U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

70–293 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 106–909

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL FEEDING INITIATIVES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL FEEDING INITIATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING:

Thursday, July 27, 2000, International School Feeding Initiatives .................... 1

APPENDIX:

Thursday, July 27, 2000 .......................................................................................... 53

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Thursday, July 27, 2000 .......................................................................................... 117

Thursday, July 27, 2000

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Lugar, Hon. Richard G, a U.S. Senator from Indiana, Chairman, Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 1

Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from Mississippi ......................................... 30

Harkin, Tom, A U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 8

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from Vermont ......................................... 10

Daschle, Tom, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota ................................................ 9

Johnson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota ...................................... 2

Durbin, Hon. Richard J. U.S. Senator from Illinois ............................................. 13

McGovern, Hon. James P., A U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ............ 15

Dole, Hon. Bob, Former Senator, from the State of Kansas ................................ 6

McGovern, Hon. George, Ambassador, Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations, Former Senator, from the State of South Dakota ...... 4

WITNESSES

PANEL I

Bertini, Catherine, Executive Director, World Food Program, Rome, Italy ....... 22

Glickman, Dan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. . 19

PANEL II

Brookins, Carole, Chairman & CEO, World Perspectives, Inc., Washington,

DC. ......................................................................................................................... 42

Hackett, Ken, Executive Director, Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore MD. ...... 38

Levinger, Dr. Beryl, Senior Director, Educational Development Center and

Distinguished Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CA. .............................................................................................................. 34

Levinson, Ellen, Executive Director,, Coalition for Food Aid, Washington,

DC. ......................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Lugar, Hon. Richard G. .................................................................................... 54

Dole, Hon. Bob .................................................................................................. 56

Durbin, Hon. Richard J. ................................................................................... 58

McGovern, Hon. James, P. ............................................................................... 63
Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—CONTINUED

McGovern, Hon. George ................................................................................... 71

Bertini, Catherine ............................................................................................. 81

Brookins, Carole ............................................................................................... 112

Glickman, Dan .................................................................................................. 74

Hackett, Kenneth ............................................................................................. 96

Levinger, Beryl ................................................................................................. 89

Levinson, Ellen S. ............................................................................................. 105

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Proprietary Concept Paper: Food For Education And Economic Development, submitted by Carole Brookins ........................................................... 118
(1)

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL FEEDING

INITIATIVES

THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2000

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in room

216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar, (Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Lugar, Cochran,

Harkin, Leahy, Daschle, and Johnson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee is called to order. We welcome all to this important hearing this

morning. We convene to hear testimony on important proposals to

implement a school feeding program in developing countries. Ambassador George McGovern and Senator Robert Dole have worked

in recent months to promote a proposed initiative in which the

United States, in tandem with other countries, would work with recipient governments and communities to establish a preschool and

school feeding program.

In our country, our national school lunch program feeds 27-million-children each day to maximize physical and mental development. As Ambassador McGovern has pointed out, approximately

300-million-children in the world go hungry each day. He has proposed an initiative based upon experiences with the United States

program and carried out internationally to help address this issue.

Given the magnitude of the challenge, the proposal would necessarily command a tremendous amount of resources. The proposal

forward by Ambassador McGovern and Senator Dole calls for an investment, once fully implemented, of approximately $3 billion,

shared between the United States and other donor nations each

year. Of this $3 billion total, approximately $750 million would be

the United States share.

Clearly identifying and securing the funding for such an initiative is one the principal factors we will need to explore today in

considering the proposal. This past weekend, at the G–8 Summit

in Okinawa, President Clinton proposed a $300 million initiative to

improve school performance in developing nations. That program

would use the Commodity Credit Corporation’s surplus commodity

purchase authority to implement school feeding programs in recipi-
2

ent nations. A number of questions need to be addressed to move

these proposals now from paper to implementation, and one of the

most important factors is to determine the necessary infrastructure

that must be in place in a potential recipient country in order to

carry the program out effectively.

What sort of governmental, agricultural, and educational groundwork must be present? How does the program guard against fraud

and abuse, ensuring that the resources committed are used as intended? Likewise, we are eager to learn more about exactly how

the initiative would be carried out? Would it be simply a donation

of commodities, or will additional funds be required? How does the

program translate a commodity donation, as suggested by the

President, to actual implementation of a school feeding program on

the ground in individual places?

Does the World Food Program assume primary responsibility, as

suggested by Ambassador McGovern? And what is the role of the

private voluntary organizational structure? What is the role of the

private sector, the agriculture community? Clearly, these and other

questions will be addressed today and in other fora as we take a

look at this ambitious proposal.

We are pleased to have a very distinguished group of witnesses

before the Committee today, led off by Ambassador George McGovern and Senator Bob Dole, both former colleagues and, more importantly, former members of this committee. And following this testimony, we will hear from Senator Richard Durbin, Congressman

Jim McGovern, who have been leaders in their various chambers

in promoting this concept.

Secretary Glickman will appear with Ms. Bertini, and then a

whole host of people that I shall not enumerate now but will introduce fully at the time of their appearances.

We welcome our colleagues George McGovern and Bob Dole. We

appreciate so much your leadership in so many ways, and in this

particular initiative, we are eager to hear from you.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lugar can be found in the

appendix on page 54.]

I will ask, first of all, if Senator Johnson has any opening comment, and after his comment we will proceed to the witnesses.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for holding this timely and very important hearing. Senator

Daschle wanted very badly to be here, but some obligations dealing

with Governor Miller, our newest colleague to the Senate, this

morning has got him involved in that. But I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing to listen to the proposals for

an international school lunch program being proposed by Ambassador George McGovern and Senator Bob Dole, as you note, both

former members of this committee.

But I am particularly pleased and honored to have an opportunity to welcome Ambassador McGovern to the hearing this morning. Ambassador McGovern has served our State of South Dakota

and the Nation at every level, from his time as a bomber pilot in

World War II to his role as an educator at Dakota Wesleyan Uni-
3

versity, to his service in the House of Representatives, on President

Kennedy’s administration as Director of Food for Peace, as a Member of the U.S. Senate and a nominee for President, and currently

as Ambassador to the Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, of

the United Nations.

I am pleased and proud to think of George McGovern as a mentor, a confidant, an advisor, and, most importantly, a friend.

Throughout all of his long and distinguished career of public

service, Ambassador McGovern has always had food and nutrition

in dealing with hunger at the very top of his priorities. This proposal to provide school lunches to hungry children across the entire

globe, especially in parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, I think is extraordinary. Utilizing organizations such

as United Nations, private voluntary organizations, and other food

assistance agencies, we have an opportunity to play a role in delivering a universal school lunch program, building on what has been

a remarkably successful program in the United States.

We have 300-million-hungry-school-aged children in these places

throughout the world, and of that total, an unfortunate number of

130-million-school-aged kids are currently not even attending

school. So this program I think is an innovative, exciting proposal.

I am pleased that the Clinton administration has picked up on it

with a significant pilot project proposal of their own, and I look forward to the testimony today from Senator Dole and Ambassador

McGovern, as well as Secretary Glickman and the rest of the panels that you have organized for this hearing today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.

Let me just outline the structure of the hearing for a minute. As

has been mentioned, we will be having an important event, the

swearing-in of a new Senator on the floor at about 11:00 a.m., with

a roll call vote following that swearing-in and statement by incoming Senator Miller. I hope that there are not interruptions before

that point, but we have important business to do, so I am going to

ask each of the witnesses to try to summarize their comments in

5-minutes. The Chair will be liberal in recognizing that may not be

possible, and these are important facts we need to have before us.

We will ask Senators to likewise confine their questioning to 5-minutes given the spillover that inevitably happens when somebody

asks a question in the fourth minute and there is an extensive answer. But in that way, perhaps we will move ahead so that we can

give at least a good audience to each of our witnesses.

I just want to say on a personal note that it is a real pleasure

to have Bob Dole here. I asked Bob Dole, after I was elected to the

Senate, for his help in getting on this committee, and as always,

he was very helpful. And when it finally came down, as a matter

of fact, to a trade with the late Senator John Heinz, who accepted

Banking, I got Agriculture as the low man on the totem pole at the

end of the table. As I pointed out, and Bob and George will recognize this, at one end of the table was Herman Talmadge and Jim

Eastland, often in a pillar of smoke that surrounded both of them,

and they conducted the business. Occasionally, when Bob came in,

he was senior enough to interject a thought, but in essence, a lot
4

was going on at the other end of the table. Pat Leahy and I were

at the far ends.

George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey were both members of

our committee, and, of course, this indicates the importance of the

Committee, likewise the importance that people saw in their work

in agriculture as they moved on to national leadership and as leaders of their respective parties. So we are honored that both are

here.

I will ask Ambassador McGovern to testify first, to be followed

by Senator Dole, and then questions of the two of you. Ambassador

McGovern?

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MCGOVERN, AMBASSADOR,

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED

NATIONS, AND FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

Ambassador MCGOVERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am not going to read my statement, but I would like to hand it

in.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be made a part of the record, and that will

be true of all the statements today so that each one of you will

know that.

Ambassador MCGOVERN. Thank you very much.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, in connection with your comment

about lobbying my friend, Senator Dole, to get on this committee,

when I arrived here in 1962, I lobbied every Democratic Member

of the Senate to get on this committee, and I noticed some of them

smiled about my appeal. I discovered later that of the eight new

Senators who came here that year, I was the only one who requested Agriculture, and three people on the Committee requested

to get off.

[Laughter.]

Ambassador MCGOVERN. But I want to say that I have always

regarded it as the most important committee on which I served

during 18-years in the Senate. I was here on this committee from

the first day I arrived until the day I left, not entirely a voluntary

departure on my part, but I enjoyed it all. I think it is a great committee. It embraces some of the most essential concerns in our national life. And I am especially pleased to be here with my longtime friend and colleague, Bob Dole. He and I formed a bipartisan

coalition when we were in the Senate on matters that related to

agriculture or related to food and nutrition. And I think it is fair

to say we led the way during the decade of the 1970s in reforming

and expanding the Food Stamp program, the school lunch and

school breakfast programs, the WIC program, developing guidelines

for the American people.

The reason we were so successful in that effort was not only the

content of the legislation that we pushed, but because we did have

a strong bipartisan base that embraced every member of this committee and many other members of the Senate.

We have also both been Presidential contenders, and if Vice

President Gore and Governor Bush show any signs of slippage, we

are ready to take over again.

[Laughter.]
5

The CHAIRMAN. This is reassuring.

Ambassador MCGOVERN. But today we want to talk about a different vision. We virtually ended hunger in the United States in

the 1970s. There have been some slippage in that, as you know,

Mr. Chairman, in the 1980s and 1990s, and that in my opinion

ought to be corrected. It is embarrassing to me that we have 31-

million-Americans yet who don’t have enough to eat. I don’t say

that they are at the point of starvation, as is the case with people

abroad, but they don’t have enough to eat, and we need to correct

that as we move forward on this international scene.

Basically, what we are proposing—and we know this can’t be

done overnight—is that the United States take the lead in the

United Nations agencies, most of which are located in Rome, as far

as this issue is concerned, to feed every day every school child in

the world, and hopefully through a WIC-type program, do the same

thing for preschool children and their pregnant and nursing lowincome mothers.

We think this is important because dollar for dollar it would

probably do more to raise conditions of life for people in Third

World countries than any other single thing we can do. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Summers, has said that educating girls

is the most important thing you can do in the developing world dollar for dollar, and the best way to get those girls into school, as

it is with the boys, is to establish a daily school lunch or school

breakfast program.

What happens when such a program is started is that in a comparatively short time, school enrollments double, academic performance rises dramatically, and where you can measure it, athletic performance improves. The overall health and capacity to be

an effective citizen improves when children have enough to eat.

You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that of the 300-million-needyschool-aged boys and girls, 130 million of them don’t go to school

at all. They are destined for a life of illiteracy. Most of those are

girls, those 130 million that are not in school, and that is because

of the favoritism towards boys and discrimination against girls and

women that exists in so much of the Third World. But as the World

Food Program can testify—and we are going to hear from Catherine Bertini later on, the brilliant American director of the World

Food Program—they have discovered that parents urge both boys

and girls to go to school if they can benefit from a school lunch.

It takes off some of the pressure on the food budget at home. It enables boys and girls to become literature and knowledgeable. And,

in general, it is a very helpful investment.

One other point I wanted to make before I yield to Senator Dole,

Mr. Chairman, is that this program, like so many humanitarian

programs, also has a self-interest component as far as the United

States is concerned, and that is what it does for American farm

markets. Right now almost every farm crop is in surplus. This program, as we envision it, and as the President outlined it in Okinawa a few days ago, would call on the Secretary of Agriculture to

purchase farm produce that is in surplus; that could range everywhere from Kansas wheat and Iowa and South Dakota corn, to Indiana livestock and hogs, to citrus fruits, cranberries, nuts, any-
6

thing that is in surplus. It would have the effect of bolstering those

markets and thereby bolstering farm income.

In a sense, a large part of this program would probably be financed by the additional income of farmers who would be paying

more taxes in terms of the overall impact of the program.

I think that is about all I need to say, Mr. Chairman, and I want

to say on behalf of Senator Dole that all those years that we

worked together in the Senate, I came to see a very remarkable

public servant. He was the first person I called on this program

after I got the idea in Rome. He said: Of course, I will go along

with it if it is fiscally sound and we can figure out a satisfactory

way to finance it, I will be there.

Governor Bush, whom I mentioned a while ago, has talked about

compassionate conservatives. This is one right here—Senator Dole.

He is a model of it, and I am pleased to yield to him at this time.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador McGovern can be found

in the appendix on page 71.]

The CHAIRMAN. You are a great team.

Senator DOLE. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Democratic leader.

The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted the leader is here, and I will

ask Senator Dole to testify, and if you would like to make a comment, then that would be great.

Senator DOLE. Do you want to go first?

Senator DASCHLE. No, Bob. I would rather hear you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB DOLE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

FROM KANSAS

Senator DOLE. I will follow the advice of the Chairman—I know

you have a very busy morning, and a very busy today and tomorrow, I guess—and ask that my statement be made part of the

record.

I want to also indicate, I think the Chairman in his statement

fully understands some of the problems and some of the challenges

and some of the questions that need to be answered, and certainly

Ambassador McGovern and I are here with a program, but we understand that it has to be paid for. And I think in fairness to the

Committee, obviously, we would want to work with the Committee

or anybody we can work with to determine how that can be done.

And certainly you will hear later from Catherine Bertini. This is

a bipartisan program. She served in the Bush administration and

now is Director of the World Food Program, has done an excellent

job. You will hear from others, and we will go back to, you know,

Public Law 480, which started in the Eisenhower administration.

So there are many reasons why we ought to be working together

and why this should not be, certainly is not and never should be

a partisan issue.

I don’t think they could have any better champion than George

McGovern. He gives me credit for helping him over the last 30-

years in many food programs, and I did every time I could. But I

must say I realized how pressing the problem was when Ambassador McGovern had field hearings all across America. And we

could see the poverty in America, and we could see the young people going without food, without one meal a day. And that certainly
7

alerted me and I think alerted about every other member of the

Committee and some members, like Senator Hollings, who is not

on the Committee, to action. And it was truly bipartisan and has

been over the years.

I think during that time, as I recall, I think some people questioned our motives, that we don’t really believe this, that we are

doing this because he is from South Dakota and I am from Kansas,

and if we feed all these people, it makes the prices go up for farmers. I mean, some people did question our motives.

I never looked at it that way, and I can’t remember any farmer

every stopping me and saying, boy, I am glad you are voting for

all those programs that make the price of my product go up. I don’t

think that ever happened.

But there are a number of reasons that this should be done if

we can work it out, and I commend the administration for the $300

million pilot program, and I think that will give us a good start.

But Ambassador McGovern is an expert in this. He is at the

Food and Agriculture Organization now. He has done an outstanding job. He has dedicated his life to helping others, and this is just

one other indication. And if I can play some small role in this effort, I would be happy to do that.

I would point out just one thing. I think everybody has the facts.

We are talking about the impact on 300-million-children, and obviously, when anybody has a problem in the world, they look to the

United States first. And our generosity knows no bounds. The

American people, the Congress, we are spending the people’s

money, but I think when we can establish the need for a program

and structure it in a way that is totally responsible and answers

some of the questions raised by Chairman Lugar, then we are off

to a good start.

So I am here in support of the concept. I am not certain we have

a program yet, but the concept to me makes a great deal of sense,

particularly, as Ambassador McGovern talked about, the girls.

There is discrimination in some of the Third World countries when

it comes to females, and they don’t even have the chance to learn

to read or write because they don’t go to school. And as he pointed

out, the facts indicate that just one meal a day would double the

participation of the number of young people going to school in some

of these countries. So that in itself, the fact that they go there for

the meal, but they also have the education, I think would have a

worldwide impact.

So we are here together. We belong to this fraternity that, unfortunately, not many people want to join. We both lost a Presidential

race, but we haven’t lost our spirit and we haven’t lost what I hope

is our diligence in looking at issues and looking at problems.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Senator Dole can be foundin the appendix on page 56.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are grateful that both of you are here

with us, and we mentioned early on the purpose of having this

hearing, although it is late in the session, just to try to bring some

framework for the proposal so that those who are involved in authorization, appropriations, and the administration can put at least

a fine point on this and move things ahead.
8

I want to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member and then

the Democrat leader, in that order, for comments or questions they

may have. Senator Harkin?

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

IOWA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a little late. I want to thank you for holding this

hearing on an issue or an idea that you wonder why we didn’t do

it before. It is one of things that come up and you say, Why didn’t

we think of this before?

We have had the food. We have the surpluses. The need is there.

There are private voluntary organizations and others that are in

place that I think could handle this, and you wonder why this

hasn’t really been a part of our multilateral negotiations with some

of the G–8 countries. I am told that you mentioned in your remarks

about what just happened in Okinawa. So, to use a well-worn cliche, this is an idea whose time has come.

I want to thank our former colleagues Senator Dole and Ambassador McGovern for their leadership in this area, as it has been

their leadership going back for many years on feeding programs,

everything from WIC programs to school lunch, to school breakfast,

to meals for the elderly. These two men sitting in front of us have

provided the leadership for many years, and I applaud you both for

that.

The only thing I think about when I think of this international

school lunch program that we are talking about, I hadn’t really

thought about it in its contextual framework, but I have been doing

a lot of work in the last few years on the issue of child labor. And

I have traveled to a number of countries to look at child labor and

what it takes to get these kids out of these places and get them

into schools. And one place where we had a great success was in

Bangladesh, and that was with the International Program for the

Elimination of Child Labor under the ILO, the U.S. Government,

the Bangladesh Government. They were successful in getting about

8,000 or 9,000 kids, mostly girls, out of factories and into—well,

what they called school. We might not call it a school. A little oneroom place with a dirt floor, but at least they had a teacher, they

had materials, and they were learning to read and write.

And it is interesting that when I was there—this is about a year

and a half ago—one of the big problems was the lack of any food

during the day. And they had a real need for that, and maybe the

kids would bring a piece of fruit or something with them in the

morning. And I never even thought about this as being a part of

the program, but I saw it as a real problem for them in terms of

getting a meal to these kids. And the person in charge of these

schools in Dhaka said to me that, gee, if we just had some way of

getting food to these kids, this would really help bring them more

into school.

So I see what you are talking about as also a way of reducing

the instance of child labor around the world, because it will get

these kids and it will get the families now—see, we gave the families some money to help offset the loss of the kids’ wages. But if
9

you did that and coupled that with a nutritious meal, one that

would provide them with their minimum daily intake of vitamins

and minerals, just think what that would do to encourage families

to get their kids out of the workplace and into schools.

So I see it maybe from a new vantage point here that I hadn’t

thought about before, and that is, what this would do to help reduce the incidence of child labor around the world.

Again, I want to thank you both for your leadership in this area,

and I look forward to doing what we can to help promote this idea

and get it moving. We should have done it yesterday. Thank you

both.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Harkin.

Senator Daschle.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DASCHLE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for

being late. I had to host a breakfast meeting this morning for our

newest Senator, who will be sworn in today, Zell Miller. And I am

sorry to have missed George’s testimony, but I read it before, and

I compliment both of you on your testimony this morning.

Having heard Bob Dole remind us that we have two former Presidential nominees before us today, I think it is evidence, again, of

the extraordinary leadership these two men have shown this country in so many ways, but especially on the issue of food and nutrition. These two overcame partisan bickering way back when it existed when they were here and addressed the skeptics and said we

can have a school lunch program and we can have a WIC program,

and they proved to the country and to the world that WIC and

school lunch works. And they did it overcoming objections within

their own parties and all the bitterness that comes sometimes with

partisanship. They did it.

They are here to tell us that they feel in the heart of hearts that

they can extend this concept now internationally, and I applaud

them for their willingness to once again in this Presidential period

where, again, the acrimony is evidence, that they would be here on

a bipartisan basis once again to show us the kind of leadership

that they have shown us on so many occasions means a lot to me

personally. And I thank Bob Dole and I thank George McGovern.

Stephen Ambrose is writing another book, and I am glad he is

writing it. He is writing about George McGovern’s them way, way

back after bombing on 39 missions, turning right around virtually

the next day and dropping food on those same locations that he

bombed the day before. I am not sure when the book is going to

come out, but it goes to the heart of what George McGovern is all

about.

George McGovern has been working on food issues all of his lifetime, from dropping food in places where they were bombed to becoming Food for Peace Director, now working at the United Nations, writing books. ‘‘Ending World Hunger in Our Time’’ is a book

that is about to come out, which simply says we can do it in our

lifetime by the year 2030.

And so I have had many luxuries and many wonderful experiences and many things that I will look back on with great pride,
10

none of which will be more important to me than the fact that I

have had the opportunity to serve with Bob Dole and George

McGovern. And so I am grateful to them for showing us the way

again on a bipartisan way to provide us the kind of real blueprint

for ending world hunger.

George pointed out in his testimony that there are 300-millionschool-aged-kids around the country that don’t have the luxury of

school lunch today. That is more than exist in this entire country,

more kids than there are people. I can’t think of a better marriage

than taking the food we have got to the kids who need it and doing

something that we have already demonstrated, and probably the

biggest lab test ever to be shown here in this country, a lab test

that says when you provide kids with a school lunch program it

works. They learn. They become students; they become active participants in society. It works. It is one of the best investments we

can make. So I am grateful to them, and I am very, very pleased

to have had the opportunity to be here today as they present their

testimony, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daschle.

Senator Leahy.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM VERMONT

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know how much

I love this committee. It was the first assignment I requested when

I was elected to the U.S. Senate, and I have had the privilege of

serving on it for more than 25-years, and much of that time with

you, Mr. Chairman. And I have had the privilege of being both

Ranking Member and Chairman of this committee.

But I mention that long service because I remember—and I believe it was my very first meeting—Hubert Humphrey took me

aside and he said, ‘‘Patrick’’—I can see Bob and George smiling.

You can almost hear him. He said, ‘‘Patrick,’’ he says, ‘‘we do a lot

more than dairy farms on this committee, I want you to know.’’

And I said, ‘‘Well, yes, Sir, I understand that.’’ I mean, I was 34-

years-old, and I was getting the full Hubert Humphrey treatment.

And he said, ‘‘We do a lot for hungry people, and you just do whatever George McGovern and Bob Dole tell you to, and you will be

all right.’’

[Laughter.]

Senator LEAHY. And I have been doing that for 25-years, and I

have been all right on this one, Mr. Chairman.

But I remember that because I can think of so many times that

both of you would put together the coalition necessary to move

through everything from WIC to expansion of the School Lunch

Program to all the different major feeding programs, Public Law

480, all the rest, and do it in a way that conservatives and liberals

and moderates could join together.

Hubert was right. The two of you had that soul of it. In fact,

when I became Chairman of the Committee, the first meeting I did,

I put the word ‘‘nutrition’’ back in there. And, Bob, you may well

recall at that meeting I mentioned both you and George and what

you have done.
11

This international school lunch initiative, what a tremendous

thing and how much it can help millions of children worldwide.

And the partnership we have here, Dan Glickman, the Secretary,

and Ambassador McGovern. I see my friend Cathy Bertini, whom

I have admired and worked with all these years, the World Food

Program; Senator Dole has such enormous credibility on the Hill

with both parties and the American Food Service Association, Marshall Mats and all the rest.

I think of the strong partnerships with PVOs that can be done,

Save the Children, Catholic Relief. I see representatives of Bread

for the World here, others who have worked so long on all of this.

And I know that the American School Food Service Association

[ASFSA] has been working with nutrition leaders from other countries through its going global program. In fact, Cathy and Marshall, I think you had a number of delegates from other countries

at the National School Lunch Convention this summer.

So these are moral issues. They are not Democrat or Republican

issues. They are really moral issues. Hunger is a moral issue, especially for a country like ours that can easily feed a quarter of a billion people and have food left over to export all over the world. It

becomes a moral issue.

I look at this chart here that shows every corner of the world has

undernourished children and families. So it is not just childhood

hunger. It is about education, which is critical to reducing poverty

and reaching poor countries alike. If you don’t do that, you are not

going to have democracy. And if you don’t have democracy, we are

going to continue to be fighting these wars that leave people devastated.

Victor Hugo said that no army can withstand the strength of an

idea whose time has come. Well, the time has come for this global

school feeding initiative. I think you are going to find some heavy,

heavy support on the Hill, and I think it is going to reflect the kind

of things that Ambassador McGovern and Senator Dole have done

to make us all proud.

I would ask that my whole statement and the statement from the

G–8 issued in Okinawa be part of the record, Mr. Chairman. And

I applaud you because I can’t think of a nutrition bill that I have

been involved with that you and Senator Harkin have joined in,

and, of course, Senator Daschle from his very first days here in the

Senate on this committee have helped us on that. We have got half

of South Dakota here with Tim Johnson and Tom.

[Laughter.]

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Senator Leahy. Before you came in, I pointed out how remote the two of us were from

Herman Talmadge and Jim Eastland as we sat at the ends of the

table.

Senator LEAHY. No cigar smoke.

The CHAIRMAN. We have confirmed that, but, likewise, I appreciate the testimony of our colleagues. You are an inspiration to our

bipartisan instincts on this committee. And I know that Senator

Harkin and Senator Leahy and Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson will be wonderful allies. I look forward to trying to frame, as

I stated in my opening statement, something that gets us into leg-
12

islation or into an actual proposal, and that is the purpose of our

coming here today, to bring this down to the ground. And you have

given us a marvelous start.

Before I ask for any more questions of you, do either one of you

have statements stimulated by what you have heard from this

panel?

Senator DOLE. With all these fine statements, I am thinking

about gearing up for the year 2004.

[Laughter.]

Senator DOLE. I could use all these things in my brochure, too.

Senator LEAHY. You have got a good ticket right there.

Senator DOLE. George might be my running mate.

The CHAIRMAN. Ambassador McGovern?

Ambassador MCGOVERN. You are better at picking a Vice

Presidential—— [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks for what has been

an overwhelming response from the Committee. It doesn’t really

surprise me because I think this is the kind of an idea that will

have a broad base of support in the Congress.

There were just a couple of points I wanted to add. I heard that

at the American Food Service Association annual convention in St.

Louis last week that a number of foreign countries were there, including Japan and others, to find out how you set up a model

school lunch program. They gave us the tribute of being a country

that has a model school lunch program. I think it is quite remarkable. Marshall Mats, who has been referred to here earlier and is

so well informed on these issues, told me about this, and I think

that is important for us to keep in mind, that the eyes of the world

are upon us. And there isn’t anything in my opinion the United

States can do on the world scene that would put us in better stead

in the eyes of other countries than to move ahead on feeding hungry children.

One other point. I neglected to say that when we look at these

130-million-children are not in school, most of them girls, the

World Food Program has done some studies in half a dozen different Third World countries, and they have found that these illiterate girls have on the average of six children apiece, whereas girls

that have gone to school delay marriage and practice a little greater measure of family responsibility. They have on the average of

2.9 children, more than cut in half, the birth rate. So to those experts who believe that to get on top of the world hunger problem

we need to do more on the population explosion, as it has been

called, the best way you can do that is by educating girls.

This school lunch idea that Senator Dole and I are proposing will

do precisely that. It will bring the girls into school. The mothers

and fathers will see to it, whether they have boys or girls or both,

that they get to school if they can get a nutritious meal. Senator

Harkin referred to this problem that he saw in Bangladesh. It is

similar all across Asia, Africa, Latin America, large parts of Eastern Europe, including Russia.

So to whatever extent we bring youngsters into school, especially

the girls, we will have the best results in terms of restraining population growth.
13

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you both very, very much.

Senator HARKIN. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Harkin?

Senator HARKIN. A point of personal privilege before they leave.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course.

Senator HARKIN. And this has not to do with hunger or nutrition,

but this week marked the tenth anniversary of the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and we have had some great celebrations over the

last couple of days. Thousands of people with disabilities and their

families have been here in Washington. And I just again wanted

to say thank you to Senator Dole for his strong leadership 10-

years-ago in helping us get through the Americans with Disabilities

Act when he was Majority Leader in the Senate and, again, Bob,

for your strong support over the last 10-years in making sure it

wasn’t chipped away at. You were missed at a lot of the celebrations. I know you were in another State celebrating. That is what

I heard.

Senator DOLE. I was in Columbus, Ohio. They had a big celebration yesterday noon. It was really fantastic.

Senator HARKIN. I heard you were there, but I just want you to

know that at all the celebrations here, with all these thousands of

people with disabilities, you were mentioned often and praised

highly, and well deserved. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Ambassador MCGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, could I just add 10-seconds here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, of course.

Ambassador MCGOVERN. A key person in all of this will be the

Secretary of Agriculture. He is the man that is going to have to decide what products are purchased and in what quantities. I think

we are very fortunate to have Dan Glickman as Secretary of Agriculture. He has done a wonderful job, and I think he will with this

program.

The CHAIRMAN. We concur with that. Thank you very much for

that tribute.

The Chair would like to call now our colleagues Senator Durbin

and Senator McGovern to the table.

Gentlemen, I would just mention, because others have come in

since I started the hearing, that we would ask you to try to summarize your comments in 5-minutes, and your full statements will

be made a part of the record, and we will ask Senators to try to

confine their questions to 5-minutes because of the busy program

on the Senate floor that will be involved in all of this.

Senator Durbin.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM ILLINOIS

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing, and,

Senator Harkin and Senator Johnson, thank you for joining in on

this important day. To think that we would have two giants of the

Senate and of our Nation, Senator Bob Dole and Ambassador

George McGovern, come here and make this suggestion today is an

indication, I think, of the value of this concept. And I don’t need

to sell it to any member of this committee because each of you in
14

your own way has contributed in your public service toward this

very value that we are exalting today in the suggestion of this

international school lunch program.

I can tell you that when we had a luncheon just a few weeks ago

in the Senate dining room with Senators Dole and McGovern, representatives from Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin, Congressman McGovern, Congressman Tony Hall, and Secretary Glickman,

there wasn’t a person who walked in that dining room that didn’t

stop cold in their tracks and say, What are those folks doing together? And the fact is that we have come together on a bipartisan

basis with an exciting concept to address some real-world problems.

Three-hundred-million-children in the world who get up in the

morning hungry and go to bed at night hungry, that is more than

the population of the United States; 130 million of these children

do not go to school. If we can help feed these children and bring

them to school, as Ambassador McGovern has said, it will have a

dramatic impact not only on their lives but on the world.

Last January, I went to Sub-Saharan Africa and visited South

Africa and Kenya and Uganda. I went there to study food issues

and issues of microcredit. I was overwhelmed by the AIDS epidemic. That is the overarching concern on that continent and will

be soon throughout the Third World. This program addresses realworld concerns.

I met a lady in Uganda named Mary Nalongo Nassozzi. This is

a 63-year-old-widow. All of her children have died from AIDS. She

has created an orphanage in her home for her 16 grandchildren

who are now living with her. Her backyard is covered with stones

and crosses to symbolize the children she has lost to this epidemic.

We can’t build enough orphanages to take care of 10-millionAIDS-orphans in Sub-Saharan Africa. But we can help people like

Mary Nalongo who want to extend their family and bring in their

children, their grandchildren, their nephews and their nieces. This

program will help them because it gives, at 10-cents a meal, a child

enough nutrition to go through the better part of a day. That is a

terrific investment, not only in the future of those families but in

the future of this planet. And for my friends from Illinois or Indiana or Iowa or South Dakota, and I am sure Vermont as well, we

can say to them that we are going to take the surplus of our bounty, a surplus which is depressing farm prices, and invest it in people. I think that will make a big difference in the world that we

live in.

I just want to close—and I want to thank you for your help in

this—by saying that today I will be introducing legislation which

I invite you all to join me on, which is an effort to build on what

the President suggested at the G–8 conference. I talked to John Podesta before that conference, and I have been in communication

with the White House, and I am glad that they have endorsed the

basic concept that we are discussing. But this program has to be

available in the years when we may not have surpluses to continue

it. And the idea that I have suggested is that money that is now

in the EEP account that is not being used could be used partially

for this type of feeding program so that we will have a source that

we can turn to regularly.
15

I hope you will consider this legislation and join me in reallocating unspent EEP money to school feeding and other food aid problems. When I look at all of the things that we disagree on, on Capitol Hill, all of the bipartisan wrangling that goes on, it is such a

breath of fresh air to walk into this room and see such a strong

bipartisan sentiment in support of what is a fundamentally sound

concept that will make this a better world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin can be found in the

appendix on page 58.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Senator Durbin, for

your leadership in this.

Congressman McGovern.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS

Congressman MCGOVERN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

want to thank you and the members of this committee for giving

me an opportunity to testify before you this morning. Your years

of service and leadership both on agriculture issues and on foreign

aid and humanitarian issues are admired not only by your colleagues in the U.S. Senate but by many of us in the United States

House of Representatives. By holding the first hearing to explore

the importance of a universal school lunch and WIC-type program,

this committee once again demonstrates that leadership, and I am

very, very grateful.

In the House, I am happy to report a bipartisan movement is

growing in support of this initiative. Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson and Marcy Kaptur and Congressman Tony Hall and I recently

sent a bipartisan letter to President Clinton, signed by 70 Members

of the Congress, urging him to take leadership within the international community on this proposal. And I am attaching a copy

of that letter testimony and ask that it be part of the record of this

hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be part of the record.

Congressman MCGOVERN. I also request that a letter from the

National Farmers Union outlining their support for this initiative

be entered into the record and a letter I just received from Jim

O’Shaughnessy, the vice president and general counsel of Ocean

Spray, be made part of the record. We grow a lot of cranberries in

Massachusetts, so this is very, very important to Massachusetts.

I also want to join in commending the leadership of Senators

McGovern, Dole, and Durbin as well as Secretary of Agriculture

Glickman on this issue. It is really extraordinary that this coalition

has come together. And I probably should say, since a number of

people have asked me about whether I am related to George

McGovern, I wish I were. I worked for him as an intern in the Senate and we are ideological soul mates, but we are not related. He

is one of my dearest friends.

A lady came up to me when I walked in here and said that she

has been a long-time and consistent supporter of my father’s, and

I said to her——

[Laughter.]
16

Congressman MCGOVERN. I said I appreciate that, my father

owns a liquor store in Worcester, Massachusetts. We appreciate all

your business.

[Laughter.]

Help put me through college.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to repeat what has already been expressed so eloquently and passionately by Ambassador McGovern,

Dole, and Durbin. So I will not reiterate the many facts and statistics cited in support of this global school feeding proposal. Instead,

I would like to just take a couple of minutes to state why I support

this proposal and what I feel we in Congress need to do to ensure

its success.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the world moves on simple ideas. The

simple idea we are discussing this morning is also a big idea. It is

even more compelling in its potential to move us closer to achieving

many of our most important foreign policy goals: reducing hunger,

increasing and enhancing education in developing countries, increasing education for girls, reducing child labor, increasing opportunities for orphans of war or disease, such as HIV/AIDS orphans,

decreasing population, and decreasing pressure on food resources

and on the environment.

Clearly, our own prosperity, now and in the future, depends in

large part upon the stability and economic development of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. This proposal calls for

substantial investment. But in the words of the National Farmers

Union, and I quote, ‘‘The benefits to those less fortunate than ourselves will be profound, while our own investment will ultimately

be returned many times over. The international nutrition assistance program is morally, politically and economically correct for

this Nation and all others who seek to improve mankind.’’ I believe, Mr. Chairman, this simple idea might prove to be the

catalyst to a modern-day Marshall Plan for economic development

in the developing countries, an international effort in which our

farmers, our nonprofit development organizations, and our foreign

assistance play a significant role.

To be successful, such an effort must be multilateral and ensure

that these programs become self-sustaining. However, this initiative, like so many others before it, could also fail, and it could fail

because we in Congress fail to provide sufficient funding. It could

fail because we fail to make a commitment of at least 10-years to

secure its success. It could fail because we fail to integrate this proposal into other domestic and foreign policy priorities. And it could

fail if we decide to rob Peter to pay Paul, taking money from existing foreign aid programs and undermining our overall development

strategy.

We need to understand from the beginning that we must fully

fund this program, both its food and its education components. And

we need to understand from the beginning that we are in this for

the long haul. We need to understand from the beginning that support for this program requires, and, in fact, it demands increasing

U.S. aid for programs that strengthen education, that promote local

agriculture, and provide debt relief.

Mr. Chairman, I know the politics of this project are not simple,

but just as Senators McGovern and Dole built a bipartisan consen-
17

sus in the past, I believe we can do the same now. We don’t need

to reinvent the wheel to implement this program. So much is already in place to move ahead on this initiative. We already have

a history of funding food aid and food education programs. We already have successful partnerships with U.S. NGOs to carry out

these programs abroad and at the community level. We also have

established relations with international hunger and education

agencies, including the Food Aid Convention, the World Food Program, UNICEF, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

We already have a successful history of collaborating with our

farmers to provide food aid, and we already have proven mechanisms to prevent destabilizing domestic or international markets.

And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would rather pay our farmers to produce than watch them destroy their crops or pay them

not to produce at all.

I would like to add, in conclusion, that as we commit ourselves

to reducing hunger and expanding education for children throughout the developing world, we must also commit ourselves to eliminating hunger here at home. If we fully fund existing domestic

hunger programs, if we pass legislation such as the Hunger Relief

Act, then we can make sure that no adult and no child in America

goes hungry.

Mr. Chairman, if we fail to take action on these initiatives now

during a time of unprecedented prosperity, then when will we? I

believe we can and we must eliminate hunger here at home and,

at a minimum, reducing hunger among children around the world.

And I believe we can and we must expand our efforts to bring the

children of the world into the classroom. And we need to make that

commitment now, and I hope that you and members of your committee will lead the way.

Senator Durbin has legislation, and we will be happy to work

with this committee to draft legislation that could serve as the underpinning for this program now and in the future, and I thank

you for the opportunity to be here.

[The prepared statement of Congressman McGovern can be found

in the appendix on page 63.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you very much for your testimony. Let me just say apropos of the comment that Senator Dole

and Ambassador McGovern were making about the late Hubert

Humphrey. This committee does lots of things. Sometimes we are

accused of dealing in foreign policy, energy policy, all sorts of policy, and so we don’t lack ambition. But our thought here today is

to try—and our next witness is the Secretary; Ms. Bertini will

probably draw a finer point on this—specifically what kind of an

outline or framework, even given all the NGOs, the other people

that are doing things like this around the world, how we frame this

in a way that our colleagues can understand it and our constituents can understand it. And both of you will be very important in

that quest because we will have to finally explain to the Budget

Committee, and one reason why we are having the hearing now,

even though we are in the waning stages, perhaps, of this Congress, is that the Budget Committee will be meeting pretty early

in the next one, you know, maybe long before all of us gear up with
18

our new committee assignments, whether it is authorization or appropriations. So we will need to have some idea of what the ambitions are there.

This year, for example, this committee asked Senator Domenici

to try to set aside money which we thought would be required for

farmers’ income in this country as opposed to having an emergency

at the end of the trail and really to plug that money in. One of the

problems with the Hunger Relief Act is that money was not

plugged in. We are sort of dealing outside the box there, and we

want to be inside the box if we are serious about this proposal, as

we are.

So I am trying to get anecdotal information from people like our

colleague Senator Frist, who has been in Sudan, parts that have

not been seen by any other public servant, as well as other places

in Africa. All of you have traveled extensively there and know the

infrastructure problems in a single country of having anything that

approaches the model that has been suggested in terms of our

school lunches and the audit trail of how the food got there and

who got it and who politically appropriated it for what purpose.

So all of this is a part of the hearing process, but a part of our

learning process on this committee and with our colleagues in the

House and Senate.

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that very

quickly?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, of course.

Senator DURBIN. I would just say I totally concur, as I am sure

Congressman McGovern does. I think the American people are caring and compassionate, but they don’t want to think that they are

shoveling money down a rat hole, that it is going into some sort

of an expenditure that isn’t accountable, that it doesn’t really help

people around the world. And I think that is part of our responsibility, too, not only to have the right humanitarian concern, not

only for our farmers but for people overseas, but to say to the taxpayers of this country this is going to be done in a way that you

will be proud of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and that they can follow and applaud.

Senator Johnson?

Senator JOHNSON. I think given the time constraints that we

have—I appreciate the insights that Senator Durbin and Congressman McGovern have afforded us here this morning on what I think

ought to be a very high priority for our Nation. I know Secretary

Glickman is here, and I know that we have an obligation on the

floor, and so I will withhold questions that I otherwise would ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Leahy?

Senator LEAHY. I have nothing further to add. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate

it.

The Chair would like to recognize now the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and the Honorable Catherine Bertini, executive director of the World Food Program.
19

Secretary Glickman, it is always a privilege for this committee

to have you before us. We look forward to these meetings, and especially on this subject today on which you have already given

leadership in your career as a Member of the House of Representatives and as Secretary of Agriculture.

Ms. Bertini, we are delighted that you are here again. You have

added grace and wisdom to our hearings on many occasions, and

we look forward to this one.

Secretary Glickman, would you proceed?

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC.

Secretary GLICKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnson, Senator Leahy. It is an honor to be here. I watched with a certain degree of nostalgia the witnesses, Ambassador McGovern and

Senator Dole, both of whom we have all known for so long. I recall

my old days in Kansas when periodically I used to spar with Senator Dole, but at the same time recognized it was all political,

never personal. And what great leaders both of them are and how

an idea germinates from those two people can take hold and maybe

change the world. So I thought that it was a particularly poignant

moment.

I want to thank Cathy Bertini, who has done an outstanding job

at the World Food Program. She, of course, at one point in her life

worked at the United States Department of Agriculture in a senior

position, so she has got a great perspective.

I also want to recognize the team who are here at USDA: Gus

Schumacher, Richard Fritz, Mary Chambliss, and others. They are

the ones who will run these programs, and they are, at least from

the Government’s perspective, working with the PVO community

and the World Food Program, and so their input is going to be very

critical in making sure that these programs are run very well.

Let me just say a couple things. The FAO has just come out with

a study which indicates that world hunger is continuing despite increased food supplies. Even in 15-years, there could still be about

600-million-people suffering from chronic undernourishment, the

FAO said, and that is in a recent FAO study. So, you know, the

problems remain, in certain parts of the world are unabated.

Last year, the United States provided 10-million-metric-tons of

food aid, a record high. Just last week, I announced a 350,000-metric-ton donation to Africa worth about $145 million. The total donations for Africa this year are about 1-million-metric-tons of food. So,

you know, we are trying to do what we can to get food to that part

of the world.

Tomorrow night I leave for an 8-day trip for Africa, my first trip

ever to Africa. I have been to South Africa but never into the areas

dealing with hunger. I am going to go to Nigeria, to Kenya, and

South Africa with a USDA team largely to focus on food aid, food

assistance, together with other economic and trade relationships

with Africa, between Africa and the United States. I think it is an

extremely important time to be there, to be on the ground looking

at these issues.

I am not going to repeat all the objectives which you have heard

about this program other than to state that they are overall at-
20

tempting to improve democratic participation through an enhanced

and improved economy and everything that that relates to in the

parts of the world that have been suffering.

I would make a couple of comments. What is USDA’s role in all

of this? We will have several roles in managing this initiative.

First, the funding will come from the Commodity Credit Corporation under the oversight of this committee.

Second, FAS, the Foreign Agriculture Service, and USDA staff

will administer, including monitoring and evaluating the program,

building on their extensive experience in food assistance. And that

is where we are very lucky to have the team of Fritz and

Chambliss and others who have great, extensive, long-term experience in food assistance.

Third of all, the Farm Service Agency, which, of course, manages

our farm programs, will purchase the needed commodities to assure their delivery to the recipient countries.

And, fourth, we will pool our resources at both USDA and around

the Government to support this initiative. For example, the Food

and Nutrition Service, that is the part of USDA that manages the

National School Lunch Program. They also manage the Women, Infant and Children Program, all the feeding programs. Their expertise is very great in terms of how you establish these kinds of programs, and, again, working with the Agency for International Development, who are already on the ground operating some sorts of

programs like these. Their expertise will be critical as well, and I

am sure there are other Government agencies involved.

You will have significant roles in both the PVO community and

the World Food Program. Cathy will talk about that, but we anticipate the World Food Program will expand on its programs to work

with host governments and private voluntary organizations to support the countries’ efforts to improve nutrition in schools.

The World Food Program will receive agricultural commodities

from the United States and feed them to needy school children.

They will also serve as a central point between the U.S. and other

donors.

The PVO community, which is critical in making these programs

work, we will have an extensive relationship. USDA will accept

proposals from the private voluntary community to participate. The

PVOs may choose to work directly with the USDA on a country

program or as partners with USDA or as partners with the World

Food Program as well. This thing has a great degree of flexibility,

but recognizing that it is people on the ground in these countries

who will ultimately decide how it is done and whether it will work

or not.

This initiative is a pilot program, a cooperative effort between

the World Food Program and PVO communities. We estimate $300

million is the beginning for the commodities and for the transporting of those commodities.

It will be coordinated through the existing Food Assistance Policy

Council, which is chaired by USDA. We will use the authority of

the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act to purchase surplus

commodities and the authority of 416(b) which provides for overseas donations.
21

The commodities most suitable for the initiative? Well, this could

change in the future, but clearly, soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, nonfat dry milk would be among the major commodities. But as you— it was talked about before. I was also at the American Food School

Service convention and met with some people from overseas. They

are interested in a lot of things beyond just the commodities. They

are interested in the techniques of cooking, of heating, of chilling,

of transporting, and of actually doing the logistics of putting food

packages together, which we could also help them as well.

Countries will be chosen based on their need, their contribution

of resources, their commitment to expand access to basic education,

their current infrastructure and ability to deliver food to schools,

their commitment to assuming responsibility for operating the program within a reasonable time frame, and their endeavor towards

democratic transformation as well. I mean, there are a lot of pieces

that go into this. It is not just a food assistance program, as you

can see. It is a development assistance program with a heavy education component to it.

We will be careful not to displace commercial sales. That is something that Congress has, you know, warned us on before. There will

be, however, a monetization aspect of this. Some of the commodities, as we do in most of our food assistance, may be monetized,

may be sold to fund other food on the ground and administrative

costs. This is something that we will have to carefully develop as

part of the proposals. We do this in various parts of the world, and

it has worked out very successfully.

The proceeds from the sales could also be used to manage the

programs, could be used to buy local foodstuffs that may be more

appropriate for local tastes, or for the school meals program or buying equipment, paying storage, this kind of thing. It is very interesting. As a result of this discussion, I had a conversation with the

head of the Export–Import Bank who told me they have the ability

to finance longer-term purchases of services or equipment, even at

low levels—you don’t have to buy multi-billion-dollar things—that

might be of assistance to foreign governments as they enter into

these programs: storage, heating, chilling, all those kinds of things.

So this is a program that may give us kind of a catalyst to try

to develop more of a feeding infrastructure in some of these countries as well.

Let me just close by again thanking the PVO community. I met

with them yesterday, all the organizations that you can imagine.

Working with the World Food Programs, they are the ones to make

sure that these programs work and that we try to deal with the

incredible chronic problems of hunger in the developing nations.

Finally, let me just say something else, too, because I was watching Dole and McGovern here and thinking to myself—and I think

you are in this same role, Mr. Chairman, as well. The U.S. has

been the leader since the Second World War in virtually every humanitarian assistance project in the world. We are at the forefront.

Others follow. Some argue we are not doing as much now as we

should, and I happen to think that we could be doing more. But

we are basically the intellectual and moral, spiritual leader of trying to help the rest of the world bring itself up to greater levels

of economic and basic subsistence and beyond that.
22

This project personalizes a lot of our food assistance a little more.

It is not intended to replace the general level of food assistance we

are providing. But what it does is it gives a little tie to people’s

lives, that the food assistance will be tied to something else that

will affect their lives profoundly, and that is, the ability to become

educated, and tying those two things together can have a profound

effect on the future of their lives as well as democracy in their

countries.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Glickman can be found in

the appendix on page 74.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Ms. Bertini.

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE BERTINI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WORLD FOOD PROGRAM, ROME ITALY

Ms. BERTINI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is very exciting to be here today on a day that I think we will look back to

know as the kick-off for a program that can not only make a difference in millions of lives but save millions of lives and help millions of people in developing countries, help their communities and

their countries become strong economically, and that certainly will

be a great tribute to this program, to the grand idea of someone

who thinks very big, Ambassador McGovern, and to the strong bipartisan support from people who know about nutrition issues and

how important child nutrition is, that being you, Mr. Chairman,

and the members of the Committee who have been so supportive

of these issues in the past, and the strong jump-start from this administration who have come forward to say we are ready, here we

are with a very significant initial contribution to the program. So,

Secretary Glickman, thank you for that, and I think all people involved have helped to make this strong, quick, and bipartisan. And

that certainly, as has been pointed out, is the tradition of this committee, and fortunately for the nutrition programs, both domestic

and international, a tradition for the support of hungry children in

the United States and malnourished children throughout the

world.

The concept, as Senator Dole said, of school feeding for all is a

very exciting concept, and it is one where we can make a very, very

serious difference. And, you know, when we think about the history

and some of the success in the United States, I think back to the

school breakfast program during my time at USDA and the research that was done at the time which showed that children who

had access to breakfast at school showed less absenteeism, less tardiness. They paid more attention in class. They got higher test

scores. And this was as a result primarily of the fact that they had

breakfast at school.

If we take that basic concept and expand it throughout the

world, we are talking about the idea that children who, when they

come to school, have some kind of food, that this will make a huge

difference in the areas I just described, but also even in getting

children to school. And we have seen this, as Senator McGovern

said before, we have seen this over and over again in our programs.

When we put in a school feeding program where there hasn’t been
23

one before, we almost routinely see at least 100-percent increase in

the number of children who are going to school. And in places

where the girls are much less likely to go to school, it is usually

an even higher increase in the number of girls who go to school.

And this is very significant for the reasons that have been pointed

out before.

I must say also that Secretary–General Kofi Annan has recently

announced an initiative for girls education worldwide, and he did

this at the Education for All Conference in Dakar, where he said

we must all band together to do more to get more girls in school,

because it probably is the single most important development input

that we could make to affect the rest of the country over the long

term. So that aspect of this program is absolutely significant.

We have seen so many success stories, not just in getting children to school but in developing an infrastructure in a country

where one has not existed before. And I would like to cite in that

case the small country of Bhutan, where recently I met with an official from that government who was about 45-years-old, and he

told me that he had gone to school and he was now able to participate in the workings of his country, but his sister, only 5-years

older than he, had not. And the reason, he said, was ‘‘because the

World Food Program came in in between my sister’s school years

and my school years and provided school feeding in the schools.

And since we live in a mountainous area where it is difficult to get

to the school, parents weren’t going to send their children unless

they were going to be able to eat. So I have an education, but the

people just 5-years older than me have not.’’ That is the kind of difference I think school feeding can make,

and over and over again those are the kinds of stories that we

hear.

When we talk about this vision that Ambassador McGovern created, I think we talk about three aspects of it. First is the advocacy, that it is important for every child to have a meal at school,

that is something that we all must be advocating worldwide. It is

something that is not necessarily needing to be funded because it

could be countries that could well afford to do it but may not appreciate all the reasons why this is important. So, first, to me, we are

talking about advocacy.

Second, we are talking about providing technical assistance because, again, some countries may have the resources or some of the

resources, but they don’t have the right technical skills. And there

is a great wealth of technical resources, as has been pointed out already, here in the United States and also, I should say, in other

countries where school feeding are strong programs.

But to give an example, the people at the Food and Nutrition

Service, they have been running school lunch and breakfast programs for years and years, yes, in the United States where everything is not necessarily replicable to a developing country, but their

expertise could be extremely useful to the World Food Program, to

the NGOs, and ultimately to other countries as well.

The expertise of an organization like the ASFSA, who has been

mentioned several places here before, we have talked to members

and the leadership of ASFSA about this program and the prospect

of using some of their people who have been experts in setting up
24

school lunch programs in their own communities to be able to share

that expertise elsewhere.

And I can point to a seminar that the World Food Program held

last December in Colombia where we invited all the Ministers of

Education of South American countries, and almost all countries

were represented. Most countries do have school feeding in South

America. And we also invited experts, Spanish-speaking experts,

from ASFSA, and what happened was a new understanding of

some of the kind of things that networking and expertise from

other countries such as the U.S. could bring. And as a result, the

countries who were at the meeting in South America are now aggressively organizing the ways in which they can network among

themselves and with the expertise available from the U.S. These

are some of the kinds of things I think could be extremely useful

as we continue down this road.

Then, finally, of course, the major piece of this whole idea is the

provision of food assistance and technical expertise to help countries to be able to put in school feeding projects. And I think that

when we proceed in this way, we have to be careful in order to be

sure that countries meet, for instance, the objectives that Secretary

Glickman outlined, but we also have to follow up to ensure that the

countries will make a commitment to running these programs over

the long term themselves, because if they do not, it is not necessarily effective for us to go in with an open-ended program but,

rather, we need to be organizing with countries a time-limited program and find an agreement with the countries up front that they

will take over managing this program after a certain amount of

years, and with that understanding it could proceed.

We have found that when we do talk about these countries, we,

again, talk about several different kinds of countries: OECD countries who we hope will be contributors, but who also we should talk

with about their own programs and whether or not there is any

need to look at them; relatively well off developing countries who

would receive just only perhaps a small amount of technical assistance; middle-income countries where we would be talking about the

prospect of food commodities, technical assistance, perhaps equipment; and then lower-income countries where, of course, the needs

are far greater for all aspects of the school feeding program.

We do have to demand accountability. We have to build that into

the system from the beginning where we—we, the World Food Program, the PVOs, whomever—can be accountable to the donor, the

U.S. Government, for how the food is distributed and who receives

it and the process in which it is managed.

If I can say also, when we look at the World Food Program, it

has been mentioned many times today, I know you know WFP

well, but in my formal testimony that you will have in the record,

we talk about the number of people WFP served, for instance, last

year 89-million-people. Over 11 million were children in school. In

over 50 countries we were serving children in school. We, of course,

have a large logistics base so that base has been very important

because we have been able to move food and other commodities for

our sister UN agencies as well as NGOs and, of course, the food

provided through our own program.
25

We work with about 1,200 nongovernmental organizations

throughout the world, and we have very close partnerships with

major American PVOs, many of whom we have a memorandum of

understanding outlining how the two of us—or each of us can work

together in order to try to support the work done in developing

countries by our teams.

We have the advantage, as was mentioned before by the Secretary, of working with other donors through the board of WFP.

Our board is made up of 36 member governments, including the

United States, and they approve the development and the refugee

projects in which we are involved.

We have had great flexibility in the tonnages that have come forward to WFP over the years, and we have been able to shift our

program accordingly when we have a lot of food 1-year that we

didn’t have the year before, or, conversely, unfortunately, some

years when we don’t have enough, and we have been able to make

those changes accordingly.

Accountability is a very important issue for us, this issue that

you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and we put a high priority on it. In

fact, I established the office of an inspector general about 5-years

ago who is very aggressive in terms of ensuring that our food and

other resources go to where it is intended to go.

We would hope in this initiative to work with other partners in

addition to the PVO community, in particular UNESCO from

whom we get educational advice and expertise; UNICEF, who is

very involved with programs for children throughout the world; and

the United Nations University nutrition experts who have already

offered to provide help, as well as technical expertise, as I mentioned, from other entities as well.

I would be glad to go into more detail on these issues, but I want

to close by saying, again, how exciting this prospect is, that we are

actually at the beginning of launching a program where every child

in the world could have food at school. It will make a major impact

on the number of children in school and on their well-being and

economic development of all of the countries of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bertini can be found in the appendix on page 81.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank both of you for very detailed statements, and your presentations will be made a full part of the

record, the text as well as your oral testimony.

Let me just start, Secretary Glickman, by mentioning that on

pages 4 and 5 of your testimony, you mention that in the United

States the program will be coordinated through the existing interagency Food Assistance Policy Council, which is chaired by USDA

but includes representatives from USAID, the Department of State,

the Office of Management and Budget—OMB. This group has a

very important responsibility because in a way, just to get to the

nitty-gritty of the problem, you are going to be discussing which

countries are the most likely candidates. So right off the bat, some

decisions that are rather fateful, at least, are going to be made by

this group, and the criteria that you have listed on page 5 are their

need but also their contribution of resources, their commitment to

expanding access to basic education.
26

So at this point now we move sort of beyond the nutrition situation to a very important policy commitment. Of course, Senator

McGovern earlier on and both of you have talked about the girls

coming into these schools and the basic changes really in the life

of those countries could come from that. But that is a very important criteria which perhaps will be acceded to by other countries

happily, maybe some resistance, I don’t know.

But, second, you move beyond that to the program has to have

a reasonable time frame, which is true, because essentially these

programs in terms of our policies, our appropriations and decisionmaking, are sort of year by year. We need to know, somebody who

has some hope of making this work in a year or two or three, as

the case may be, their current infrastructure, including ability to

deliver food to schools, which in some cases may be very sparse,

these resources. And yet at the same time, on the one hand, of

course, we are trying to help them stimulate the boosting of those

resources, maybe through some of these PVOs or other organizations even providing some of this infrastructure, as well as the

technical assistance that you mentioned even with the Japanese,

the thought of how do you package the food, how do you cook the

food. Technically, how do you provide, as we heard from other hearings, the food safety aspect so that we do not have a very severe

problem in which we are perpetrators or create problems in another country?

Then you added also beyond your text, Secretary Glickman, the

idea of democracy or sort of their general outlook toward how people are treated, human rights, which is another criteria or set of

criteria beyond that. So I see some heavy lifting by this policy

group right at the outset, and I am wondering just from your first

cut at this problem, let’s say that we try to formulate a resolution,

a piece of legislation or something that gives you some support.

You can do a lot of this, perhaps, administratively and so that

would be helpful, of course. But to the extent that you can’t, how

do you suspect you are going to go about determining, for example,

in year one or even year one and two, how many countries, how

many make the cut with all of these criteria. And then as we take

a look at that situation, we come back into this overall theme that

Senators McGovern and Dole brought forward, namely, 300-million-children in the world. But as Ms. Bertini has pointed out in

her testimony, with 50 countries being served now by the World

Food Program, 11-million-children, as I recall her testimony, that

is a good number and a lot of countries already. So we have some

experience with this, but obviously 11 is not 300 and I am sort of

curious as we begin to frame this issue what increments we move

in or do you envision—someone said a 10-year plan, but if so, what

does it look like in, say, years one, two, three.

Then, finally, just to add to your burden of answering this question, Ms. Bertini has said there are 50 countries involved in some

sort of feeding of 11-million-children, 89-million-people all together,

I guess. But who does this international diplomacy of inviting others to help or negotiating really the allocation of who does what?

Now, obviously, in a program of this sort, we would have confidence in the Congress; you would have confidence in USDA, if

USDA were doing it. You would have some accountability all the
27

way through the process, and we could ask you to come to the Committee, ask Ms. Bertini to come, and say how did it work out, and

you can report this.

But now you have 36 countries, 50 countries, whatever the

groupings that you have mentioned, Ms. Bertini, in this. You are

over in Rome. Obviously, the American taxpayer would say what

are the other countries doing. So, on the one hand, why, we want

to make sure everybody is doing their fair share, but then when

you come to accountability, that is, who actually is doing this.

Now, in other fora, we get into problems like Kosovo, for example, presently where it is not clear, given four zones, or maybe even

a fifth involving the Russians, and the UN, but the UN, poverty

stricken for resources most of the time. Who does what in this

proposition, and particularly if it is to be a sustained situation that

goes through several Congresses, several administrations, with

some credibility all the way through?

This is a heavy load for one question, but these are the sorts of

things that we want to grapple with because this is going to change

the situation from something that is a remarkable idea to something that might happen in some form that we would recognize.

Secretary GLICKMAN. That is a fair amount of challenges you

have just given me. Let me just make a couple of comments. One

is that I think we can do much of this administratively, but I personally believe that legislation will ultimately be necessary to create a model to give this any long-term legs. Just simple things, for

example, like Cathy mentioned how the Food Nutrition Services

run school lunch programs and related things, but I am not sure

they have a lot of legal authority to go help people around the

world set up their lunch programs.

And so I can think of many things in which you would need to

provide some resources, for example, in the transportation side that

you cannot do right now. There are a variety of things that I think

would have to be dealt with legislatively if you want to make this

program a real success.

Second of all, you know, the President did bring this idea forward in the G–8 in Okinawa, and he talked with those folks who

were there, and there was a general interest in what he talked

about. He talked with Tony Blair, the Japanese, and others, particularly about this effort and how this could not be a unilateral

United States effort, although we have probably more experience

than anybody else in the world running this kind of a program.

The third I would say is that some of these issues have been

raised ever since we started food assistance programs. We, of

course, have an interagency task force that disposes of millions of

tons of surplus food every year in the international arena, so we

have an infrastructure which we currently do to do that already.

And a lot of the same questions you asked are relevant to—for example, all the assistance to Russia, which was extremely complicated, oversight, accountability, how was the money spent, how

are proceeds monetized, all those kinds of things are things that

we have been doing with respect to those other food donation

issues. Generally speaking, it is a multidisciplinary effort in the

Government, but, by and large, USDA has taken the leadership

role in putting these things together, which we would expect we
28

would continue to do because most of the funding would come out

of the Commodity Credit Corporation account.

Richard Fritz runs the Commodity Credit Corporation and has

great experience in this area. I think it would be worthwhile to

hear his perspective on this.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fritz?

Mr. FRITZ. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Basically, we can run this program with existing authority; however, I think it could run better and smoother if we could change

some of the parameters of the number of programs that we have

to work in, including providing some international authorities for

groups like the Food and Nutrition Service of USDA.

I think the Secretary has laid it out well on how the Food Assistance Policy Council works. The official members are those that you

mentioned, but very often other parts of the U.S. Government come

and attend those meetings and have their inputs from a variety of

views.

This is certainly a work in process. We had one meeting with the

PVOs yesterday. We will continue those meetings in August. We

are meeting with the staff of your committee, and we will be looking at countries basically on what they can provide. Obviously,

those that are well-off will have shorter graduation time periods

than those who are less well-off and can provide the infrastructure

necessary to deliver a preschool and school feeding program.

So we have a lot of work to do ahead of us, and we will be working with you and the community to make sure that this is a successful program.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate both of your responses. It just

occurs to me—and it is appropriate that Senator Cochran is here

because he is the Chairman of the Appropriation Committee for

Agriculture. At some point, let’s say you handle it all in-house and

you suggested legislation might be useful for longevity of this program, but maybe you would say for the first year we have got to

get this thing off the ground.

Now, this has to appear somewhere probably in your budget submission, whether it is $750 million or a more modest sum. And

then this raises some questions of competing interest in the USDA

budget which are not inconsequential. You face these all the time.

Here is something probably over and beyond anything you have requested before from the Department, and that comes up pretty

soon. I mentioned the Budget Committee starting right off the bat

in January, and Senator Cochran and his group coming right after

them as the appropriators.

So the reason I am raising these questions now is that the time

frame of this doesn’t exactly fit. We have national elections going

on. We have an interim period. We have Congress being sworn in,

committees and all the rest of it, and a new administration, either

Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush, who may or may not share all of what we

have been thinking about today, but could maybe be brought up to

speed by some of us.

So I am sort of requesting some idea of the money that is going

to be required, anticipating that even though there is enthusiasm

in this room for what we are doing here, we have hearings every
29

day of groups that come here. We had sugar people yesterday, for

example.

Secretary GLICKMAN. I have heard of that issue.

The CHAIRMAN. A very different sort of meeting.

[Laughter.]

And it was just as large a crowd. But we will have others, all

of whom have requirements.

Now, what I am also suggesting probably is that the construct

that both of you have committed of some legislation that makes

this a permanent entity or some rules of the road, if we are to have

some hope of this being a multi-year thing is probably required.

Without getting into a lot of stories that are totally not related, but

in a way, the School Lunch Program comes to mind here in this

country.

You know, in 1995 and 1996, there was a movement that was

fairly substantial to change the character of the American school

lunch program. One was on the books, and it said it was universal,

it applies to all 50 States. A child in the United States is a child

in the United States, not in Indiana or Ohio or what have you.

There were other Members of Congress with very strong motivation

and idealism who said in a Federal system Ohio ought to run its

own program and have criteria, or Illinois, or what have you.

Now, I took the position—and ultimately that was the one that

prevailed because I would not sign the conference report and,

therefore, the change couldn’t be made—that we would have a universal program, that a child was defenseless, could not move from

State to State to take advantage of who had a program here or

didn’t somewhere else.

But if we had not had a framework that was there already of a

universal program, we might have been in some trouble. Administratively, whoever was Secretary of Agriculture then, or whoever,

might have decided let’s try a pilot project or let’s try something

else. And this is what I anticipate with this program. If there are

not pretty good criteria as to who is selected, who runs it, all the

way through, that may be amended by other Congresses. But at

least there is a structure there that was not something being handled day by day even by people as competent as yourselves at

USDA.

So that is just sort of an editorial comment, but a concern that

I hope that you share.

Secretary GLICKMAN. I do. And let me just say this: You know,

I think that we can start this program administratively through

the surplus removal authority under the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. We would have to get an allocation, an apportionment in the Office of Management and Budget to do it. But

anything longer term will really require, if not a legislative solution, some sort of approval process from the Congress. And in addition to that, we probably can’t run this program over the long term

very effectively without additional infrastructure ourselves.

For example, we tripled food aid donations last year with actually less staff than we had 5-years-ago, 10-years-ago, 15-years-ago.

And if the United States is going to assert its role in trying to deal

with these humanitarian issues in the world, you have got to have
30

the domestic infrastructure to deal with it. And, quite frankly, it

is real thing right now.

So if our ideas aren’t met with a way to accomplish these objectives, it is not going to be very successful. I agree with you there.

The CHAIRMAN. And it is a remarkable idea, as everybody has

commented, because in terms of our own humanitarian interests,

but likewise our own foreign policy, if the infrastructure is done

right, if we are thoughtful about the cooking, the packaging, how

you do a model school lunch program around the world, this is an

extraordinary American influence that comes into the grassroots of

all sorts of places.

Secretary GLICKMAN. If I just might, not so much a point of personal privilege, I am not going to do what Senator Harkin did, but

Mr. Schumacher was in Indonesia, and I would just like to have

him tell you just briefly what we have done with milk product

there in the schools and how it affects people’s lives. And it is the

U.S. that is doing it. It is largely done through some PVOs, I think.

Mr. SCHUMACHER. Very briefly, Senator, I was out there a few

months ago. With 6,000 tons of reconstituted milk powder that we

donated, they are now feeding 600,000 children every day. We are

going to be doing 60-million-little-cartons of milk that cost 10-cents

each, UHT, and it has worked very, very well.

In addition, we are providing rice to school children who, because

of the crisis, dropped out of school because they have to go to work,

regarding Senator Harkin’s concerns. And the rice is provided

through the school teachers to bring those school children back into

school; 900,000 children are benefiting from that program. And this

is the product of American dairy farmers and American rice farmers, and it is working very well.

The World Food Program is very active in the rice. In the inner

city, we were in garbage dumps that people are picking rags, and

the local private voluntary organizations from local universities

were brought in by Cathy’s people, blue hats, and they are energizing people who are little bit better off to help people who are a little bit worse off. It is working very well. I think American farmers

should be proud of that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is remarkable testimony. It just occurs

to me that members of this committee, probably even a broader

group, need to have at least a map of the world or some matrix to

know really the things we are doing now to sort of fill in that background. Listening to all of this, I am sure we all understand the

poverty of our own knowledge about what America is doing.

Senator Cochran.

STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

MISSISSIPPI

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am

glad to have a chance to come over and find out what this is all

about. I looked at the notebook that my staff members had prepared in preparation for this hearing, and I was interested to see

that not only was Ambassador George McGovern going to be here

this morning and Senator Bob Dole and other colleagues, Richard

Durbin and others, but Catherine Bertini, whom I have respected

and known for a good many years in her capacity as Director of the
31

World Food Program—I also remember when she was in the administration here and had responsibilities for food programs—and

Secretary Glickman and others.

I read through some of the statements while trying to catch up

a little bit because I was late getting here, and I noticed that Ellen

Levinson has some interesting comments to make on this subject,

too. We have assembled some impressive experts in this area, people who care about not only feeding the hungry around the world,

but who have had personal experience in doing just that. I came

over to congratulate them, and to let them know that I am interested in this idea. It sounds like something we should seriously

consider, and I am confident that under the leadership of Chairman Dick Lugar we will seriously consider this proposal.

One observation that I have comes from the statement that

Catherine Bertini submitted, and that is that the World Food Program is the right organization to take responsibility of the overall

management of this program. The challenge is to help countries

launch and sustain the programs that are national in scope and

only those governments can do this. That is something that I think

we need to realize, that we can pass a bill here and we are going

to have a lot of work to do to follow up and make it work, and a

lot of that is going to have to do with how successful we are at getting other governments involved.

Individual school feeding projects can help specific communities,

but they will not be enough to reach the goal of providing food to

school children around the world. So, we need to be cognizant of

the caveats that are sprinkled through here, too, in some of these

statements, and to recognize that what we are hearing proposed is

a one-year pilot program, as I understand it, and $300 million was

the President’s suggestion. That is something that I believe we

should keep in mind.

So I am here to learn more about how we do it and what the

trade-offs are what the effects would be on other programs. We

usually take surplus commodities held by the Commodity Credit

Corporation to make donations. We may or may not have the surplus commodities in years to come that we do right now. So there

are a lot of considerations, but I am glad to be here to lend my support to the effort to find a way to achieve some of these goals, and

I hope we can do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I would

just mention that the $300 million the President talked about at

Okinawa was certainly an important idea. The idea that Senator

McGovern and Senator Dole presented and that has been amplified

by Secretary Glickman is obviously a much more ambitious idea.

It is with regard to children all over the world and for some period

of time. This is why I have been interrogating the Secretary about

the selection of who and which countries, what order.

Let me just ask one more question along that line. President

Clinton visited, as you pointed out, with Prime Minister Blair and

with others, but sort of at what level does our Government really

get solid commitments from our friends from other countries who

are part of that G–8 group who have the wherewithal to be serious

about this type of thing?
32

Some of this can occur over in your shop, Ms. Bertini, and you

visit with these people all the time, and they make commitments

and they are helpful. But this is a very ambitious idea if it is taken

really to the full extent, which probably requires some heavy lifting

close to the top, if not the President of the United States himself,

with others who have a long-term view also and who may say we

sort of share this vision.

So this is what I am wondering, even at this working level of this

interagency committee, you make some selections of who seems to

pass muster. For example, when the group gets together and you

discuss universality of educational opportunity, democratic tendencies, which, on a scale of 1 to 10, may be somewhere—this becomes even more complex with world leaders trying to decide what

we do at this point. If you had, for instance, Prime Minister Putin

in the conversation, he might have a different set of ideas as to

who is worthy, and he might be right. In other words, it may be

in our interest to be involved in some countries that are sort of suspect on a number of these areas but have a lot of hungry children

and have a need, we believe, for an American presence or a need

for others who may come into their economies.

We talk about this all the time on the China trade issue, that

we are going to influence a country by having business people but

also journalists, missionaries, everybody in the country, the engagement of the whole situation might change minds and hearts.

But that is also a very big set of circumstances, and this is why

I—I don’t mean to hop on pages 4 and 5, but when you get into

the selection of countries and who sustains this and the time frame

and their ideals, that is a complex set of questions in terms of our

international diplomacy.

Secretary GLICKMAN. Well, I think perhaps Cathy may want to

comment on this, too, but let me just quickly state that the President made this a priority in Okinawa. There was a significant interest there. It is true, however, that this initiative cannot be sustained unless there are other folks involved, and it can’t just be the

United States only, although we do provide I guess between 30-

and 50-percent generally of——

Ms. BERTINI. Fifty-percent the last 3-years.

Secretary GLICKMAN. Fifty-percent the last 3-years of the receipts

of the World Food Program. So we are a big player here.

But I think this again points out why you have to have the

PVOs. The non-governmental organizations working with and cooperatively with the World Food Program have got to be in a position

to help us direct where these things are going, because I would

hate to see a central decision made by the U.S. Government with

respect to each one of these projects, you know. I think we need

to set up the thematic organization that needs to be accountable,

but ultimately it is on the ground that is going to decide where it

is going to be most effective.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Bertini?

Ms. BERTINI. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will need to be

a simple list of what are the criteria in terms of what countries

should be involved, but I think perhaps an example, maybe a stark

example, is Afghanistan. If girls can’t go to school, clearly they are

not committed to education for all; therefore, it would be assumed
33

that would not be a country where we would propose that we would

have a program here.

However, there might be a program where there would be a commitment to education for all, but still very few girls in school. In

that case, I think we would have to put some sort of an agreement

together with the Government that we will come, but the girls’ enrollment has to increase by a certain amount each time or else we

can’t continue over the long term. So I think those are some of the

kind of issues that we have to work out together.

If I could address a couple other issues you mentioned, first of

all, on the broader scale, if we are to be in an advocacy role, and,

in fact, if we are to promote this idea that every child should eat

at school, there are really two ways to go.

One, it could be a totally American project and proposal, managed totally by USDA working with the PVOs, WFP, whomever it

chooses to work with. The plus side of that is that then USDA

could manage every part of it. The negative part of that is that no

other countries will really particularly want to participate in something that is strictly and totally a bilateral American project.

The other side, of course, if it is multilateral, which is the way

that I think it is being discussed, then we have to discuss certain

things. Certainly advocacy, getting other countries involved, requires the involvement of an international or multilateral institution, and that is, I think, a key place where WFP can come in

working with USDA. The management in terms of the program in

each country then is more or could be more flexible.

When we talk about this over the long term, there are several— in terms of the importance of congressional involvement and leadership and decisionmaking here, there are several points that the

Secretary has made. One is if we are to use the expertise of the

domestic folks, then there may need to be some legislative changes

to allow that. Another is that currently when USDA gives us, or

AID, for that matter, gives funding to us or to PVOs, they can pay

for the internal transportation cost in poor countries if they give us

funding for emergencies, but not funding for development. And now

if we are trying to get a school feeding program up in some of the

poorest countries in the world, they don’t have the funds available

to provide the transportation. So that is something that also could

be looked at. And I don’t believe that requires additional funding

because it could come out of the total package, whatever the total

package is, if I am not mistaken.

A third issue that I think the PVOs are probably best suited to

answer is the issue about the process, and the process of the Policy

Council and how it works. And my guess is that the PVOs would

have some good thoughts about ways to streamline that process

while still having the oversight responsibility at USDA.

So those are some of the technical things that we can see at least

early on, and then on the longer term, of course, the commitment

over the long term for food, because assuming that this is a successful launch, I am sure everyone is interested in providing the

wherewithal to continue the program, because 1-year of a school

feeding program is almost nothing at all. It is really long term.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for those clarifications. Clearly, as

you pointed out, in the poorest of the poor the ability to get a pro-
34

gram, to interact with us or with other countries is limited, and yet

those are countries that we are going to have to be thoughtful

about.

The other point I want to make is that out of this committee we

have already passed legislation which would say our country cannot have a sanction with regard to food. But that has not passed

two Houses of the Congress, and as a matter of fact, there are disputes about using food as a sanction, as a weapon, within our own

Congress, our own Government. So that is something we will have

to resolve in due course, but it does get into this international diplomatic aspect.

I appreciate your coming. Let me just say before I recess the

hearing—which I am going to do because we will have the swearing in of Senator Miller at 11 o’clock, and obviously Senators will

want to be there for that very important ceremony. That will be followed, as I understand, by a roll call vote on a cloture petition, and

then I will be back, and maybe other Senators with me, for four

very important witnesses. So I apologize to those witnesses and to

all of you who have been faithful in viewing this hearing, but we

will have to try to work with our colleagues on the floor for a few

moments, and I hope people understand.

We thank you both very much for coming.

[Recess.]

This hearing is called to order again, and the Chair would like

to call the panelists: Dr. Beryl Levinger, Senior Director, Educational Development Center, and Distinguished Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies; Ken Hackett, Executive Director of Catholic Relief Services; Ellen Levinson, Executive Director of the Coalition for Food Aid; and Carole Brookins, Chairman

and CEO of World Perspectives, Incorporated.

We thank you very much for your patience, but we have had a

remarkable ceremony, greeted a new colleague, heard his maiden

speech, which is a tribute to our departed colleague. And the roll

call vote has occurred, and now we are back in business, and we

appreciate so much your staying with the hearing, and those in the

audience who likewise share our enthusiasm for this.

I am going to call upon you in the order that I first mentioned

you, first of all, Dr. Levinger.

STATEMENT OF BERYL LEVINGER, SENIOR DIRECTOR, EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, AND DISTINGUISHED

PROFESSOR, MONTEREY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES, MONTEREY, CA.

Dr. LEVINGER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.

Thank you for inviting me to share my views this morning on the

world school feeding initiative. Before I begin my testimony, just

let me say a few words of introduction about myself.

As Chairman Lugar has already mentioned, I work with Educational Development Center, but what is relevant about my career

actually is that I have worked in the area of international education and poverty alleviation for more than 30-years and have provided short-term and long-term technical assistance to more than

70-countries in the area of education, health, and nutrition. And in

the last 15-years, I have authored three major books that are par-
35

ticularly relevant to my testimony today: a comprehensive review

of international school feeding programs published by USAID; a

book published by UNDP on the relationship between health, nutrition, and learning outcomes; and then, finally, a review of factors

that contribute to human capacity development, also published by

UNDP.

I would like to take this opportunity to share with you, if I

might, what I have learned in the course of this academic work and

on-site technical assistance in terms of what difference school feeding might or might not make. And I am going to focus my remarks

first of all on situations of extreme poverty, and I would like to

begin by addressing the area of learning outcomes.

There is a substantial body of research to support the following

assertion: The level of a student’s cognitive performance is, in part,

a function of the adequacy of his or her diet. The importance of this

research is that it establishes a theoretical and empirical framework for a major claim made by the supporters of the initiative,

namely, that when such programs provide malnourished participants with an adequate diet, learning can be reasonably anticipated—learning in the form of cognitive development, to be sure.

Unfortunately, this assertion is only partly correct, and we need

a caveat to make that assertion fully correct. Let me share with

you what that caveat is, namely, again, meaningful learning and

meaningful cognitive development will occur only when a facilitative learning environment is present to complement the food that

a child receives. Food alone just doesn’t do it. And we know that

because for generations upon generations we have been saying man

does not live by bread alone.

In the late 1960s and in the early 1970s, it was assumed by

many researchers that the brain changes produced by malnutrition

led directly to an impairment of learning which was often irreversible. Well, great news. In recent decades, this position has been

abandoned and, in fact, reversed. Currently, the most widely accepted hypothesis is that malnutrition exerts its major influence on

behavioral competencies through dysfunctional changes in attention span, responsiveness, motivation, and emotionality rather than

through a more direct impairment of the child’s ability to learn.

This situation implies hopeful prospects for the reversibility of the

effects that occur when a child is hungry or malnourished. But

what it also says to us is that we need to create facilitative learning environments so that teachers, for example, can provide feedback and encouragement while engaging children in stimulating

learning tasks. In most developing countries, this entails investments in teacher training, texts, and other learning materials.

The truth today is that most schooling in the developing world

is far from facilitative. Children sit in severely overcrowded classrooms, or outdoors, with poorly trained teachers, and spend countless hours repeating meaningless phrases in a language they often

do not understand. They have no books, no blackboard, and frequently, no desks or chairs.

We are all too familiar with the results of this environment. Millions of children never enroll in school throughout Africa and Asia,

and millions more drop out before completing the first four grades

of primary.
36

For those who do attend, little learning takes place. In one recent

study in Ghana, a study that was sponsored by USAID, fewer than

3-percent of all sixth graders had achieved basic literacy and math

skills as stipulated by the curriculum. That is fewer than 3-percent

on a test that was designed so that the average pass grade should

have been 90-percent.

Similar results have been noted in other African countries that

have undertaken the rather daunting task of measuring student

mastery of curriculum objectives. In an environment of such extreme educational impoverishment, school feeding may get more

children to come to school, although, as I will show in a moment,

this assumption is questionable; but it is doubtful that feeding

alone will get them to learn more. Why? Because the educational

environment in which the feeding is going to occur allows very little learning to take place.

In my written testimony, I have cited two studies. In one, food

alone was offered to children, and in the other, feeding was accompanied by an enriched learning environment. Sustainable long-term

academic performance gains were only observed in the educationally enriched setting.

In summary, then, the proposed initiative needs to include provisions for a portion of the commodities to be monetized, preferably

over a 3-year period. Funds obtained through monetization should

be used by PVOs to engage parents as partners in the educational

enterprise, to train teachers in active learning methods, to create

motivational textbooks and other learning materials that are cognitively stimulating, to improve sanitation so that schools are not

major disease vectors, and to create classroom learning environments that are conducive to learning. I don’t mean that these

things should be carried on maybe by somebody else at some future

time to be negotiated. What I am saying is that these components

need to be intimately integrated at the outset, at the design phase,

into a school feeding program.

Let me just say a few words, if I might, on another assumption

that has been made, which is the question of school feeding in relation to attendance and enrollment. Many studies have explored this

relationship, and it is interesting that the most positive relationships are generally found in the least rigorous, most impressionistic studies. When control groups have been used, when retrospective attendance data consulting records has been used, we get findings that are far more ambiguous.

I should also note in passing that PVOs have taken the lead in

performing the most ambitious—in terms of methodological techniques—studies.

In general, we find that where parental perceptions of school

quality are very low and poverty is extreme, feeding cannot overcome the factors that lead parents to keep their children, particularly their daughters, at home. However, if families live at the border of the terrain that separates extreme poverty from marginal

self-sufficiency and if the quality of schooling is at least sufficient

so as not to dampen or even destroy demand, then and only then

can feeding bring children, especially girls, to school.

Once again, though, the quality of schooling is critical in terms

of school feeding impact, and, once again, I might add, there is a
37

critical role for PVOs to play in improving educational quality

through the partial monetization of commodities, not for in-country

transportation, not to buy the equipment with which to cook or prepare the food or to store the food but, rather, to actually improve

the schooling that is attached to the feeding.

Finally, allow me to comment on how school feeding programs influence nutritional status and hunger, the third area of expected

program benefit. There is little evidence to support nutritional status change as a result of school feeding, and there are many reasons for this. Parents often provide one less meal at home so that

the food received in school is not additive in terms of a child’s dietary intake. Programs are often too irregular in terms of the percentage of days in the school year where food is actually served for

logistical reasons, for management reasons; and, therefore, when

we realize that a child to be well nourished has to eat 365-daysa-year, the school feeding program simply doesn’t offer enough of

a difference.

In conclusion, I would like to offer a few additional observations

relative to the proposed initiative.

Number one, host governments are expected to significantly contribute to the cost of the program over time. Is there a hidden

trade-off between adequately paid teachers, quality textbooks, sufficient classrooms, parental outreach, and the costs of a feeding program? I believe there is, and it is not one that I for one would be

willing to make. I do not believe that food alone can lead to improvements in learning, attendance, and enrollment in those countries where poverty is rampant and school is nothing more than

meaningless repetition of phrases in chaotic conditions.

School lunch programs did work in the U.S. precisely because the

quality of education in our schools was high enough so that the

lunch was that extra added factor that made all the difference in

the world.

When you think about the costs of the proposed initiative and

the fact that governments are going to be picking up those costs,

I think we also have to take a moment to do some stock taking.

Typically, in developing countries, the budget that is spent on

learning—that is to say, expenses other than school construction,

recurrent costs—is something on the order of $5 to $10 per year

per child. What would it cost to do school feeding when a country

is to assume that responsibility? Probably something at least on

the order of $5 to $10 a year per child at a minimum, and probably

quite a bit more. How could this be sustainable when countries are

already taxing their budgets to the extent generally of 22- to 25-

percent, and they can’t even get textbooks and teachers into classrooms?

U.S. PVOs must play a major role in implementing the proposed

initiative. This is my second concluding point. Such organizations

as CRS, CARE, and Save the Children already have major education initiatives underway that are designed to introduce the qualitative elements so necessary if parents are to enroll their children

in school. Make no mistake about it. In study after study, we see

that parental perception about school quality is often the key factor

in determining whether and for how long a child is to attend.
38

Third, monetization with at least a 3-year window for spending

monetized funds is necessary in order to introduce the education

quality elements that are required to transform a school feeding

program into a potent intervention. We must not mistake food for

education or food-aided education with food for learning. This is

where children actually learn and where presence in a schoolhouse

truly contributes to overall development goals. Food for learning

must be our vision, and to enact it we must build strong, productive linkages between the consumption of a meal and everything

else that occurs during a typical school day.

PVOs have an important role to play in the transformation of

school feeding programs into food for learning, and I hope that the

proposed initiative entails specific provision for their participation

as well as for their monetization of commodities so that the needed

investments in quality can be made. Only then will feeding lead to

meaningful societal transformation.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I

will be glad to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Levinger can be found in the appendix on page 89.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Mr. Hackett.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH HACKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. HACKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Catholic Relief

Services, which is the official relief and development agency of the

U.S. Catholic community. I am also here on behalf of a group of

American private voluntary organizations that have a very long

history in the management of U.S. foreign food assistance. We as

a group deeply appreciate the efforts of Ambassador McGovern and

Senator Dole, the administration, and others who have dramatically raised the profile on this important topic.

The global school feeding initiative is founded, it seems, on the

most laudable of American humanitarian principles: our concern

for and solidarity with the poor overseas. CRS and the other PVOs

have experience in managing U.S. Government-funded school feeding programs since the very inception of those programs in the

1950s, and I would like to take an opportunity to discuss the lessons we have learned in our implementation of those programs.

Our comments are intended to enhance what is an already commendable initiative and strengthen it so that it will have a lasting

impact on those it is designed to assist.

I just returned on Sunday from Zimbabwe where I spent a few

days meeting with my staff from 14 countries in East and Southern

Africa. And I have to pick up on what Senator Durbin said about

the AIDS crisis. It is having a tremendous impact demographically

and on the very fabric of society. And it is initiatives like this one

that may contribute to an improvement of the lives of those people

who are being so dramatically affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic

throughout Africa and other parts of the world. So we look at it in

a very positive way.
39

We have learned over the years in managing food-assisted education programs in schools and at the community level that any

program designed to improve access and impact on primary education must be broader than simply school feeding, as Dr. Levinger

said. In fact, there is a great coincidence between most of what she

said and what I have to say here, so I will shorten it because you

have heard it and we agree with it.

We must involve communities directly in such programs. Such

programs must be multi-faceted, multi-year, and be comprehensive

in their approach. And to truly impact on learning and academic

achievement, food must be complemented by other interventions. In

our programs, we have activities with the development of PTAs,

and other types of involvement of parents directly in schools. In addition, we have programs for micronutrient supplements, vitamin

A and things like that. But then you also have to deal with the

teachers and the management of the school. The learning environment in its totality, as Dr. Levinger said, is most important.

We believe that food can be an important resource, but it alone

is not sufficient to improve educational achievement.

Improving educational quality and coverage in economically impoverished communities calls for a long-term and reliable commitment in policy and multi-year resources. The provision of food for

only short periods of time does not allow time for systems and

standards and relationships to be sufficiently established and

would jeopardize, if they were only run for short periods of time,

any impact.

Resources allocated for the program must be in addition, we feel,

to the current levels of U.S. Government food assistance. Not to do

so takes away from ongoing programs that successfully address the

needs of some groups of people. And as has been said—and we

were very happy to hear Secretary Glickman’s testimony—complementary dollar funds are also essential for success. To be most

effective, this program must be targeted to the neediest communities in the neediest countries, and only in the context where food

is an appropriate intervention.

The American private voluntary community has experience, it

has capacity, and it is interested in this concept. You may be aware

that over the last decade the engagement of that community in

education programs has diminished—diminished significantly. This

is due in part to shifting public assistance priorities, increasingly

burdensome and costly management requirements, and lack of financial commitments to accompany available food assistance. We

would like to increase our engagement, and as I say, we are heartened by what the Secretary had to say about how the program

should be designed. But to do so, I propose that a global agreement

be established between the administrative agencies of the U.S.

Government—if that be USDA, so be it—and the PVOs, the American PVOs, to identify, develop, and carry out effective programs of

food and other resources. Such an agreement would help to address

the increasingly burdensome regulations and costs that the American PVO community have encountered in operating food assistance programs.

The American PVOs, such as CRS, should have direct access to

food and cash resources in a manner similar to what has been
40

evolved with the UN agencies. This would heighten the interest in

the involvement of American PVOs and their constituents. The

American PVO involvement is important, we believe, for two reasons:

First and foremost, we have extensive experience in implementing school feeding and other types of programs. We have community contacts, not just national government contacts. We have built

up trust, and we have existing programs.

Second, we believe and understand U.S. official humanitarian

foreign assistance to be essentially an expression of American solidarity, and we see American PVOs as the best expression of American solidarity.

The global school feeding initiative and the subsequent momentum it has generated in Congress and in the administration are

positive signs of general concern for the poor and the sense of responsibility for those in need. We would like to harness the good

will and the energy evident in the initiative to have a real impact

on improving the quality of education for children in the developing

world.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hackett can be found in the appendix on page 96.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hackett.

Ms. Levinson.

STATEMENT OF ELLEN S. LEVINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

COALITION FOR FOOD AID, WASHINGTON, DC.

Ms. LEVINSON. Thank you. My name is Ellen Levinson, Mr.

Chairman. I am government relations adviser at the firm

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Today I am here on behalf of the

Coalition for Food Aid, which is comprised of private voluntary organizations with whom you are familiar who do international work.

In particular, I will focus my oral remarks, because I hope that my

written statement can be submitted for the record——

The CHAIRMAN. It will be completely recorded.

Ms. LEVINSON. I want to focus on some of the issues that you

have been asking regarding this large-scale global food for education initiative.

First of all, how would it be implemented or how could it be? It

is something that takes planning, but there is a desire to get a

kick-start this year. We have surpluses in the United States, and

I think that the President’s announcement reflects the need and

desire in the agriculture community to get some of these surpluses

off the market today and to use them constructively overseas. I can

see where the kick-start is a very positive step, both in the desire

and needs of our American agriculture community to move their

commodities, and to try to target it to something positive. Thus,

initiative is going forward.

On a positive side of the initiative, in the first year, in the pilot

phase little time can be taken to allocate commodities under Section 416. We have to ship them by the end of December 2001.

Thought needs to be given about not just distributing those commodities, because that is a short period of time to identify appropriate targets and start a whole distribution system. Find where
41

there could be additionality and expansion of programs or new programs that are ready to go and may be ready to start distribution.

The monetization that Dr. Levinger is referring to, the sale of the

commodity in the country and the use of the proceeds for building

the basic structures for education, is an important element that

could be very constructive in the first year of the program. Those

funds could actually be spent over several years under the current

law. You could sell in 1-year and use those funds over several years

to support the development of the PTAs, the school structures, the

training of teachers, etc., to create the environment where education can take place and also where distribution can take place,

This is an approach that could be very positive this year.

A second thing that could happen very positively in a pilot program is to search for new ways and innovative approaches to using

food assistance. PVOs are trying a variety of ways, and probably

others are as well, to make these programs more effective. I know

that you are going to be hearing soon from the private sector.

There may be some ways in this pilot phase to see how the private

sector can partner with the organizations tat do the work on the

ground and with local administrators—how they could come together in some more creative ways. Allowing this flexibility would

be very important.

Third is an issue that Mr. Hackett just raised, and that is an administrative issue. This year will be a jump-start of the program.

Secretary Glickman pointed out that they have been doing a lot

more food aid than usual at USDA, a significant amount, and their

staffing for that is pretty thin. It is important to somehow facilitate

the relationship between USDA and non-governmental groups. It is

very easy for USDA and the World Food Program to relate because

they have what is called a ‘‘Global Agreement.’’ When USDA wants

to make an additional commitment to WFP, they can just add on

to it.

However every time a PVO comes up with an idea or a plan, it

has to go through a much more rigorous review. However, if a PVO

has been in this field for many years—I mean, you are talking

about organizations. I know my members work in over 100 countries and have on-ground expertise and really capabilities, and they

show best practices. They have computer systems for tracking and

monitoring the food. They have in place measurements to not only

measure the food and how much gets there, but the impact, in

other words, progress of the program. So if they have these best

practices in place and they can basically show that they are capable of handling these programs, that the USDA should enter into

this type of a global agreement that Mr. Hackett referred to, that

would help USDA in its administrative struggles as well.

So, for example, if Catholic Relief Service had identified three

particular locations where it wanted to pilot some interesting work

or additional work, it could do this under this agreement without

USDA feeling the obligation or need to go through a whole series

of analysis and time constraints.

So I think some of these ideas could come forward in this pilot

regarding countries of choice. Many of these PVOs are, you know,

now that there is a pilot announced, looking at their programs, I

know, and I am sure the World Food Program is, too, because they
42

are dealing a lot with national governments and probably looking

there to see which ones would be appropriate.

I would be happy to answer any other questions that you raise,

but I just wanted to throw out some of those ideas for you directed

to some of your questions. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Levinson can be found in the appendix on page 105.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank you for that testimony.

Ms. Brookins.

STATEMENT OF CAROLE BROOKINS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WORLD PERSPECTIVES, INC., WASHINGTON, DC.

Ms. BROOKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, my name

is Carole Brookins, and I am Chairman and CEO of World Perspectives, which is a company I founded 20-years ago to do analysis

and consulting globally on political, economic, and trade factors affecting agricultural markets and the global food system. And I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to discuss this very

exciting concept.

I certainly applaud everything that has been said all morning,

both starting with Ambassador McGovern and Senator Dole, and,

of course, Secretary Glickman, and, your very important kick-off to

this hearing today. I have considered this issue myself for several

years, and I think that the question that we are really grappling

with is not the merit of the concept, as you have said, but the best

means to carry it forward.

I can remember back in the 1970s—I guess when you get old,

this is what they pay you for, your memory, but, you know, I can

remember back in the 1970s when Henry Kissinger said we would

‘‘end hunger in my generation.’’ You know, well, Henry is still

around and we still haven’t ended hunger. And I think we have

been grappling, even with the recent World Food Summit, to try to

get our arms around this again.

But when we take a look at this concept and how to carry it forward, I truly believe if we implemented appropriately and effectively, it could be to the next 50-years what Food for Peace brought

to the world’s hungry over the last century, and on top of it have

a very profound impact on the economic development of countries

around the world.

In terms of the merit of the concept—I will submit my testimony

to the record—I think we all can agree on the importance that this

concept brings. But I think that we have to throw one other point

in—that humanitarianism and good citizenship and good business

are not mutually exclusive. Think that has been something that

has been very much lacking in this morning’s hearing, with the

possible exception of how this very much fits into a child labor initiative. In fact that is where my ideas began came a year and a

half ago.

If we want to eliminate child labor, we are going to have to give

children education, and good education. And we are going to have

to give incentives for parents and the ability for parents—to let

their children go and get an education while they have to be concerned about making sure they have adequate diets.
43

Whereas the President made some very important statements on

this issue in Okinawa, the great focus of the G–8 now is on eliminating the digital divide. I think that we have kind of jumped a

lot of steps, because before we can aspire to ending the digital divide, we must first end the nutrition divide and are bringing many,

many more people in the marketplace.

Now, as to the means to the end, a very wise person once told

me when I was starting my business that 10-percent of a successful

business venture is the idea and 90-percent is the implementation.

So with this in mind, I would like to raise a few considerations that

I think are critical to putting a sustainable program in place instead of just getting good advocacy discussion about something and

rounding up the usual suspects again, as we have done on many

occasions.

First of all, we know that bilateral and multilateral food aid programs have been operating for more than 50-years, that some have

been more effective than others. There have been problems in implementing other school lunch programs over the years such as

cost-effectiveness and practical implementation issues, including

logistical problems which have been identified. But, most importantly, the sustainability of the programs has been a problem because most such programs have relied almost exclusively on government budget support. And I think when we look even at surplus

commodity disposal, trying to get the European Union and others

to agree even to a tonnage commitment on food aid, apart from a

monetary commitment, has been a real problem in maintaining a

sustainable supply.

This isn’t to say that the World Food Program’s work has not

been highly successful in many cases and that many non-governmental organizations, including the leadership here at this table,

have not been extremely effective in delivering both food and technical assistance in a cost-effective way that has obviously been provided by donors, by official donors through bilateral or multilateral

assistance. And they bring tremendous resources and experience to

this program.

I agree that all these players need to be involved in creating a

sustainable initiative. However, I think that past experience and

the structure of today’s globalized economy means that this ambitious goal cannot be sustainably achieved by simply adding on to

the broad programs that are already being carried out, or by using

only public sector financing and administering only through national and multinational public sector initiatives. If there is anything we have learned from the last two decades in particular, it

is that the tremendous momentum of wealth creation, flexibility,

innovation and productivity, and real-time response is in the private commercial sector.

So I would like to set out my own implementation guidelines.

First, this must be a real private and public partnership initiative.

And when I say that, this is not just a matter of PVOs or NGOs

and Government entities, but also getting the private commercial

sector involved, both private corporations and foundations. There is

not one country that I have visited—and I am sure the same is

true for you, Mr. Chairman—where we have not seen our companies involved very directly in community outreach wherever they
44

are in the developing world. And what better way to meet the two

goals of creating a highly trained workforce and also creating real

buying power in a country than beginning to focus on getting children educated and getting children adequate nutrition.

Second, this must not be a food dumping initiative. It cannot be

a one-year commitment when we have surplus commodities, or

when there is an election coming and, we have to show that we are

moving product. This must be sustainable over time in terms of

both monies pledged and commodities pledged. It must have a

multi-year commitment to it.

Third, it must not be layered into existing bureaucratic agendas.

Too many good ideas get swamped or drowned in bureaucratic

channels. We have seen this over and over again, and that is why

I suggested a year and a half ago to set up a new private-public

institute which I have named Food for Education and Economic Development [FEED]. FEED could be mandated much as the National

Endowment for Democracy was in 1983 and has had a tremendous

record with a very targeted, focused mandate involving both Government money and private money.

And fourth it must begin, as far as I am concerned, on a small

targeted scale, be it at a national level, or be it, as Ellen Levinson

said, at a very local level. You need to come up with very solid

terms of reference, and you need to do it also on competitive submissions. Instead of our going to people and saying; ‘‘Look what we

have for you,’’ let’s find out who the people are out there who really

want to put something together and let them bring to us what they

are going to do to implement it, and then help them achieve it. I

think this would set a whole new groundwork, a new base in place

for the way we deal with these initiatives around the world by letting people who are ready come to us and letting us then say, yes,

we will help you achieve your goal.

Fifth must also support global market development. I think we

have to look at this in terms of our whole farm program and the

way we look at our farm program. Does it make sense to be taking

acreage out of production or doing other things when there is such

a need for resources around the world? Perhaps we could console

some new iteration to freedom to farm in the next farm bill that

we could include in terms of farmers planting certain land for this

purpose.

In closing, I think it is perfect timing to move this forward, but

I would urge that the Senate Agriculture Committee seriously only

support this proposal with a view to directly involve, engage, and

commit the private business community, both local and global, in

designing and implementing the programs to be carried out.

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brookins can be found in the appendix on page 112.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The collective output of you four is formidable, and I would really

start with Dr. Levinger’s thought. First of all, it is a sobering set

of facts which she has as far as the learning situation, that learning doesn’t necessarily occur because children are fed. At least she

has sort of said there is a different threshold, and that is an impor-
45

tant concept. As we think through all of this, our instincts are

clearly to feed people, and that may still be where we end up. In

other words, as you get more and more goals on top of this, as I

was in dialogue with Secretary Glickman, democracy, human

rights, all sorts of things, this becomes a very ambitious program

in which we sort of take on the entire agenda of our Government.

But, still, that is why we asked you to come, to bring some perspective to this, because it is a school lunch program, the idea of

schools—and you have described, Dr. Levinger, what, unfortunately, is the plight of schools in many countries in which we might

be involved. They are pretty rough-and-tumble situations, ill-financed, bad teachers, bad curriculum, language that children don’t

understand, and the achievements are low.

Now, then this is more jarring, and I noted down not only in your

testimony but just to make a note to myself that nutritionally people may not be better off if the parents simply don’t feed them another meal, sort of subtract that, so that the number of calories per

day might not change. Now, that is very sobering. How in the

world do we affect that? In other words, you can’t have guidelines

for parents, or at least that is so intrusive, that is sort of beyond

capability of administrative, to make sure that this is in addition

to. But in real life, this might be the case, that many people don’t

learn very much more and, in fact, are not even much better off

nutritionally.

So those are pretty tough criteria to start with, and then, finally,

the sustainability, which all of you have talked about. Clearly,

there is always enthusiasm for the use of surplus commodities, but

my own view of this is that not much of that is going to make

much difference to what we are talking about today, because very

quickly all of you in one way or another get into so-called monetization. That is a way of saying we are going to sell the commodities.

You know, the typical view of this is that we have excess food in

this country, maybe in bulk form or processed form, as the case

may be, but let’s say the bulk form and so we don’t need it and

we ship it rather than waste it.

But what you are pointing out is, of course, a practical measure.

This is of very little use to most of these programs in that form,

and what is of great use is that you sell it, get money for it.

What you are saying, Dr. Levinger, is that you sort of shore up

these schools. If the whole educational initiative is $5 a child a

year or some very modest amount like that, and you can get $5 a

child a year out of selling some of these commodities in Country

X, well, you have doubled at least the amount of educational opportunity for that child.

Already we are some steps divorced from the basic concept here.

The idealism of getting food into children because we are shoring

up the school so that the school will be good enough that the children will go to it, learn something, therefore, like our school lunch

program, have a benefit. You wanted to make a comment?

Dr. LEVINGER. I just wanted to be clear that what I was describing was a partial monetization, certainly not a full monetization.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. But it still is there, that somehow

we sell in these countries, and for other purposes maybe shore up
46

the school, but maybe the infrastructure, the whole preparation

process, whatever.

Now, Ms. Brookins, you have also added child labor here, and

that is an important objective, and others have touched upon that,

too, Senator Harkin earlier this morning, and it might very well be

a part of this if the parents support the children going to the school

and the children stay there and all the rest of it. You know, I think

as you get into this—and you as a very sobering panel, you have

just realized how many problems people have all over the world.

You try to fix one problem here, and, of course, you are right in

the middle of a whole host of them, and anybody who has done any

work in any other country understands that. But, still, it is useful

to remind ourselves how much we want to do all at the same time.

But, nevertheless, we are here in the Agriculture Committee, and

we are dealing with a food program and with USDA trying to guide

us through. So I think, we have to understand that, too, that our

means are somewhat limited, even if our aspirations are very high.

Now, I think all of you have said that the global agreement that

sort of permeates this discussion has been largely between USDA

and the international group. But PVOs, after all, are doing most

of the legwork, or could, and the problem is there are a lot of them.

They come in all sizes and shapes. Some are good and some are

not so good. So what I think you are qualifying to say is that if

a PVO sort of qualifies, begins to meet the criteria as a group that

has a track record of doing very well in this, is very sophisticated,

there may be sort of a blue ribbon group—or maybe that is not the

right terminology, but there is some—so that global agreements

can occur with these groups without, as you say, negotiating one

by one each of these innovations. And that I think is critically important, but it is an important point just in terms of our own organizational infrastructure in this country that we have these kinds

of agreements and we do so at the outset. We sort of find out who

is in the field, who has a track record of achievement, who could

do a lot if, in fact, we do not have the bureaucratic problem of

paper shuffling each time one of you gets involved in this.

So I would hope that whoever is writing up this legislation sort

of includes that concept because I think it is just very important.

I noted, Ms. Brookins, that you pointed out that the problem of

sustainability as we have discussed it today—and I tried to touch

upon this a little bit in my colloquy this morning—really does boil

down to annual appropriations. That is what we do here, and this

is why the presence of Senator Cochran was very important this

morning. Senator Cochran I saw on the floor during our recess, and

I told him how much I appreciated his coming over. He has to

wrestle with the hard realities of all of this, namely, after it leaves

our care and concern as an authorization committee. And I think

it will have very strong support in this committee, and that was

manifested this morning.

But then people come in that are part of our economy and say

if you are going to spend X number of dollars somewhere in the

world, there are some Americans that need help. Well, we can say

we can’t be that hard-hearted, that myopic, but the fact is, as some

of you have commented, our foreign aid has been declining precipi-
47

tously year after year. It has gone on now for several years without

surcease, just a secular decline.

I made a mission to see the President 1-year after he was just

re-elected and asked him really to overrun OMB and to ask for

$1.5 billion more, just for the sake of argument, and he did ask for

$1 billion more, and he got it. That was the only singular reverse

of this secular pattern. But, nevertheless, it has gone downhill ever

since.

So we are in an atmosphere in which in our own activities in

Government, whether they are in nutrition or whether they are

just foreign aid for whatever purposes, development, language

training, whatever we do, we are doing less of it—and in terms of

real dollars, much less. And you sort of have a line out in the future.

So we are talking about making water run uphill here because

even if you have a lot of surplus commodities and you monetize

them in some way and you don’t account for them exactly dollar

for dollar and you get the PVOs and some other money from American philanthropy—and a lot of that would have to be a part of

this, I think. Still, there is an outlay. Senator Cochran has people

that have to deal with this.

Now, in a practical way, we have had Dr. Borlaug and people

like this that I admire very much before the Committee. They are

talking about world hunger, about what we need to do in the next

20-years, 50-years, and so forth to feed the world. And Dr. Borlaug

as a witness in India, in China, now in Africa, is there. And you

finally get back to cutting-edge research, things that we need to do

to increase either yield or quality or resistance to problems or what

have you.

Now, this committee 3-years ago passed a bill for 5-years of cut- ting-edge research, $600 million, $120 million a year. But the appropriators in the House X’ed it out, year one, year two, you know,

a wonderful idea, everybody from the scientific community, humanitarian community, the food community in here praising that initiative and it passed the Senate, but not the appropriators.

Now, USDA to their credit has managed to figure out how to get

$120 million for this year, and I give great credit to Secretary

Glickman and his staff, even over the protests of the House people

who are still trying to X it out. But when we are talking about sustainability, we are talking about the politics of appropriation and

competing interests in this country. And this is why these PVO and

global agreements you are talking about are not only interesting in

terms of bureaucracy, they are probably what we are talking about

in sustainability. Catholic Relief Services, it goes the course every

year, regardless of the ups and downs of politics here, changes in

committees. So, you know, that somehow we have to sort of factor

into this.

Then, you know, we talked earlier this morning, Ambassador

McGovern started with 300-million-children in the world. But each

of you seemed to me to be saying you need to walk before you run,

and the targeting of this is probably important. Nobody would deny

that. We went through it with Secretary Glickman. What are the

criteria? And he had some for this working group that does this

sort of thing.
48

But, of course, then it becomes much less ambitious, and the people whose enthusiasm for feeding all children say here you folks

are already tailoring this down and, furthermore, maybe the countries, as one of you suggested, who really want it—I think you said

that, Ms. Brookins. That makes common sense not to force it on

somebody who doesn’t want it. But if you are looking at it from a

humanitarian standpoint, there are a lot of countries that have

very indifferent and sometimes strange governments. And so what

do you say to them? You are out of luck, history has dealt you a

bad hand in terms of your leadership?

Well, maybe we have to say that, as a practical matter, even

with our ideals, and we may not be able to intrude into some countries. And Sudan—I mentioned Dr. Frist’s experience. It is clear

the Government of Sudan is trying to systematically starve a large

part of its own country. This is unthinkable, but it happens in the

world, and that is not the first instance of this in which food is

used as an internal weapon for political hegemony of one group

over another.

So that is a pretty tough prospect. Even if Dr. Frist gets in with

some money to try to work on the AIDS problem there, or whatever, for the good of all of us, it is still pretty tough to run a school

lunch program.

So there has to be some willingness for this, but I suppose we

are going to find out a very checkered pattern in terms of willingness and how much intrusion countries are prepared to have.

The people over in Ms. Bertini’s shop in Rome have a pretty good

idea of where the politics of this lies, that we don’t have to reinvent

the wheel here. But as we are trying to think through it in terms

of our own governmental response, we all have to become more sophisticated. And you can be helpful in this well beyond your testimony today and what you have already looked at.

I noted, for example, Dr. Levinger, for the benefit of all who are

witnessing the hearing, you have given some website references to

studies and books that you have written which give a great deal

of the research and background, and that would be helpful. And I

know many will want to avail themselves of that additional testimony that comes in that form.

Well, I am sorry to have conducted this monologue, but I want

to stimulate the juices again with all of you. As a practical matter,

what do you foresee as you take a look at this from our perspective

in the Senate or the House as a practical way of proceeding, say

in the year ahead or in a 2-year period of time? You have suggested

the monetization of the commodities under 416. That sort of takes

us out to the end of calendar year 2001, perhaps, as sort of one

place where we get some money from that standpoint. USDA already has indicated that administratively they are doing a lot of

things, and the Secretary indicated a whole lot of programs that

were impressive.

So something is going to happen, anyway, given the impetus of

the Secretary and people who have testified, but what should we

do as a practical matter both in the short run but, likewise, in

terms of the sustainability of this idea, something that might grow,

that might be here for a long while? Does anybody have a contribution? Mr. Hackett?
49

Mr. HACKETT. If I may start, Mr. Chairman, I think the time invested right now in trying to formulate how this thing could work

over a 5-year horizon is well worth it. It allows then the American

private voluntary agency communities that are not deeply involved

in this right now because of the burdensome issues that I mentioned before to re-engage, and to re-engage their constituencies,

which is particularly important.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HACKETT. So I think the investments that actually are starting this afternoon with USDA people and the PVO communities

and WFP are well worth it, and we can begin to formulate kind of

a road map for the longer term. But we have got to think out at

least 5-years.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I like the idea of re-engaging constituencies

that you have and others have. I talked about this broad decline

of foreign assistance or even foreign interest, but it comes from the

decline of constituencies in this country. People have found other

things to be not only more important, but have relegated this to

such low importance.

So it may be that the private people have been discouraged or

have gotten some other signals, but maybe as you say, to re-engage, sort of find the rest of the world out there, and some very

exciting possibilities.

Yes, Ms. Levinson?

Ms. LEVINSON. Well, I would like to add to that. What has happened—and Dr. Levinger was—she went through the literature.

When it was found that really school feeding couldn’t have an impact on nutrition and sustainability is difficult, turning it over to

a government, in the early 1990s USAID under Public Law 480

Title 2 program had asked the PVOs who were conducting those

types of programs, the school feeding, the distribution type programs, straight, basically, mainly just distribution, to basically

eliminate those programs under Title 2. And what happened at

that point—and Catholic Relief Service took a lead in this, but

other PVOs got involved and, actually, Dr. Levinger was very much

a consultant in this whole process. There was what we would call

a reinvention of school feeding so that—remember, you were just

saying before these are hard issues to tackle if you have a working

family, if you have a family that doesn’t have enough money and

they make their children work, how can you compensate? Well,

they have created models to take care of that with take-home rations. There are other ways to attack that, and they have come up

with methods to do that through distribution, as well as, of course,

you do have to have better education. But you have both.

So there are methods, and one of the things that could be done

in this pilot program, since these PVOs have already developed

these new methods and have been doing it under agreements with

USAID over the past 6-years, this would be a good opportunity,

this pilot phase, also, to work with some of those new techniques,

and also to perhaps build in some new ideas that if there could be

partnerships with some of the local agricultural interests or businesses who would perhaps want to also somehow contribute and

participate, that may be another element to explore in this pilot

phase.
50

The CHAIRMAN. Yes?

Ms. BROOKINS. Well, I want to pick up on that because I really

do believe that there has been a serious lack here. If there is going

to be a meeting today with USDA of the PVOs and World Food

Program, why is it that representatives of the business sector have

not been involved, be it from U.S. commodity groups and farm

groups, but also non-agricultural people? I have talked to people at

several of the business councils who think this is a very interesting

idea. Many of our corporations are on the ground everywhere virtually in the world, and are doing humanitarian outreach in the

local communities, helping children with education and schools,

that type of thing. Plus, if you are looking at logistical support incountry and you are looking at developing logistical support, especially in local or regional areas, what better place to be looking

than the business community.

Would you let me digress for 1-minute on that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Ms. BROOKINS. Several years ago, I had the privilege during

President Reagan’s administration of heading up a task force on

food hunger and agriculture in developing countries. It was organized at the State Department. We had some people coming in to

testify, to talk to us about different things. Someone came in at one

point and was talking about the problem AID had experienced delivering seed in Zaire—it was Zaire at that time, you know. In any

case, he said how difficult it was because they had to get the seed

delivered before the planting season, but the Government had no

trucks and no agency to deliver the seed.

But someone from the private business community was sitting at

the table and said to the aid official there; ‘‘If you travel through

Zaire throughout the country, is there any product that you see everywhere in the country?’’ And the AID official said, ‘‘yes, there is

a beer that is produced in Kinshasa.’’ So this business person said,

well, all you need to do then is contract with the brewery distributor and get those seed bags put on the beer trucks.

I didn’t mean to digress, but I want to make my previous point

once again, that it is the private sector which produces the tax receipts which allows the Federal Government to spend money for all

these different priorities. But then it comes to a program like this

where we have businesses located everywhere in the world, and

commodity groups and farm groups, who are involved everywhere

in the world, and they are not being brought to the table.

I am not representing, I am not lobbying for any of them, but I

think they need to be involved in helping to plan and design these

types of activities.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a very, very important point. Let

me just sort of underline it anecdotally from my own experience,

the hunger programs in my home State. It is not a new finding.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors and others have suggested that

there are many more demands on the food pantry, the food banks

in our States, than has been the case in recent years. This is

counterintuitive to many people because they would say at a time

of fuller employment in the country and greater income that these

demands should not be occurring in this way. But, in reality, they

are. And as I have visited with the major food banks in our State,
51

the problem comes down—and Second Harvest is an umbrella organization—to such figures as 96-billion-pounds of food in this country are not needed ultimately by households, by restaurants and

what have you. Ninety-five billion of this is wasted. It is destroyed,

and it comes down to the point that some of you are making. To

convert part of that 95 requires money. It has to be packaged and

preserved and transported, distributed in some fashion. And so the

problems and the costs of doing all of that as opposed to simply disposing of it on site are economically difficult.

Now, I have proposed legislation to enhance the deduction for

companies but, likewise, to include for the first time partnerships,

individual farmers, other people who would receive the same tax

treatment for doing this, so that, that somehow changes the economics to a point that there is some reason why some of this might

be convertible to food banks and others in our country.

A lot of people think that is a great idea and have cosponsored

it. It hasn’t happened because tax legislation is very difficult to

pass this year, and all the vehicles thus far have run into some

problems, but, you know, hope springs eternal and each time

around we try this one out.

But it makes the point in a domestic situation that food is there,

but converting this situation either by transportation, monetization, some other form, to something that is going to help the people

that we are talking about here today really takes a lot of planning

and sort of a stream of decisions.

Now, that does involve the business community. In fact, even

without the deductions, large corporations routinely make shipments of huge cartons of all sorts of things coming into the food

banks, and they are taking on warehouse capacity, and you know

many of these places. And they send the word out and station wagons come in, in one case to 150 agencies, small churches, sort of

underneath the radar screen of life in my State. About 10-percent

of people are receiving some benefits from all this.

So this is a significant thing just in our own country, but as I

say, converting it to abroad really requires even more imagination,

and it has to have American companies because they have the ability to do this sort of thing, and in many cases, the eagerness to do

this. We are routinely in touch with foundations of people who

want to know how they would go about doing this and do not have

the expertise.

So we want to get these folks involved right along with the PVOs

or however they want to set up their situations, because at the outset they have to be on the ground or sustainability of it won’t occur

for those of us who are in the temporary business of politics and

appropriation. Some of you will be around a lot longer to sustain

this.

Well, I appreciate very much your coming and your patience and,

likewise, your thoughtfulness in responding to these questions. And

perhaps you will be stimulated by this to think of some more questions as well as answers. So if you have supplemental testimony,

we would appreciate that.

Yes?

Ms. LEVINSON. I want to thank you very much because I have

to say listening to you is a very great joy for those of us who work
52

in the field in this area to hear someone put it all together verbally, just sitting there. It is just—you know, it makes me happy

just to be here and hear it. So thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
(53)

A P P E N D I X

JULY 27, 2000
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
(117)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JULY 27, 2000
118
119
120
121