of follow the parable in the Bible 

that I couldn’t tell you where it is and I am not going to quote it 

right because I don’t know that much about it except that there is 

5

some truth in giving somebody a fish to eat for that day, teach 

them to fish, and indeed they know how to feed themselves from 

then on. 

So I will be looking at ag development investment, local ag and 

whatever the United States can do to help the local areas feed 

themselves in the very best possible way, which means, of course, 

they need development assistance and they need infrastructure, irrigation, they need fertilizer, they need power and power tools and 

machinery, and they need roads to market. I mean, there is a lot 

that is missing in this picture, but rather than just bring food from 

our country and handing it to them I think we could do a lot better 

by bringing seeds and education and the support that they need. 

I understand that is what the Europeans and the Canadians are 

doing now, so I am anxious to hear more about that. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Today we will hear from our distinguished witnesses, Mr. Melito, 

Mr. Brause, Mr. Philbrook and Mr. McKeever—Ms. If I had looked 

up, I would have known that, but I was looking down. Let me first 

introduce Dr. Melito, who is the director of international affairs 

and trade team at the Government Accountability Office, and they 

are the ones that do so much good work in giving us reports that 

give us the tools that we need to move forward, and I really thank 

that outstanding government agency. 

In this capacity, he is primarily responsible for GAO work involving multilateral organizations and international finance. Over the 

past 10 years, Dr. Melito has been focusing on a wide range of development issues, including debt relief for poor countries, international food security, and human trafficking. Since 2007, Dr. 

Melito testified several times to Congress on GAO reports on challenges U.S. agencies face in improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of food aid. 

Dr. Melito holds a M.A. and a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia 

University, and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. 

Next we will have Mr. Jon Brause who is currently serving as 

the deputy administrator in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, 

and Humanitarian Assistance. In this capacity, he is responsible 

for disaster response, food aid, and transitional assistance. Mr. 

Brause has 18 years of experience in USAID covering procurement 

issues, operational and budgetary policies, and programming and 

managerial management of humanitarian and development resources. 

During his tenure in the Office of Food for Peace, Mr. Brause 

managed all aspects of the U.S. Government food aid programming 

for humanitarian activities worldwide. Prior to his current position, 

Mr. Brause was special assistant to the president and senior director for relief, stabilization and development at the National Security Council’s Directorate on International Economic Affairs. 

Mr. Brause has a bachelor’s degree in international relations 

from University of California—Davis, and a master’s degree in national security strategic from the National Defense University, National War College in Washington, DC. 

Next we have Mr. Bud Philbrook representing the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2009, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack 

6

appointed Bud Philbrook as USDA’s deputy under secretary for 

farm and foreign agricultural services. 

In this role, Mr. Philbrook has responsibility for the international 

side of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service’s mission area. 

His mission area includes the Foreign Agricultural Service that 

works to expand exiting and build new markets for U.S. products, 

improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global 

marketplace, and to provide food aid and technical assistance to 

foreign countries. 

Mr. Philbrook received his bachelor’s degree from the University 

of Minnesota, his master’s degree from the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and earned 

a law degree from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, 

Minnesota. 

He and his wife Michele have three adult sons. 

And finally we have Ms. Jean McKeever—McKeever—I will get 

her altogether at one point. She joins us from the United States 

Department of Transportation. Ms. McKeever serves as the Maritime Administration’s associate administrator for business and 

workforce development. She is responsible for the agency’s Title XI 

ship financing guarantee program, as well as tax deferral funds for 

ship construction. In addition, she oversees the Maritime Administration’s shipbuilding, marine insurance and labor and training 

programs. 

Previously, she served as the associate administration for shipbuilding at the Maritime Administration, a post that was created 

in 2000 to combine the Maritime Administration’s main shipbuilding-related functions under one single manager. She has 

served over 25 years in various financial and analytical positions, 

most recently as deputy director of the agency’s Office of Ship Financing. 

She holds her degree from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, and an M.B.A. from Frostburg State University in Maryland. 

Let me once again thank all of the panelists, and we will begin 

with Dr. Melito. 

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS MELITO, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE TEAM, UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. MELITO. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss how local and regional purchase, or LRP, can provide opportunities to enhance U.S. food aid. 

This hearing is of particular importance given today’s environment 

of growing global food insecurity in which the United States and 

other donors face intense pressures to feed the world’s expanding 

undernourished population. The number of chronically hungry people in the world has been growing and now stands at almost 1 billion despite international commitment to halve the number of hungry people by 2015. 

My testimony is based on our May 2009 report which is being 

publicly released today. I will focus on four topics. First, I will discuss the impact of LRP on the efficiency of food aid delivery. Second, I will discuss the impact of LRP on economies where food is 

procured. Third, I will discuss U.S. legal requirements that could 

7

affect U.S. agencies’ use of LRP. Finally, I will summarize our recommendations regarding improvements to U.S. agencies’ use of 

LRP. 

Regarding the first issue, we found that donors can reduce food 

aid costs and delivery time through LRP. Our analyses show that 

LRP in sub-Saharan Africa costs about 34 percent less than similar 

food aid purchased and shipped from the United States. However, 

the cost of LRP in Latin America was comparable to the cost of 

U.S. in-kind food aid. We also found that in-kind food aid donations 

to sub-Saharan Africa took on average 147 days compared to about 

35 days for locally procured food. 

Despite these benefits, donors face challenges to ensuring cost efficiency and timely delivery, including a limited number of reliable 

suppliers and weak legal systems that could limit buyers’ ability to 

enforce contracts. In addition, while LRP may provide food that is 

more suited to local preferences, concerns persist about the quality 

of food aid procured in developing countries. However, evidence on 

how LRP affects donors’ ability to adhere to quality standards and 

product specifications has not been systematically collected. 

Regarding the second issue, LRP has the potential to make food 

more costly to consumers in areas where food is purchased by increasing demand. However, steps are being taken to reduce these 

risks, such as coordination among donors. LRP’s impact can depend 

on the scale of procurements and whether the market is sufficiently 

integrated with neighboring markets to absorb increased demand. 

The most significant challenge to avoiding potential adverse market impacts when conducting LRP is unreliable market intelligence. 

For example, in 2007, inaccurate information on production levels in Malawi led WFP to believe it was purchasing maze in a surplus market. Malawi faced food shortages a few months later. 

LRP does have the potential to support local economies by increasing demand for agricultural commodities and raising farmers’ 

income, but little data exist to demonstrate that these benefits 

have occurred or are sustainable in the long term. 

Regarding the third issue, legal requirements may constrain 

agency’s use of LRP. 

First, LRP cannot be funded out of the Food for Peace Act, but 

instead must come from other authorities such as the Foreign Assistance Act. 

Second, the Cargo Preference Act requires up to 75 percent of the 

gross tonnage of all U.S.-funded food aid to be transported on U.S.-

flag vessels. However, there is disagreement among U.S. agencies 

on how to interpret these requirements, such as which agency is 

responsible for determining the availability of U.S.-flag vessels. 

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that helps guide U.S. 

agencies’ implementation of cargo preference does not address 

these areas of ambiguity. The resulting lack of clarity could constrain agency’s ability to fully utilize the authorities to conduct 

LRP when responding to food emergencies. 

Regarding the final issue, to address the concerns I have just 

summarized, we recommend that USAID and USDA, first, systematically collect evidence on LRP’s adherence to quality standards 

and product specifications; second, work with implementing partVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Apr 12, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\060409\50113 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

ners to improve the reliability of market intelligence; and finally, 

work with the Department of Transportation to update the MOU 

to resolve uncertainties associated with the application of cargo 

preference. 

In summary, the timely provision of food aid is critical in responding to humanitarian emergencies and food crises. LRP has 

the potential to meet the needs of hungry people by providing food 

in a more timely and less costly manner. However, to fully realize 

its potential, challenges to its effective implementation must be addressed. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to 

respond to any questions you or the other members of the subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melito follows:]

9


50113b-1.eps
10


50113b-2.eps
11


50113b-3.eps
12


50113b-4.eps
13


50113b-5.eps
14


50113b-6.eps
15


50113b-7.eps
16


50113b-8.eps
17


50113b-9.eps
18


50113b-10.eps
19


50113b-11.eps
20


50113b-12.eps
21

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Mr. Brause. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JON C. BRAUSE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, CONFLICT, AND 

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BRAUSE. Thank you, Chairman Payne and distinguished 

members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today to address this important topic. 

As I intend to keep my comments brief, I ask to submit for the 

record a longer response to the information requested in the committee’s invitation, and a copy of the USAID/USDA Annual International Food Assistance Report. 

The committee is aware of the current economic global economic 

downturn and continuing food security crisis impose constraints 

that exacerbate the severity of emergencies and further strain the 

capacity of both donors and the vulnerable to respond to them. This 

is resulting in decreased purchasing power, loss of livelihoods and 

the erosion of coping mechanism; thus imperiling a generation’s future in many countries. Today, over 1 billion people live in poverty 

and chronic hunger, and this number appears to be rising, and food 

insecurity respects no boundaries. It is vital to U.S. Government 

interests to enhance the capability and flexibility of USAID to respond to emergencies. 

While in-kind U.S. Government food aid remains our primarily 

food assistance response, and is the most visible and valuable humanitarian resource in the world, the ability to procure food aid 

commodities locally and regionally over the last 12 months has increased USAID’s capability to meet emergency food aid needs in an 

efficient and timely fashion. We fill pipeline gaps prior to the arrival of food shipped from the United States. We increase the total 

amount of life-saving food aid that U.S. assistance resources can 

provide in response to the crisis. It has also increased our understanding of LRP’s limitations and the need for further data collection, analysis and discussion on its roles in the U.S. Government’s 

humanitarian tool kit. 

Turning to the recently released Government Accountability Office report on local and regional procurement, USAID appreciates 

the amount of time and effort that is reflected in the audit. We believe that it provides a useful perspective of locally and regionally 

procured food assistance as a tool which complements the U.S. 

Government’s considerable humanitarian response capabilities. 

The GAO report supports our own experience this year that LRP 

has the potential not only to stretch the food aid dollar but also to 

reduce response times when in-kind food assistance is not already 

in the pipeline. A current example of this is Pakistan where due 

to sharp increases in the numbers of people displaced by violence. 

We are procuring locally even while we expedite the shipment of 

additional Title II assistance from the United States. 

While we agree that the impact data is currently lacking, we believe that LRP has the potential to significantly contribute to 

broader U.S. Government efforts to reduce global food insecurity. 

By stimulating local and regional food production, encouraging 

value-added post-harvest practices, and supporting open and fair 

22

market practices, LRP can strengthen the rural economy and reduce the vulnerability of those who depend on it. 

USAID concurs with the GAO comments on the need to pay close 

attention to food aid quality, and its view that reliable market intelligence is critical for any LRP efforts. We intend to work closely 

with our non-governmental partners, WFP, and our colleagues at 

USDA to tackle these important issues. 

I would like to take 1 more minute of your time to give you an 

idea of what we were looking at as we move forward in Fiscal Year 

2010. I made the point earlier that we believe LRP has a special 

role to play in a whole of government approach to addressing global 

food insecurity. As we move forward we intend to work closely with 

our regional bureaus in USAID and the interagency to help ensure 

that whenever possible our emergency response supports other U.S. 

Government efforts to stimulate agricultural productivity and 

strengthen the participation of the small holder farmers in local 

and regional trade in the developing world. 

This could mean ensuring that Title II commodities are available 

when food shortages threaten the lives and livelihoods of assistance 

farmers, facilitating the flow of food from surplus to deficit areas 

through local procurement, or implementing a cash-based voucher 

program when food is available in local markets but vulnerable 

households simply cannot afford it. 

Even as we respond to emergency needs, we want to make sure 

that we are using the right tools at the right time and in the right 

way to contribute to a sustainable solution to global hunger. 

I would again like to thank you for the support that your committee has given the administration in addressing food security 

needs abroad and demonstrating to the world the great heart of the 

American people. I would be happy to take any questions that you 

might have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brause follows:]

23


50113c-1.eps
24


50113c-2.eps
25


50113c-3.eps
26


50113c-4.eps
27


50113c-5.eps
28


50113c-6.eps
29


50113c-7.eps
30

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Mr. Philbrook. 

STATEMENT OF MR. BUD PHILBROOK, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. PHILBROOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the role of 

LRP in the context of the United States Department of Agriculture’s food aid programs. 

The 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to undertake a local and regional procurement pilot program to be completed in Fiscal Year 

2012. Local and regional purchase of food aid has the potential to 

provide another tool in support of President Obama’s commitment 

to work in partnership with the people of economically poor nations. This pilot program will help inform USDA whether local and 

regional purchases are more quickly available and cost effective 

than traditional food aid donations. 

Congress directed that the pilot program be used for emergency 

food crises as well as field-based projects that provide development 

assistance. Further, Congress directed that it not disrupt local and 

regional markets, and the first step was for the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a study on local and regional procurement to the 

Congress, and that report was provided in January of this year. 

USDA consulted with USAID, other donor countries, PVOs and 

the World Food Program, and the study found the following: First, 

local and regional purchase is an important tool enabling food aid 

agencies to respond quickly to emergency food needs both during 

and after food crises and disasters; second, local and regional purchase can be a timely and effective complement to in-kind food aid 

programs; and third, to ensure the success of LRP, market intelligence is critical. 

USDA will issue guidelines to implement the pilot program by 

mid-July. We will then solicit proposals to conduct field-based local 

purchase pilot program. The Farm Bill provides $25 million each 

in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 for the pilot program, and requires 

that a diversity of field-based projects be undertaken in food surplus regions, food deficit regions, and multiple geographic regions. 

Africa is designated as the priority region, and USDA is required 

to conduct the majority of field-based projects in Africa. A portion 

of the funds is to be used for development assistance projects of not 

less than 1 year. 

USDA has the capacity to implement the pilot program and our 

experience with the pilot will help inform us for future efforts. 

USDA has reviewed the GAO study thoroughly, and we have 

come to many of the same conclusions. We agree with GAO that 

local and regional procurement is an important tool that can reduce 

commodity and transportation costs and shorten delivery times, 

and we share GAO’s concern that poorly targeted local and regional 

purchases have the potential to lead to price spikes and shortages 

of staple foods in source countries. But likewise, poorly targeted 

distributions of in-kind food aid have the potential to depress prices 

and negatively impact domestic production in recipient countries. 

USDA agrees that the best way to mitigate these potential adverse effects is through improved market intelligence. 

31

In addition to feeding hungry people, USDA’s food aid programs 

are opportunities to use USDA’s global capacity building and development expertise to help developing countries create sustainable 

economic growth that improves peoples’ lives. Successful development efforts come from the local level. USDA and others have 

knowledge and resources that can assist with development but the 

recipients—village farmers and community folk—best know the 

barriers to their development and what is required to move forward. We must work in partnership with the recipients to design 

sustainable and effective human and economic development 

projects. 

We are particularly proud to administer the Food for Progress 

and McGovern-Dole programs. To date, USDA has provided meals 

to more than 22 million children in 41 countries and boosted attendance in the schools served. These programs have helped build 

school gardens and fish ponds, improve sanitation systems, rehabilitate schools, and remove unexploded ordnance that prevent children from attending school. 

This administration is committed to a permanent solution for 

food and security, and we look forward to implementing the LRP 

pilot program and using it as another tool to achieve our goal of 

feeding the hungry and malnourished, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Philbrook follows:]

32


50113d-1.eps
33


50113d-2.eps
34


50113d-3.eps
35


50113d-4.eps
36


50113d-5.eps
37

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And Ms. McKeever. 

STATEMENT OF MS. JEAN MCKEEVER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, BUSINESS AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, OFFICE OF CARGO PREFERENCE 

PROGRAM, MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. MCKEEVER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. 

I appreciate the invitation to brief the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, on the recent Government Accountability Office study on local and regional 

purchases, use for food aid. 

The Cargo Preference Statute of 1954, as amended in 1985, was 

envisioned by the Congress to help support the U.S. Merchant Marine which is vital to the nation’s defense by requiring the use of 

U.S.-flag carriers for at least 75 percent of food aid shipments. Support of the U.S. fleet was structured in a way that reimburses the 

food programs on shipments in excess of 50 percent of food aid 

shipped. Any additional costs on the first 50 percent of food aid 

shipped under cargo preference and not reimbursed are borne by 

the agencies implementing the food aid programs. 

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee asked that we address three 

specific issues in our testimony today. First, relating to the need 

to update the Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU; second, obstacles to ensuring that an updated framework governs the application of cargo preference requirements to LRP; and third, whether 

there are actions that Congress could take to clarify the application 

of cargo preference with regard to LRP. I will defer to my colleagues from the food aid programs on any issues related to the implementation of food aid programs. 

In regard to ensuring that an updated framework governs the 

application of cargo preference requirements to U.S. food aid that 

clarifies how they pertain to U.S. agencies’ use of LRP, we believe 

the requirements as established by law are clear, and there are no 

obstacles. 

Except as otherwise exempted by law, cargos financed by the 

American taxpayer and moving by water are subject to 50-percent 

carriage on U.S.-flag vessels when practicable. Only food aid specified in 46 U.S.C. 55314, exported from the United States is subject 

to the 75-percent requirement; otherwise it is 50 percent. 

With regard to the GAO recommendations on the Memorandum 

of Understanding, we maintain that the MOU is not an impediment to the agency’s use of LRP. The MOU among USAID, the 

Commodity Credit Corporation of USDA, and the Maritime Administration merely describes the process of how MARAD’s ocean 

freight differential reimbursement to USDA and USAID is calculated. In addition, because LRP is subject to cargo preference at 

the 50-percent level, the MOU is not applicable. 

Finally, we appreciate the subcommittee’s consideration in asking whether there are actions that Congress could take that could 

clarify some of the ambiguities in the application of cargo preference requirements as they pertain to LRP. We anticipate holding 

discussions with the agencies whose programs are affected by the 

38

legislation in P.L. 110–417, and we look forward to working with 

them toward an appropriate consensus in advance of submitting 

regulations for review by the Office of Management and Budget. 

In summary, I want to thank the members of the subcommittee 

and the chairman for your leadership in holding this hearing today, 

and I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKeever follows:]

39


50113e-1.eps
40


50113e-2.eps
41

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I let me thank all of you for 

your testimony, and we will move into questions, but before I do 

that, I would like to welcome the members of the National Assembly of Cambodia on my right-side of the room who are visiting the 

U.S. Congress hosted by the National Democratic Institute. We 

wonder if you would stand. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Let me begin by asking this question and 

anyone could chime in. In your opinion, what are the macro and 

microeconomic impacts locally and regional from local and regional 

purchases vis-a`-vis in-kind contributions? 

For example, does it reduce unemployment while increasing production as a result of increased consumer demand in agricultural 

products? Is there evidence that the LRP leads to agricultural and 

microenterprise development in general? Would anyone like to 

tackle that? Yes. 

Mr. BRAUSE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

We believe that the LRP can have significant impact in both a 

macro level and a micro level, and as I think has been pointed out, 

we have to be careful because those impacts can be both positive 

and negative. We have to watch out that both LRP commodities 

and in-kind food aid don’t have a negative impact on macro market 

systems in the countries in which they are provided. 

But in a more positive sense, having the flexible tools available 

to us both in-kind food aid and LRP will let us target our assistance so that we can have the greatest positive impact on not only 

the vulnerable people but the market systems in which they work 

and live. 

Part of our efforts under LRP will be to strengthen the local market systems for the small farmers, to give them the knowledge and 

the technical skills they need to bring their fruits to market so that 

they can strengthen their livelihoods and increase the incomes that 

they have for their families. 

So if LRP Is used properly, it can have an impact at the household level and it can have an impact at the more macro level in 

the countries in which it is used. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I wonder if anyone would like 

to talk about what kind of strategies or mechanisms you recommend to increase effective and reliable market intelligence, in 

order to make informed decisions about LRP. We have heard that 

inaccurate information led to problems, and I don’t know if anyone 

could think of any strategies, or how we can determine that information is more accurate. Yes. 

Mr. BRAUSE. Mr. Chairman, USAID has been paying very close 

attention to the Belman amendment which is in the Food for Peace 

Act which requires us to track the market impact of in-kind food 

aid. That same system can be used to help us track the potential 

impact of local and regional procurements on market. 

In addition, the Office of Food for Peace and USAID in general 

support the famine early warning system which currently has 25 

offices around Africa and the world that track food security issues, 

including market data to help ensure that we have the information 

available to know what the right resource should be to address a 

particular food security situation. 

42

We also work very closely with our partners, the U.S. PVOs, and 

the World Food Program who also have very significant technical 

knowledge that allows them to identify the most appropriate response for a given food security situation, and we will be looking 

to them to help guide us as well on what resources we should bring 

to bear on any particular situation in the developing world. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MELITO. I would like to add that I agree with what Mr. 

Brause said. Greater coordination though among the donors is 

probably the area that they should press the most. I mean, there 

are a lot of individual efforts going on. Each transaction provides 

good information about the market, but if you aggregate those 

transactions you learn a lot more, so greater collaboration. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Let me just, before I yield, ask Ms. McKeever: You did mention 

in your testimony that you will be getting together with the various 

agencies to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding, but I wonder, do you think that it is recommended to revisit the 1985 statute 

of the Memorandum of Understanding and to meet current food crisis cost effectively and in a timely way? 

Do you feel that there really needs to be a revisit. There was 

some mention of ambiguity in the agreement, as was mentioned in 

the testimony of Dr. Melito. 

Ms. MCKEEVER. In our view the Memorandum of Understanding 

is strictly limited in scope to how our reimbursement methodology 

works with regard to paying an ocean freight differential to the 

food agencies when there is a preference shipping requirement for 

cargos over 50 percent, between the 50 percent and 75 percent, is 

strictly a process memorandum of how we pay that differential, 

and it doesn’t extend to other matters. It is very limited in scope. 

So, to the extent there are matters in the cargo preference arena 

that have to be clarified, we think it is more appropriate to do it 

through regulation rather than expanding that MOU which really 

is not germane to this particular topic. That is strictly a procedural 

MOU, and we think it should be kept that way and limited in scope 

to the ocean freight differential payments. It wasn’t intended to be 

an all-encompassing vehicle to embrace any number of elements of 

the cargo preference program. That was never the intention. 

Mr. MELITO. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Mr. MELITO. GAO recommended in 2007 to update the MOU 

based on our in-kind system which was directly related to the system for compensating the programs. So there is a need to update 

the MOU even within the context of DOT’s criteria. 

However, when the memorandum was created in 1987, when it 

was signed, it never envisioned LRP, and these ambiguities do 

have the potential to really restrict the use of LRP. So there needs 

to be a vehicle for resolving the ambiguities and the MOU is the 

most direct way to bring the agencies together and resolve the 

issue. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

I will yield to the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman 

Watson. 

43

Ms. WATSON. First, let me get to a domestic question that has 

been of great concern to all of us. I would like to address this question to Mr. Philbrook. 

Unemployment is on the rise in this country. That doesn’t even 

have to be said. And as the tragic results of General Motors having 

to declare bankruptcy, many of the families in Michigan may struggle to provide food, and how is the USDA planning on addressing 

the increase in demand for food stamps in our nation, and can we 

provide enough food stamps to meet the demand? 

Mr. PHILBROOK. Congresswoman, I can’t answer that question, 

but we——

Ms. WATSON. Is it an unknown? 

Mr. PHILBROOK. I don’t know that it is an unknown. It is just 

way outside my area of responsibility or knowledge. But we will get 

you answer to that question. 

Ms. WATSON. I would like to have that answered because right 

here I am going to relate to the subject of this hearing, but that 

has been on my mind——

Mr. PHILBROOK. Yes, we will——

Ms. WATSON [continuing]. For the last 48–72 hours. 

Mr. PHILBROOK. Yes, we will get you an answer to that question 

very quickly. 

Ms. WATSON. Okay. I would like to address this to Mr. Brause, 

and maybe Ms. McKeever, whoever. We are finding more and more 

that international aid agencies are disjointed and uncoordinated, 

and that has been mentioned, and oftentimes we can find several 

agencies working in one area whereas other areas are completely 

ignored. In terms of food aid, how does the United States agencies 

coordinate with international bodies, and how does the World Food 

Program coordinate with other relief efforts, and how are efforts coordinated internationally? 

And are blankets and clothing say, you know, mixed kind of aid 

along with food, are they shipped in the same shipments or are 

they required to be shipped separately, and are they locally procured? 

So these are all relative kinds of activities. We just need to have 

some clarity, so let me start with Mr. Brause. 

Mr. BRAUSE. Thank you very much. 

Fortunately, I can tell you I just returned from a meeting in Helsinki with a group of major donors. We were meeting with the Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, Sir John Holmes 

of the United Nations, and our whole sole purpose was to discuss 

how we can better coordinate our assistance and ensure that the 

response in any crisis is well coordinated, well managed, and that 

all areas of assistance needs are identified and met. So there is a 

great deal of work that is actually done among the donors to ensure that we are always cooperating. 

Now having said that, of course, it is not a perfect system, but 

for us that is why it is important that the United States has as 

many tools available to it as possible to make sure that we can fill 

gaps that develop. But I do want to say that the coordination is actually quite good. 

Also in the case of WFP specifically, I leave over the weekend 

with Mr. Philbrook, we will be heading off to Rome to meet with 

44

the World Food Program at their executive board meeting which 

again is a gathering of all the donors who support the World Food 

Program, and part of the purpose of being there is to discuss how 

to better support their activities worldwide. 

Ms. WATSON. I guess it was a couple of years ago we were in 

Chad and we were told by Mr. Rusesabagina, who was the subject 

of the movie that dealt with Darfur, and he said that shipments 

of food from our various foreign agencies were hijacked and the 

food never got to the camps. You know, they had 250,000 in the 

camps in Chad which we visited. And so he bought his own company, and the whole issue was security. 

When we roll the trucks in, are we finding that we are free to 

deliver the food or do we have trouble along the way? Is there hijacking? Are they attacking these food supplies? And anyone can 

respond that has any recent information. 

Mr. BRAUSE. Congresswoman, unfortunately the situation in the 

developing world is rather difficult, and we find that in many of 

the countries in which we work—Sudan, Somalia as examples, and 

I guess now also in Pakistan—that security is a very, very, very 

significant issue. 

Ms. WATSON. Yes. 

Mr. BRAUSE. And it can in fact impede our programs and the efforts of the international community to meet the needs of the vulnerable groups we are trying to help. So it is an issue and all of 

the donors and the international organizations do work together on 

security planning, but it is often an imperfect system. 

Can I answer one of your other questions? You asked whether 

the other resources——

Ms. WATSON. Right. 

Mr. BRAUSE [continuing]. That we provide are—whether they are 

locally procured. In some cases they are locally procured and in 

other cases they are procured in the United States. As an example 

our assistance in Pakistan much of our materials are being 

resourced in Pakistan because Pakistan has the markets and the 

manufacturing capabilities to provide much of what the displaced 

in Pakistan need. So in that example we do buy locally. 

Ms. WATSON. Let me refer to Ms. McKeever. How do we 

strengthen our food delivery programs? 

Ms. MCKEEVER. You mean in terms of ship security? 

Ms. WATSON. Yes. 

Ms. MCKEEVER. We are working very closely with DoD and the 

U.S. Coast Guard and the State Department on security issues. 

That is an ongoing very serious matter to all of us. 

Ms. WATSON. Yes. 

Ms. MCKEEVER. And as you are well aware, Congresswoman, so 

those are—they are developing the best steps that could be taken 

within the constraints under which we have to operate. 

Ms. WATSON. I want to address this question to the chair. He 

just came back from Zimbabwe, in our conversation, we were in 

South Africa, is about the food fights and the fact that most of the 

native people were starving and they were eating from the piles of 

garbage on the streets and so on. I would hope that part of this 

discussion you would share with us what are they doing about food 

there in Zimbabwe. And I yield back my time. 

45

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Just in a nutshell the situation has improved in Zimbabwe. The currency has been changed; 

it was hyper-inflation. Of course, it was very worthless currency, 

and so it has gone to the dollar and the rand, and interestingly 

enough, there are commodities that are back on the shelves and 

the new MDC government, Tsvangirai and President Mugabe are 

attempting to move forward, primarily dealing with not only the 

food situation but the water situation with cholera. We recently 

visited the water supply for Harri and other parts to get first-hand 

knowledge of what is going on, but thank you for your interest, and 

we will be giving a report soon. 

Congresswoman Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Maternal mortality in underdeveloped nations is a huge problem. 

We know that, that is an understatement. We also know that one 

of the keys to promoting healthy pregnancies and births is good nutrition. So what would be the best effort—probably you, Mr. 

Brause, would be the one that would talk about this—to get food 

into these needy areas and make sure that the people who need 

them the most get the food, who need it the most get it, and that 

hey get quality food, balanced diets of some sort? That has to be 

part of what we are working on. And what role does food security 

plan in our overall goal for healthier mothers and babies? 

Mr. BRAUSE. Thank you. Those are two critical issues that Food 

for Peace has been working on, and actually the entire agency has 

worked on not only with our food aid resources but with our development assistance resources and our health resources. But with 

food aid specifically, the Title II program has been supporting material child health programs around the world for decades and will 

continue to do so, and we work very closely with our partner organizations who also feel very strongly about addressing the needs of 

pregnant women and young children to ensure that the children 

are born healthy and that they develop healthy during those critical first few years, and that leads me to the response on what we 

could do on food assistance. 

The Office of Food for Peace has just recently signed an agreement with Tufts University School of Nutrition to do an evaluation 

of the commodities that we have available to us and their nutritional composition to meet the needs of the beneficiaries around the 

world. And the group that we are trying to work on now is the 

under twos. What commodities and what nutritional makeup do 

those commodities need that would be appropriate for young children? Because if you miss the nutrition for children under two, 

then you have lost pretty much the entire ball game, and we really, 

really want to focus on that, and that is actually something that 

WFP and the NGOs are keenly interested in. 

So we are working together, if I might just add, with USDA on 

that effort to make sure we get the best commodities available. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Do you see any difference in delivery of these food 

products between the urban areas and the rural areas, the moms 

who do all the toting, walk miles to get commodities or what they 

need? Do the urban families, are they treated differently than the 

rural families? Is there a difference in their health? 

46

Mr. BRAUSE. I would say generally in the rural areas families 

have more access to locally grown foods, and we are paying particular attention to the urban poor, and they are the ones who 

often are in an environment where food is available but they don’t 

have access to it, so they have to make the difficult decisions on 

what to buy and what not to buy. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Philbrook, you look like you wanted to say 

something. 

Mr. PHILBROOK. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. I just wanted 

to add that in rural areas of developing countries, that is where the 

largest percentage of the population is, up to 70 percent in many 

countries, and most of the women are also the farmers. In fact, the 

vast majority of farmers in developing countries are women. And 

so material health and child health and nutrition need to go hand 

in hand with what women do, and it would be our judgment that 

if we want to address the issue that you raise we need to look at 

it comprehensively. We need to do rural agricultural development, 

and that includes—that includes a wide range of activities from extension information to irrigation, appropriate irrigation technology, 

to education, to health care, to assisting folks with understanding 

the values of bio technology, et cetera. It is a comprehensive development that needs to be done at the local level, at the village level 

with local people, mostly with women. If we address that comprehensively, then I believe we address the issue that you raise. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. And do you believe we also address the issue of 

self-sufficiency for the communities? 

Mr. PHILBROOK. That is the key, that would be one of the key 

results of that activity, yes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Congresswoman Watson wanted to ask another 

question. 

Ms. WATSON. And I am sensitive to the fact that we have a bill 

on the floor. But I want to address this to Mr. Brause because you 

mentioned something that really triggered a memory. Intelligence, 

in going into the—I guess the biology of the food that we supply. 

I am reminded in the early seventies of the Nestles Company sending Similax to the western coast of Africa, and many of the babies 

died, and we realized then the biological and endocrine makeup of 

the African child was so different and they couldn’t process the 

milk sugars and so on. 

So in the laboratories that you mention, are we looking at the 

kinds of foods that we send geographically? And you know, if we 

don’t have to time to really get into it, I could take it in writing, 

but I am really concerned about the products that we send over to 

meet the hunger needs. 

Mr. BRAUSE. Yes, ma’am. As a matter of fact, cultural and regional food uses are a very big issue for USAID and the team that 

we have working on this, and again it is going to take all of us, 

it is going to take assistance from USDA and our partners, and 

even it is going to take assistance from industry. Our industry in 

the United States has the knowledge, the depth of knowledge on 

food manufacturing and food nutrition that we need to draw into 

this discussion. And so I think with the help of Tufts we are going 

to have that kind of information available to us very soon, and then 

47

again we will work with industry to see if we can manufacture 

those products in the United States. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, thank you very much. I had several other questions, but because there is a vote on we will probably send some 

questions to you in writing, this whole question of how to deal with 

food aid. As a matter of fact it goes way back to the potato famine 

in Ireland in the 1840s: It was a question of food that was in the 

country, but it was high value food, and the question about importing wheat from the United States and the question was who is 

going to pay the tariffs as people died. So this whole question of 

food and food security is certainly not a new issue, and we certainly are trying to look at how we can have the most positive impact, and we really look forward to working with the GAO and the 

rest of you to try to figure out what is the best way; how we avoid 

price and securities; what happened in Ethiopia and Niger and 

other places when food was purchased locally and destabilized the 

market locally, and increased the price because of the scarcity for 

local people. It is a very complicated issue as we know. We will follow up with this, and since we have a vote, I would like to adjourn 

the meeting. I did have many, many more questions, but I would 

like to adjourn this portion of the meeting and ask for our briefer, 

Mr. Jury, to come forward. 

So thank you all very much, panelists. 

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

50


50113n.eps
51

Æ


50113m.eps