U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

53–139PDF 2010

A CALL TO ACTION ON FOOD SECURITY:

THE ADMINISTRATION’S GLOBAL STRATEGY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 29, 2009

Serial No. 111–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

NOELLE LUSANE, Subcommittee Staff Director 

LINDSAY GILCHRIST, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

SHERI RICKERT, Republican Professional Staff Member 

ANTONINA KING, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Thomas Melito, Ph.D., Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, 

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

Helene Gayle, M.D., M.P.H., President and Chief Executive Officer, CARE ..... 27

Julie Howard, Ph.D., Executive Director, Partnership to Cut Hunger and 

Poverty in Africa .................................................................................................. 41

Reverend David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World ............................... 54

Mr. Richard Leach, Senior Advisor, Public Policy, Friends of the World Food 

Program ................................................................................................................ 62

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Thomas Melito, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 8

Helene Gayle, M.D., M.P.H.: Prepared statement ................................................ 30

Julie Howard, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................. 45

Reverend David Beckmann: Prepared statement ................................................. 56

Mr. Richard Leach: Prepared statement ............................................................... 65

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 90

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 91

(1)

A CALL TO ACTION ON FOOD SECURITY: THE 

ADMINISTRATION’S GLOBAL STRATEGY 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2009

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Donald M. 

Payne, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PAYNE. The meeting of the Subcommittee on Africa and 

Global Health will come to order. Let me welcome everyone here 

this morning and thank you for joining us on this Subcommittee 

on Africa and Global Health for its critically important hearing entitled, ‘‘A Call to Action on Food Security: The Administration’s 

Global Strategy.’’

A number of people and I am sure you will hear from each of the 

witnesses about the growing number and the concern for the number of people who go hungry each day, the number varies, but we 

know that it is high, and our estimates say that it is shocking that 

1 billion people have gone through a food and economic crisis—

going hungry—during the course of the year over the last few 

years, and the situation, unfortunately, contrary to our goals of the 

Millennium Challenge, is going in the opposite direction. The number of people affected is astonishing. 

Moreover, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon 

reports that the proportion of undernourished people has risen as 

well. This flies directly into the Millennium Development Goal. 

Therefore, there is perhaps nothing more important than we can be 

discussing this morning than what the United States is planning 

to do to address the food and security of nearly one-sixth of the 

world’s population. 

This hearing is the latest in a series of close to a half-dozen hearings on food security and food assistance that this subcommittee 

has held in the past 2 years. The last such hearing was held on 

June 4th of this year, focused on the local and regional purchases 

(LRPs) can play in enhancing our aid’s effectiveness. 

Today’s hearing will discuss the U.S. Global Hunger and Food 

Security Initiatives which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled at the United Nations General Assembly this past September. Following Secretary Clinton’s announcement, the State Department released a draft document which outlined the administration’s strategy whose goals are to ‘‘substantially reduce chronic 

hunger, raise the incomes of rural poor, and reduce the number of 

2

children suffering from undernutrition.’’ This is a welcomed paradigm shift back to strong investments in agriculture development 

and this means that there will be our goal to increase food security 

and as a critical element of long-term sustainable development in 

poor regions of the world, particularly in Africa, and that is really 

where we have to focus. You can feed people forever, but you have 

to deal with the root causes of the problem. 

I commend President Obama for encouraging these bold steps 

and Secretary Clinton who has taken on this as a major priority 

of the administration and has assigned her own Chief of Staff 

Counsel, Cheryl Mills, to lead up the initiative. 

The U.S. Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative builds upon 

the commitment made at the G–8 Summit in L’Aquila in Italy 

where countries agreed to $20 billion over 3 years toward the global partnership for agriculture and food security. This partnership 

will focus on promoting sustainable agricultural production, productivity, and rural economic growth. 

Last month the G–20 in Pittsburgh reaffirmed these commitments and called for the establishment of a World Bank Food Security Trust Fund to finance medium- and long-term investments in 

agricultural productivity and market access in low-income countries. The administration’s food security initiative, therefore, will 

work in tandem with the global partnerships, and I think it is important to point out that both the U.S. and the global initiatives 

stress that assistance provided through these programs will be 

complementary to the ongoing emergency food assistance. The emphasis on agricultural production and rural development does come 

not a minute too soon. It is something that we really should have 

been focusing on in the past; because, according to the Food and 

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations it will take a 70 

percent increase in global food production to feed the world’s population by 2060, the world’s population is expected to be 1.9 billion 

due to both population growth and rising income, 9.1 billion, yes. 

I might have said million, but it is billion as we all know. 

There is also greater recognition, as emphasized particularly in 

the administration’s strategy, on the role of women and the importance of empowering them with education, tools, and assistance 

they need to make up. As we know, they are the majority of the 

small farmers, the small holder farmers, and they are the engines 

of development in every society, and I think that is very clear and 

that has been a proven fact for decades. 

While the U.S. initiative is welcomed and encouraged, many of 

the details are still to be ironed out. Thus, today’s hearing will include an assessment of where the initiative stands as we speak, 

what it seeks to achieve, and what recommendations we might 

have to further develop it as we evolve with this policy. 

Let me remind us that it comes as no surprise that with the levels of poverty that exists in the world today that the number of 

people who cannot afford to grow or buy the food they need to live 

healthy, productive lives have dramatically increased. According to 

UNICEF, 25,000 children die every day due to poverty. This is unconscionable, and it must change. This is simply wrong. We can 

and must do more to end poverty. It is simply a moral imperative. 

3

I sincerely thank the panel of our esteemed witnesses whose testimony we will hear before us today to share their insights. Each 

one of you are experts in your own way, and we would like to see 

how we can move forward as we address this very important issue. 

Following the remarks from the ranking member and the other 

members’ comments, I will introduce the witnesses and we will proceed with their testimony. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank you for calling this very important and timely hearing designed to examine the administration’s recently released consultation document that proposed a strategy which aids global food security. According to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, 

people are food insecure and they do not have enough physical, social or economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet 

their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy 

life. 

The FAO’s 2009 report ‘‘The Food of Insecurity in the World’’ 

states that the decline in the numbers of chronically hungry people 

that was occurring some 20 years ago has been reversed, largely 

due to less available official developmental assistance devoted to 

agriculture. That unfortunate policy outcome, combined with the 

current global food and economic crisis, has resulted in an estimated 1 billion undernourished people around the world. The majority of those who lack food security, an estimated 642 million, live 

in Asia and the Pacific. Sub-Sahara Africa also has a large number 

at 265 million, and has the highest prevalence at one out of every 

three persons undernourished. 

It is disturbing to note that the developed countries are not immune from this deficiency. We have around 15 million people living 

in our midst who are food insecure. It is shocking to hear that hungry and undernutrition kills more people globally than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined. Hunger and malnutrition are the 

underlying causes of death of over 3.5 million children every year, 

or more than 10,000 children each day. 

Poor households in the developing countries currently are facing 

a particularly devastating challenge for food security for two reasons. One is the global nature of the economic crisis which reduces 

the availability of coping mechanisms such as currency evaluations, 

borrowing or increased use of ODA, or migrant remittances that 

would otherwise be available if only a certain region or regions 

were impacted. Another is the food crisis that preceded the economic crisis which had already placed poor households in a weak 

position. 

Several initiatives have been announced over the past few 

months to galvanize international action to address this crisis. The 

Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security was announced at the G–8 Summit in Italy, in July, in which summit 

leaders and other countries and organizations established a goal of 

mobilizing, as you pointed out, $20 billion over the next 3 years, 

in particular, to promote sustainable production, productivity and 

rural economic growth, and additional countries have since pledged 

an additional $2 billion to this effort. Unfortunately, there are reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
4

ports that about one-half to two-thirds of that commitment is actually just in aid that has merely been repackaged. 

The view of 27 in Pittsburgh, however, in September, endorsed 

the initiative embraced by the G–8 and also called for an establishment of a World Bank Food Security Trust Fund. The purpose of 

this fund will be to boost agricultural productivity and market access in low-income countries by financing medium- and long-term 

investments. Later that month, the United Nations Secretary-General and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a joint statement 

in which they agreed to build upon the global partnerships initiated in Italy. 

The Secretary of State also released a consultation document at 

the end of September taking the views of numerous interested parties with respect to our proposed strategy to address global hunger 

and food security. I commend the Secretary for emphasizing the 

importance of imports from small-scale farmers and related agricultural producers in the consultation process. 

We are here today to examine this initiative and hear from the 

Government Accountability Office and our other very distinguished 

witnesses on the panel, and again, I look forward to hearing your 

insights as we craft this strategy. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith, and now I would 

like to introduce our panelists. First, we have Dr. Thomas Melito. 

Dr. Melito is director of International Affairs and Trade Team at 

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

the last 10 years, Dr. Melito has been focusing on a wide range of 

development issues, including debt relief for poor country’s international food security and human trafficking. As part of the human 

trafficking portfolio, Dr. Melito led a review of U.S. Government 

and international efforts to monitor and evaluate their international programs and projects. 

Since 2007, Dr. Melito has testified several times to Congress on 

the GAO’s reviews of U.S. food assistance efforts, including on 

weaknesses and in monitoring any valuations. 

Dr. Melito holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University and a B.S. in industrial and labor relations from 

Cornell University. 

The second witness will be Dr. Helene D. Gayle. Dr. Gale is 

president and chief executive officer of CARE USA. She heads one 

of the world’s premier international humanitarian organizations. 

Dr. Gayle spent 20 years with the Centers for Disease Control, focusing primarily on combatting HIV and AIDS. She then directed 

the HIV, TB and reproductive health programs at the Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Gayle is chair of the Presidential 

Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. She has published numerous 

scientific articles and has been featured in media outlets as the 

person from New York Times, Washington Post, Glamour, Vogue 

Magazines—the ladies tell me that is important—Essence—they 

also say that too—Financial Times, National Public Radio and 

CNN. 

Dr. Gayle was born and raised in Buffalo, New York, earned a 

B.A. in psychology at Barnard College, and an M.D. from the UniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

versity of Pennsylvania, and a M.P.H. from Johns Hopkins University. It is good to have you with us. 

Our next witness is Dr. Julie Howard. Dr. Howard has served 

since 2003 as the executive director of the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, an independent nonprofit coalition dedicated to increasing the level of effectiveness of U.S. assistance and 

private investment in Africa. Dr. Howard holds a Ph.D. in agriculture economics from Michigan State University, and an M.S. in 

international agriculture development from the University of California, Davis, and a B.A. in international care from George Washington University. 

She has carried out research and written on agricultural technology development and transfer in Zambia, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia. Dr. Howard is co-author with Michael 

R. Taylor of ‘‘Investing in African’s Future: U.S. Agricultural Development Assistance for sub-Saharan African,’’ 2005, and with Alexander Ray Love of ‘‘Now is the Time to Plan to Cut Hunger and 

Poverty in Africa,’’ 2002. Dr. Howard also serves as an adjunct assistant professor of development at Michigan State University. 

Now, who is no stranger to us, Reverend David Beckmann. Dr. 

Beckmann is one of the foremost U.S. advocates for policies and 

programs to reduce poverty in the United States and worldwide. 

He has been president of Bread for the World for 15 years, leading 

large scale and successful campaigns to strengthen U.S. political 

commitments to the hunger and poverty. Before that he served at 

the World Bank for 15 years, and Dr. Beckmann was one of the 

prime movers to have legislation passed and kept the U.S. focused 

on supporting the Millennium Challenge goals in 2000 when there 

was some wavering as we saw in 2005. As a matter of fact it was 

when it was thought that the United States might move back from 

its commitment of 2000 to halve poverty by 2015, and so we really 

appreciate the work of Bread for the World. 

Dr. Beckmann founded and served as president of the Alliance 

to End Hunger, which engages diverse U.S. institutions to build political support that will end hunger. Dr. Beckmann is also president of Bread for the World Institute which does research and education on poverty and development. Dr. Beckmann is a Lutheran 

clergyman as well as an economist earning degrees from Yale, 

Christ Seminary and the London School of Economics. He has written many books and articles, including ‘‘Transforming the Politics 

of Hunger and Grace at the Table: Ending Hunger in God’s World.’’

Last but not least, we have Mr. Richard Leach. Mr. Leach serves 

as the senior advisor for Public Policy for Friends of the World 

Food Program. He established the organization in 1997, and in 

2003 and 2004, he directed a global initiative to address the hunger 

among children. From 1991 to 1993, Mr. Leach served as foreign 

policy staff on the U.S. House Select Committee on Hunger which 

did so many great things during the time, and we really appreciate 

your work on that very important committee. He has also served 

as senior advisor to the World Health Organization and is a member of the American Bar Association’s task force on reform of the 

United Nations Commission on Human Rights. 

In 1993, he was appointed by the Clinton administration to direct a nationwide campaign to increase solid immunization rates, 

6

and later transformed a campaign operation into a branch of the 

United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and we 

know how important immunization is with the epidemic that we 

have seen in recent history. 

Mr. Leach practiced law for 1986 to 1990. He served as chairman 

of the board of directors of the American Lung Association for the 

District of Columbia from 2004 to 2006 and is currently a member 

of the board of directors of United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. 

At this time we will start with our first witness, Dr. Melito. 

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

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

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

I am pleased to be here to discuss the extent to which host governments and donors, including the United States, are working to improve global food security. This problem is especially severe in subSaharan Africa with one out of every three people considered undernourished. Worldwide the number of undernourished people has 

been growing and now exceeds 1 billion. As the largest international donor, contributing over half of food aid to supplies to alleviate hunger and support development, the United States plays 

an important role in responding to emergencies and ensuring global food security. 

Global targets were set at the 1996 World Food Conference when 

the United States and more than 180 nations pledged to halve the 

total number of undernourished people worldwide by 2015. In recent years, GAO has issued a number of reports on international 

food assistance issues that made recommendations to improve U.S. 

food aid and global food security. 

My statement today is based on our May 2008 report and on recent and ongoing work. I will focus on two topics. First, I will discuss host government and donor efforts to halve hunger, especially 

in sub-Saharan Africa by 2015. Second, I will discuss the status of 

U.S. agencies’ implementation of GAO’s 2008 recommendations to 

enhance efforts to address global food insecurity. 

Regarding the first objective, we found that host governments 

and donors, including the United States, have made little progress 

in halving hunger for these three key reasons: First, host governments in sub-Saharan Africa have not prioritized food security as 

a development goal, and as of 2007, only eight countries had fulfilled the 2003 pledge to direct 10 percent of government spending 

to agriculture. However, these data represent an increase of four 

additional countries that met the pledge between 2005 and 2007. 

Second, donor aid directed toward agricultural was declining 

until about 2005. 

Third, U.S. efforts to reduce hunger, especially in sub-Saharan 

Africa, focused primarily on emergency food aid and had not addressed the underlying factors that contributed to their recurrence 

and severity. 

However, to reverse the declining trend in funding, in July 2009, 

the Group of 8 agreed to a $20 billion 3-year commitment to increase assistance for global food security. The U.S.’s share of this 

7

commitment is about $3.4 billion. It includes about $1.4 billion in 

Fiscal Year 2010, representing more than double the Fiscal Year 

2009 budget request. 

Regarding our second objective, in our May 2008 report we recommended, first, the development of an integrated governmentwide U.S. strategy that defines each agency’s actions with specific 

timeframes and resource commitments, enhances collaboration 

with host governments and other donors, and improves measures 

to monitor the progress; and second, report annually to Congress 

on the implementation of the first recommendation. 

Consistent with our first recommendation, U.S. agencies are in 

the process of developing a government-wide strategy to achieve 

global food security with the launching of a food security initiative. 

In April 2009, the new administration created the Interagency Policy Committee. In late September 2009, State issued a consultation 

document that delineates a proposed comprehensive approach to 

food security. Although the document outlines broad objectives and 

principles, it has not yet evolved into an integrated governmentwide strategy that we called for in our 2008 recommendations. 

Such a strategy would define each agency’s actions and resource 

commitments to achieve global food security and to promote improved collaboration with host government and other donors, and 

include measures to monitor and evaluate progress toward implementing the strategy. 

Regarding our second recommendation, USAID officials stated 

that they plan to update Congress on progress toward the implementation of such a strategy as part of the agency’s 2008 Initiative 

to End Hunger in Africa report, which is expected to be released 

in the near future. 

However, as we concluded in our May 2008 report, this effort 

does not comprehensively address the underlying causes of food insecurity nor does it leverage the full extent of U.S. assistance 

across all agencies. 

Finally, in response to a request from Chairwoman Rosa 

DeLauro, we are currently conducting a review of U.S. efforts to 

address global food insecurity. We plan to report on the nature and 

scope of U.S. food security programs and the status of U.S. agencies’ ongoing efforts to develop an integrated government-wide 

strategy to address persistent food insecurity by using GAO criteria 

identified in prior products. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to any questions you or the members of the subcommittee have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melito follows:]

8


53139b-1.eps
9


53139b-2.eps
10


53139b-3.eps
11


53139b-4.eps
12


53139b-5.eps
13


53139b-6.eps
14


53139b-7.eps
15


53139b-8.eps
16


53139b-9.eps
17


53139b-10.eps
18


53139b-11.eps
19


53139b-12.eps
20


53139b-13.eps
21


53139b-14.eps
22


53139b-15.eps
23


53139b-16.eps
24


53139b-17.eps
25


53139b-18.eps
26


53139b-19.eps
27

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Dr. Gayle. 

STATEMENT OF HELENE GAYLE, M.D., M.P.H., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CARE 

Dr. GAYLE. Thank you, Chairman Payne and Representative 

Smith, and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for 

this opportunity to give brief comments on global hunger and food 

security in the administration’s food security initiate. We applaud 

the initiative of the Obama administration and your own longstanding leadership on this issue. 

I speak today on behalf of CARE, a humanitarian organization 

that fights poverty and its causes in nearly 70 countries around the 

world. As an organization, our very roots are entwined with this 

issue since we began our work providing care packages of food to 

people devastated by the effects of World War II. Our over 60 years 

of global experience convinces us that we can end extreme hunger 

and food insecurity around the world if we put in place the right 

resources, the right strategies, and have a sustained commitment 

to do so. 

Last year, global crisis brought much attention to the issue of 

world hunger. We need to maintain that focus because that crisis 

is more than just last year’s spike. And now to make matters 

worse, climate change poses an additional threat to the international community’s efforts to reduce chronic hunger. 

CARE strongly supports the principles outlined in the administration’s Food Security Initiative and believes that a country-led 

collaborative approach that addresses the underlying causes of 

hunger is critical. We also support an increased focus being placed 

on agricultural productivity, both here in Congress and the administration. 

That said, while agricultural development is a critical element of 

a successful Food Security Initiative, it is not enough to assume 

that improved agricultural loan will achieve food security. A comprehensive initiative to combat global hunger and assure food security must include flexible food assistance, a focus on gender, social 

safety nets, and nutritional support. Let me just take a few moments to talk about each of these. 

First, flexibility. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The effectiveness of both short-term emergency aid and long-term development programs could be greatly improved if donors would allow 

countries and the organizations working with them to choose the 

most appropriate cost-effective approach to responding to any given 

food security situation. 

Practitioners should be free to use imported food aid when it is 

most appropriate, free to purchase local food or food locally or regionally when that would be more appropriate, and free to use cash 

transfers, vouchers, cash for work and other non-food interventions 

when those are the most appropriate. Decisions about whether to 

distribute vouchers, local or regionally purchase food or food secured in the United States should be based on two factors: Local 

market conditions and local or regional availability of food in sufficient quantities and quality to meet local needs. 

Where markets work well and food is locally available in sufficient quantity and quality cash transfers or vouchers are generally 

28

the most efficient. When food is locally available but markets do 

not function well, direct distribution of local or regionally purchased food is likely to be the most appropriate form, and where 

food is not locally or regionally available in sufficient quantity and 

quality shipping food may be called for. 

However, we want to note that shipping food from the United 

States to developing countries is slow, expensive, and unpredictable. The cost of this tied food aid has shown to be sufficiently 

higher, in many cases 30–50 percent higher than alternative nontied food aid, and can take as much as three times longer to get 

food to the people who need it most. The United States is now 

spending 20 times as much on food aid in Africa as it is spending 

to help African farmers grow their own food. 

We also believe that this means moving away from the practice 

of modernization, a practice that our organization is phasing out of 

because of this inefficiency and risk to local agricultural productivity. 

Gender has been mentioned by both of you. We believe it is important to place the special emphasis on investing in girls and 

women because it is clear that it the best way to benefit families 

and move entire communities out of poverty. However, women have 

not been taken into consideration when programs and policies related o food security are developed. Rural women produce half the 

world’s food, and in developing countries between 60 and 80 percent of food crops, yet only 1 percent of farmland. If we are going 

to have an impact on improving food security and agricultural productivity it is important that women be placed at the heart of those 

policies and that we make sure that any food policy and initiatives 

toward food insecurity address gender-specific barriers to accessing 

education credits and land tenure. 

Social safety nets, we are pleased that this is one of the three 

key objectives of the administration’s comprehensive approach to 

increase the impact of humanitarian and food assistance, and social 

thinking. We must help countries create social safety nets that prevent people in the margin from falling into extreme poverty, and 

we put in our written statement many examples of how social protective safety nets have made a huge difference in making sure 

that those who are living on the margins of poverty or who are already in poverty do not fall further behind because of a lack of access to important social safety nets and ways of mitigating the negative impacts of poverty and food insecurity. 

If we can help prevent people who experience extreme poverty 

fall further and further behind, we can have a greater impact on 

moving them toward greater food self-sufficiency. 

And finally, let me just touch on the issue of nutrition. Hunger 

and malnutrition are the primary risks of global health, as has 

been previously stated, in killing more people than AIDS, malaria, 

and tuberculosis combined. Additionally, chronically malnourished 

children are unable to develop their cognitive capacities adequately, thus reducing their ability to learn at school and compete 

later as adults in the marketplace. We suggest that nutritional impact play a key role in the Food Security Initiatives and that nutritional assessment is used as a key indicator of the initiative’s effectiveness. 

29

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, 

you have an opportunity to make an extraordinary difference 

throughout the world by taking bold actions to advance a comprehensive Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative that takes 

flexibility, gender equality, social safety nets, and nutrition into 

consideration. As Secretary Clinton said when she unveiled the administration’s imitative, ‘‘The question is not whether we can end 

hunger, it is whether we will.’’ The time to act is now. This hearing 

is an important step. We ask this committee to markup global hunger and food security legislation, the Global Food Security Act, H.R. 

3077, and the Roadmap to End Global Hunger Act, H.R. 2817, and 

stay the course toward comprehensive flexible food security policies 

focused on those who are most vulnerable with a focus on inclusion 

of women. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gayle follows:]

30


53139c-1.eps
31


53139c-2.eps
32


53139c-3.eps
33


53139c-4.eps
34


53139c-5.eps
35


53139c-6.eps
36


53139c-7.eps
37


53139c-8.eps
38


53139c-9.eps
39


53139c-10.eps
40


53139c-11.eps
41

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Dr. Howard. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE HOWARD, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PARTNERSHIP TO CUT HUNGER AND POVERTY IN AFRICA 

Ms. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for 

this hearing, and thank you for this opportunity to testify about 

the administration’s Food Security Initiative and recommendations 

for the strategy going forward. Mr. Chairman, I will make six key 

points today. I will focus my remarks on the impact and recommendations of the food security strategy in Africa, although I believe there recommendations are more broadly applicable. 

First, the new leadership on global food security from the administration and Congress is impressive and promises a significant expansion of funding to catalogue economic development in Africa 

and elsewhere. For millennia, agriculture has provided the foundation for economic well being and growth worldwide. However, we 

seemed to forget this over the past few decades when development 

assistance for agriculture declined sharply. In 1979, agriculture assistance was 18 percent of ODA. This has slipped to 2.5 percent by 

2004. 

Today, due in large part to the devastating impact of the recent 

global food price crisis, agriculture has reemerged as the key driver 

status to sustainably reduce poverty and hunger, and this is especially important in rural Africa where 70 percent of the population 

lives and works. 

The United States began increasing its investments in African 

agriculture in 2005. The gain in U.S. assistance between 2005 and 

2008 was due primarily to the launch of the MCC and the beginning of compact implementation. This is documented in reports of 

the partnership earlier this month. The MCC is in fact our first 

U.S. experience with assistance that is driven by priorities set by 

partner countries. When partners had the opportunity to choose 

the kind of economic development assistance they wanted, they 

opted for agriculture and agriculture-related infrastructure programs. That increase between 2005 and 2008 was from $660 million to $1.1 billion. That includes all U.S. assistance provided 

through bilateral and multilateral channels. 

We are expecting further and significant increases as has already 

been discussed, the pledge at L’Aquila Summit, the budgets that 

President Obama has submitted to Congress, all very promising, 

and of course the release of the consultative security documents. 

The leadership on food security, we are pleased to note, is coming 

not only from the administration but from Congress. The Global 

Food Security Act of 2009, developed by Senators Lugar and Casey, 

and in the House by Congresswoman McCollum, calls for a comprehensive goal of government strategies for tackling food security 

with sustainable agricultural development. The bill would make 

USAID the lead implementing agency and also authorize add-on 

appropriations that would be $2.5 billion by 2014. 

Representative McGovern and Emerson have also introduced important legislation focusing on the imperative of dealing with both 

emergency needs and longer term agricultural development. 

These funding increases are significant and important, but I 

think it is helpful to put these increases in context. Even with proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
42

jected increase, U.S. agricultural funding for African nations are a 

relatively small fraction of U.S. assistance globally, and continues 

to lag far behind health funding. Even with the 2010 increase in 

agricultural programming for Africa would be just 1.8 percent of 

global U.S. ODA and less than 10 percent of the assistance for Africa. 

Due largely to the significant and important U.S. funding in combating AIDS, the health program area received almost 60 percent 

of the USAID state-managed assistance in 2008, and would received 67 percent under the 2010 budget increase. 

The availability of resources is not the end of the story, it is simply the beginning, and so our central question must be this: How 

can donor resources supply the spark that will feed the energy of 

hundreds of African organizations, individuals and families in solving problems themselves that are now making them food insecure? 

So my second point is that we are very pleased to see a demanddriven potentially responsive approach play such a central role in 

the administration’s global hunger and food security consultation 

documents. We believe that embracing a demand-driven approach 

will enable the U.S. and its bilateral and multilateral partners to 

focus and coordinate their resources and then translate or commitments into actions sustained by Africans. 

It should be clear that this would be a significant departures 

from the way in which decisions about foreign aid are made now. 

Although recipient countries and organizations are involved in the 

process, decision-making about foreign aid has traditionally been 

the prerogative of the donors. Donor countries and organizations 

act as investors, determining the total amount of funding, its allocation to specific countries, the way the funds are managed, the 

kinds of results, impacts that are expected, and who implements 

the program, and despite consultations this final program is really 

country owned, and the U.S. prolonged negotiations takes place 

each year between the administration and Congress as well as in 

Congress to structure the foreign aid assistance budget and direct 

its implementation. 

Further, the U.S. Government enters into agreements for program implementation with NGOs, the colleges and universities, the 

private businesses. These organizations align the financial and 

staff resources to pursue development goals that are set in Washington. We have two specific recommendations. 

First, it will be important to elevate this demand-driven principle 

by instilling in U.S. law a strong presumption that recipient countries will appropriately determine the priorities for achieving food 

securities and agricultural development on the ground. 

And the second recommendation in this area is that the demanddrive approach should be expanded to include regional organizations. The African Union has placed a high priority on regional organizations and effective regional integration of markets, trade, 

and supporting institutions. 

My third point, Mr. Chairman, is that funding and implementation flexibility can be maximized through the creation of a food security fund in the U.S. As you know, currently the stove piping of 

programs, rigid separation of funding accounts, and complex systems for selecting contract or grantee organizations to lead impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
43

mentation greatly constrained the U.S. Government’s ability to respond to country priorities for changing conditions at the partner 

country level. 

Alternatively, a single congressionally mandated U.S. food security fund could cut through this maze. The fund could be tapped 

for the unique mix of assistance appropriate for each nation or region, allowing the U.S. to respond to country priorities and to 

changing realities on the ground. 

Fourth, Mr. Chairman, U.S. programs ought to place a high priority on local capacity and institution building, and adopt a resultsoriented learning approach. To deepen the effectiveness of the demand-driven approach, the U.S. Food Security Initiative should 

place more emphasis on using and strengthening African local capacity and institutions. This would underscore our long-term commitment to strengthening the foundation for sustained agricultural 

development. 

Also in implementing the Food Security Initiative, the U.S. Government should set strong initiatives for contractors and grantees 

to contribute to building the capacity of local staff and institutions 

in both public and private sectors. 

Fifth, while the consultative document is a promising start, there 

are many questions about how the initiative will be implemented 

in Washington and in the U.S. country regional offices. U.S. efforts 

on food security will be complex, multi-sectorial, and long term. Investing in country-led food security plans will require acting on a 

number of fronts simultaneously. 

The diversity of current U.S. Government assistance approaches 

is a strength and weakness. It implies potential for responding 

with depth and expertise to a number of issues in a variety of sectors, but it also implies clashing organizational cultures, competition for resources and influence, and uncoordinated implementation. Building and sustaining a Washington team dedicated to food 

security is critical to translating this commitment into action efficiently and effectively. 

Many questions remain to be answered. These are critical for the 

successful implementation of the Food Security Initiative. They include, first, at the Washington level, will, as proposed under the 

Global Food Security Act, USAID take the interagency lead in coordinating a whole-of-government approach and in consultation 

with international donors? It is obviously a very serious problem 

that we still do not have a USAID administrator at this critical 

stage. 

Second, is the current structure of the centralized foreign-assistance budgeting system, under State’s deputy secretary, consistent 

with the decentralized, participatory, flexible, and innovative approach to food security, or must it be modified? 

Also, how will U.S. food security funding for country- and regionled investments mesh with other bilateral and multilateral food security initiatives, such as the initiatives by the U.N., IFAD, and 

the World Bank? 

Equally important questions remain at the country level. How 

will U.S. teams be built at the country and regional levels? Will the 

White House and NSA and the State Department designate USAID 

44

to lead, with the Ambassador, U.S. Government interagency implementation of the Food Security Initiative? 

What are the appropriate roles for nonlead agencies in individual 

countries and regions, which, nevertheless, have a significant and 

important presence? What role should MCC and USDA play at the 

country and regional level? 

And, finally, Mr. Chair, my final point: Successful implementation of this country-led Food Security Initiative can lead the way 

toward larger foreign assistance reforms. The demand-driven, Food 

Security Initiative can be employed to test and demonstrate the 

benefits of broader foreign assistance reforms. 

There are three critical areas for replicating this approach: First, 

developing new approaches to strategic planning for country- and 

regional-level assistance; second, establishing a collaborative learning environment that engages host country governments, communities, and other implementing partners, bilateral and multilateral 

partners included, as well as other U.S.-funded organizations; testing the functionality of new partnership and ownership models as 

State and USAID move to lead both the whole-of-government approach to food security, undertake a broadly consultative process in 

country and with regional organizations, and expand outreach to 

international donors and multilateral organizations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Howard follows:]

45


53139d-1.eps
46


53139d-2.eps
47


53139d-3.eps
48


53139d-4.eps
49


53139d-5.eps
50


53139d-6.eps
51


53139d-7.eps
52


53139d-8.eps
53


53139d-9.eps
54

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Reverend Beckmann? 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND DAVID BECKMANN, PRESIDENT, 

BREAD FOR THE WORLD 

Rev. BECKMANN. Chairman Payne, Ranking Member Smith, 

members of the committee, I really appreciate your holding this 

hearing. I appreciated your opening remarks and am grateful for 

the invitation to speak. 

Bread for the World is a collective Christian voice that urges our 

nation’s decision-makers to end hunger in our country and around 

the world. We are part of the Road Map to End Hunger Coalition, 

and I am co-chair of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. 

We strongly support the administration’s Global Hunger and 

Food Security Initiative. I am struck that, in our conversation this 

morning, there is a lot of agreement between what the two of you 

said and what the witnesses have said, and there is a considerable 

consensus about what needs to be done to reduce hunger and food 

insecurity in the world, and the administration’s consultation draft 

incorporates a lot of the things that we have talked about here. 

I appreciate that they have actually started to provide leadership. It is not just about U.S. Government money but about getting 

the governments of the world, foundations, civil society, corporations, to focus together on reducing hunger and food insecurity 

mainly by investing in agriculture in poor countries. 

I think the consultation draft is good in many respects. It is 

grounded in country consultations, so it would be responsive to 

what local people need, and it would get the actors working together. I think it is right to focus on agriculture, helping people be 

productive, but it also is comprehensive and includes nutrition and 

other elements that are important to reducing hunger, and what it 

says about using the multilaterals also makes a lot of sense. 

I have three suggestions. One is that the consultation draft says 

it, but I think it is important that child undernutrition be the primary indicator of whether this thing works. So the focus is on agriculture, cut you can have different kinds of agricultural development, and if we focus on whether fewer kids are undernourished, 

that will tend to pull the whole thing in the direction of the kind 

of agriculture that will reduce hunger and also complementary programs of rural development and nutrition that will reduce hunger. 

Undernutrition among children is particularly deadly, and it is 

also relatively easy to monitor, so that can be used. When we are 

talking about this 3 years from now, we should judge our success 

by whether there are fewer undernourished kids. 

Second, I think the initiative should include the development of 

organizations that speak for hungry people, so as we move toward 

these country consultations, it is especially important that somebody engage and strengthen organizations—farmers’ organizations, 

women’s organizations, religious organizations—that include and 

speak for hungry people so that they are ready to pull this whole 

thing down toward responsiveness to the people we want to reach, 

and then also, internationally, the best network we have of those 

kinds of organizations is called the International Alliance Against 

Hunger, but it is laughably weak, and that kind of international 

55

network of organizations that speak for hungry people also needs 

to be strengthened as part of this global initiative. 

Finally, as Dr. Howard said, the administration of this initiative 

should be designed in a way that contributes to the broader reform 

of foreign assistance and, specifically, the emergence of a strong, 

21st century, U.S. development agency. 

Chairman Berman and members of this committee have played 

a leadership role in getting a process of reform in our foreign assistance started. All of us know that our foreign aid programs could 

be more effective. What has happened is a scattering of foreign aid 

programs across the government, a complexity of objectives, lots of 

earmarks. As a result, as Dr. Howard said, we are not very responsive to local situations and local ideas. So everybody knows we 

ought to make it better, especially if we are going to put more 

money into it. 

Now, the Senate, the White House, the State Department are all 

working on foreign aid reform, as is the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

So we cannot wait to work on the global hunger problem until that 

process is done, but the Global Hunger Initiative should be administered in a way that contributes to more effective U.S. foreign assistance generally. 

I hope that the Foreign Affairs Committee will proceed with its 

work to make our foreign aid program more effective, and I would 

plead that making foreign aid more effective, this ought to be something on which Republicans and Democrats can work together. It 

will be a better outcome, it will be a more durable outcome, if the 

two parties can work together on this, making our aid programs 

more effective. 

Then, as the administration proceeds to implement this Global 

Hunger Initiative, it seems to me that the vision of where we want 

to go with foreign assistance reform suggests a strong role for 

USAID. So the Secretary needs to appoint an administrator of 

USAID, and, in USAID, I think that is where the coordination 

function should be, to work with the rest of government on this initiative. 

The Secretary should continue to speak out and put wind behind 

the sails of this initiative, but if she does that, and if we build up 

a capacity for this initiative within USAID, then we are moving toward a 21st century, capable, transparent, transformed agency that 

can work on agriculture, nutrition, and a range of issues that are 

important to hungry people around the world and to our own country. 

So I think what the administration has started is really good. I 

think we ought to keep our eyes on what is happening to undernourished kids. That is how we should judge our success. We 

should strengthen organizations around the world that speak up 

for hungry people, and the administration of this initiative should 

be set up in a way that contributes to a strong U.S. development 

agency. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beckmann follows:]

56


53139e-1.eps
57


53139e-2.eps
58


53139e-3.eps
59


53139e-4.eps
60


53139e-5.eps
61


53139e-6.eps
62

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Mr. Leach? 

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD LEACH, SENIOR ADVISOR, 

PUBLIC POLICY, FRIENDS OF THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM 

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your continuing commitment to addressing hunger and Ranking Member 

Smith by traveling the world, looking at some of the problems, 

holding these hearings. It has been critically important. 

I was thinking, coming up here today, that we meet today with 

great concern and great optimism, concern for all of the reasons 

that you have mentioned: The increasing number of people suffering from hunger around the world. 

For the first time in many decades, we are actually not moving 

forward in terms of decreasing the percent of the overall population 

that is being removed from the ranks of the hungry. But, you 

know, in so many of the hearings, so many of the discussions, so 

many of the speeches in years past about the issue of hunger, there 

has been discussion about what we know. We know how to address 

this problem, and it has been said that the only issue is political 

will, and I do think that now we actually have the political will to 

address this problem and address it comprehensively, and, for that, 

I think we have a lot of optimism. 

From the President’s statements and his inaugural address to 

Secretary Clinton’s convening of this interagency group that is 

truly moving the issue forward, I think it is a new day for all of 

us in the effort to address global hunger. 

I want to just focus my comments on the comprehensive approach. There has been a number of organizations—Dr. Beckmann 

mentioned the Roadmap Coalition that we are a member of and 

really salute the incredible NGO community that has come together in this effort over the last 12 months. 

The comprehensive approach highlighted in the administration’s 

recent document seems to be consistent with the elements of the 

Roadmap work, also consistent with the Global Food Security Act, 

and the Roadmap legislation, and all of these focus on four key pillars that are critical, we think, to addressing this problem comprehensively, and that includes emergency response, safety nets, 

nutrition, and agriculture development. All address a different element of the problem, and all, we believe, are critical if we are going 

to address this comprehensively. 

As you know, the emergency response efforts save lives. They are 

to help people who are facing a crisis, whether it be from national 

disaster or civil conflict. Based on current trends, we, unfortunately, expect the number of people who will need emergency assistance to remain at about 100 million people per year. 

The United States Government has consistently, over the decades, played the leadership role in addressing those afflicted by 

these emergency situations, and we are confident and hopeful that 

will continue. 

We fully support all of the recommendations that have focused 

on increasing flexibility and enhancing the effectiveness of our 

emergency response, which includes both commodity and cash resources. We have some ideas about ways to make maybe some creVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
63

ative approaches there as well, in terms of our food aid program, 

that perhaps we can entertain. 

The second is the safety net programs, as was mentioned. These 

help mitigate the impacts of societal shocks on those on the margin. In many respects, it is to help those on the edge not fall over 

the edge, and it is critical that we help countries create their own 

safety net systems, not merely provide temporary assistance when 

the crisis occurs but help countries create their own systems similar to our own food stamp programs. 

Third are the nutrition programs that were also mentioned, 

which are critically important, especially for vulnerable populations 

like pregnant, lactating women; children between zero and five but 

especially zero to two, where if they do not have the proper nutrition, they will not develop, either cognitively or physically, in the 

degree that they should. 

Similarly, there are other populations, like those who are afflicted by AIDS, who need proper nutrition to be able to, in essence, 

take the antiretrovirals. 

The fourth category, as has been mentioned, is the agriculture 

development. Such a large percent of the population of the world, 

those who suffer from poverty, are involved in agriculture. This will 

help ensure that we can raise the level of the economics of that 

population. 

In summary, a comprehensive strategy that combines emergency 

assistance to help those who require immediate assistance, safety 

net programs to ensure those on the edge do not fall over the edge, 

nutrition programs to ensure that specific vulnerable populations 

have the opportunity to grow and develop properly, and the agricultural development efforts to develop long-term means to break the 

cycle of poverty are all critical to address the full spectrum of food 

insecurity, both acute, chronic, urban, and rural. 

Hunger takes many forms. By integrating each of these categories, we will ensure that the initiative reaches all of those in 

need. We are concerned that without taking action on all four pillars that we will not comprehensively address this problem. 

I also want to just add my comments in support for what has 

been said about the critical importance of integrating gender into 

this strategy and also Dave Beckmann’s comments about the importance of having nutritional indicators and other very clear, 

transparent indicators where we can assess progress and make revisions, if necessary. 

One comment about the United States Congress, and that is, as 

you all know, the jurisdiction for the issue of hunger falls within 

the jurisdiction of a lot of different committees, both authorizing 

and appropriations committees. So any of your efforts to determine 

how best to coordinate among all of these committees could help 

ensure the effectiveness and success of this initiative. 

As we move from the planning to implementation phase, there 

are going to be a lot of critical issues for us all to grapple with, and 

with what we have seen from this administration in terms of their 

commitment, I feel very confident that we will, in fact, successfully 

address these issues. 

In closing, I just wanted to mention something that everyone in 

this room knows, and that is, as we talk about the data and the 

64

statistics and the numbers, that they represent real people, and, 

walking in here today, I was reminded of a situation in a particular 

African country where I saw this little boy leaning against a tree. 

He had been placed there by someone because he was too weak to 

stand, he was too weak even to fight the flies from his face, and 

it reminded me that that is the face of hunger. That is what we 

are here to try and grapple with. 

The other side of the coin is I remember going to a school-feeding 

program in Malawi where the bright smiles on the faces of these 

children, when we got there, they sang to us, and they asked us 

to thank the American people for our support, through the McGovern-Dole program, for that school-feeding program, and those children are really the hope for tomorrow, and I feel quite confident, 

with the focus of this committee, with the members here, with this 

administration, that the face of tomorrow’s children will be the 

children singing in the school-feeding programs, not the malnourished boy leaning against a tree. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leach follows:]

65


53139f-1.eps
66


53139f-2.eps
67


53139f-3.eps
68


53139f-4.eps
69


53139f-5.eps
70


53139f-6.eps
71


53139f-7.eps
72

Mr. PAYNE. Let me thank this panel for a very compassionate 

and very thorough testimony. I might see whether our member, Dr. 

Boozman, whether he would like to make an opening statement. 

Okay. We will wait until we have questioning. 

You might notice a number of members not present. There is an 

unveiling, a ‘‘rollout,’’ I guess they are calling it, of the health bill 

right now, so I would be interested myself to see what it is, but 

let me thank those members who are here. 

I just might mention, too, that I do know of the importance that 

Secretary Clinton has put on the whole question of this food security and who, early on in her administration, held a meeting at her 

office with Secretary Vilsack from the Agriculture Department, 

which I think was probably one of the first meetings of that nature 

early in the administration. 

So there is certainly a real interest in tying USDA with the Secretary of State, and I had the privilege also of being invited to her 

recent August trip to seven countries that she took in Africa, and 

Secretary Vilsack also came to Kenya, where he, with Secretary 

Clinton, visited a Kenyan agriculture research institute and met 

with Kenyan women farmers and met with Kenyan scientists, and 

so I do know that there is a tremendous amount of interest, and 

so we are hoping to see this implementation of the new policy. 

Let me ask you, Dr. Melito, since you have been following this 

issue for so long, and I appreciate the work that you have done and 

your reports; however, as we are all, you know, concerned about 

the fact that currently USAID does not have an administrator, and 

the position is still vacant, I wonder if, in your opinion, the USAID 

has the capacity to carry out the administration’s food security program, or do you think that that task will be shared throughout different agencies, and the fact that the post is still open that there, 

in your opinion, will be a restructuring of USAID. If you would like 

to comment. 

Mr. MELITO. I will begin by the answer, but I am sure my colleagues will have other things to say. 

The USAID has been an active part of the effort to create a strategy, and that is vital. USAID’s expertise in development and in the 

area of ag. needs to be part of the discussion. 

We, in our meetings with USAID, have been pleased to hear the 

importance they are placing on creating the strategy. We are a little concerned that they have yet to really understand how they are 

going to report out on this. Their current thinking on reporting, we 

think, is more narrowly based on what they have been doing and 

not how it works with the rest of the government. 

We think, as the administration creates a strategy, how USAID’s 

efforts, USDA’s efforts, and MCC’s efforts work together, I think, 

is going to be a vital part of the success of the strategy. USAID is 

the key development agency of the U.S. Government, and they 

need to be a key player in this effort. 

Dr. GAYLE. I would just add, I think, clearly, it is important for 

us to have a strong development agency, and it is important for us 

to continue to build the strength of USAID. There have been efforts 

already to rebuild the staff within USAID. They are hiring more 

people and improving their ability to undertake their mission. The 

President, as well as the Secretary of State, have both said that 

73

they want a strong USAID and one that development, along with 

diplomacy and defense, are seen as equal pillars for our overall national security effort. 

So I think there is a real intention to build the strength of 

USAID, and, as Reverend Beckmann said, this initiative, done 

well, can actually be part of strengthening USAID, and so, with all 

of the agreement that we have around how important this issue of 

food security is, this can be a really important way for us to 

strengthen USAID. 

We have also said that this needs to be a whole-of-government 

strategy, so it is not that USAID needs to be the only organization 

involved. Clearly, the USDA has to take a part, with the focus on 

nutrition and child health and maternal health. HHS and agencies 

within Health need to be a part of this. 

So this is really an initiative that will need to take a whole-ofgovernment approach, but USAID, as the lead development agency, 

can be key to this, and this can also be key to helping to reinforce 

and continue to strengthen and build USAID. 

Ms. HOWARD. I agree, and I just want to add to that, yes, all of 

the agencies—USAID and other agencies—have a very important 

role to play in this Food Security Initiative, but I cannot overestimate enough the importance of having a coordinator, both in Washington and at the country and regional levels. 

We work quite closely with the African diplomatic community 

here, and I often think about one of my colleagues there, who said 

to me, ‘‘You know, Julie, it is so difficult here for us to figure out 

the U.S. foreign assistance mechanism. There are multiple agencies,’’ and he says, ‘‘On the ground, why am I the one who has to 

be the mediator between USAID and MCC? In my country, they 

often do not know what the other is doing.’’

So I fear that that is the situation that we are faced with now. 

If there is not a very strong signal as, you know, this is the agency 

that is in charge. I am not belittling, not demeaning any of the 

other contributions, but someone has to be the focal point. 

I think Dr. Gayle is correct that USAID’s capacity is increasing, 

it needs to continue to increase, but I think we cannot really delay 

much longer in establishing a firm focal point. 

Rev. BECKMANN. I think this problem needs to be fixed with legislation, so the administration has inherited a fragmented foreignassistance structure. At Bread for the World, we helped create the 

MCC, we lobbied for PEPFAR, so, you know, we understand that 

a lot of people were involved in this, but we come to a point where, 

over the last 10 years, we have doubled development assistance. 

President Obama wants to double foreign assistance again, so we 

are spending more money, and the way we have done that during 

the Bush administration was to create an MCA, to create a 

PEPFAR. 

I got a chance to visit Mozambique recently. USAID, MCA, and 

PEPFAR all have offices in Mozambique. My sense, from talking to 

staff in those agencies, is they do not have a very clear idea what 

each other is doing. They all have their own administrative procedures, so the ministers of this very poor, good government have to 

jump through three sets of hoops, see three sets of officials, and 

74

then there is a scattering, 60 offices altogether, of the U.S. Government foreign aid programs. 

So when I was up in Northern Mozambique, it turned out that 

the USDA had a forestry project up in Northern Mozambique. 

So the administration is saying, ‘‘We have got urgent problems. 

We cannot wait to fix this broader structural problem before we get 

started on this Food Security Initiative.’’ So we need a clear guidance, I think, a strong, implementing role for USAID is part of 

that, some kind of coordination structure is part of it, but then it 

comes back to this subcommittee and the full committee. 

It is Congress that, together with the President, need to develop 

a clear, clean set of objectives and structures for our foreign aid 

program. It is not just in this area but in other areas. We are not 

using the taxpayer dollars as well as we should. I think we ought 

to put more dollars into it, but we really need this committee to 

work with the Senate and the President and the Secretary of State 

to fix foreign aid for this and for a bunch of other reasons. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes? 

Mr. LEACH. Just briefly, two comments. One is, in a positive 

sense, the administration, in developing the documents they presented, have, in fact, brought together all of the key agencies. So 

the consultative document that we have all been looking at was 

drafted by someone from USDA, USAID, and MCC. So they are 

working that process. 

The other point is, with regard to in country, I agree, this could 

be an opportunity to help enhance collaboration, and we feel 

strongly that the U.S. Ambassador in these particular countries 

needs to say, ‘‘This is a priority,’’ because, otherwise, the stove piping will not decrease. You have heard the comments from Jim 

McGovern, where he says he is out and sees, you know, the folks 

from USAID who want to travel with him to go look at the McGovern-Dole program because they have never seen it because the 

USDA administered the program. 

So with the U.S. Ambassador making this a priority, as the Secretary and the President have, we can start to deal with some of 

these issues immediately at the country level. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just real quickly before my time expires totally, 

there is a consultative process, I understand, that is going on right 

now in the administration. I wonder if any of your private organizations are involved in it, and how have they been coming along, 

just quickly, or what is going on? 

Rev. BECKMANN. All of us have been involved in it. They have 

done a great job of reaching out. I think they have also come over 

to talk to Members of Congress. They are very clear about their desire to work with Congress on this, but they have consulted with 

all of our organizations. Also, they have brought in foundations and 

corporations, and they went to Africa and talked with African leaders. 

They had this big meeting that Secretary Clinton co-chaired with 

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in which 99 governments talked 

about what ways that they are going to contribute in broad alignment to strengthen agriculture and reduce hunger in poor countries. So that process of consultation; it has been good in terms of 

developing a good plan. I think the consultation draft is very good, 

75

partly because they have listened, but it has also mobilized other 

governments, including African governments, governments in developing countries, other G–8 governments, and it has mobilized 

civil society foundations, companies. A number of U.S. agribusiness 

companies are much more interested in doing business in poor 

countries than they were several years ago. 

So I think the administration has done a good job of bringing 

them into the discussion and talking about how we can all—nobody 

is going to take orders from anybody, but how can all of those efforts work in broad alignment to reduce hunger and food insecurity? 

Dr. GAYLE. If I could add, I would agree that there has been a 

very good consultative process up to this point. It is going to be important that it continues to be a consultative process all along because while we have a great, broad outline, it is in the implementation and the details of the implementation that it is going to continue to be critical to have all players at the table to make sure 

that we do what is in the best interest of a long-term solution to 

this. 

Just also, as Reverend Beckmann mentioned the private sector, 

I think it is important that we keep the private sector, who has a 

huge role in agricultural productivity in the countries which we are 

talking about, also engaged in this process. 

Mr. PAYNE. Great, and we really appreciate all that you are contributing—private organizations—and we are looking forward to 

Ms. Mills’ meeting with members of our committee, where she will 

be summing up what has happened up to now, and we look forward 

to meeting with her in the near future. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank our very distinguished witnesses for your testimony but, more importantly, for the work that you do on behalf of 

those who are suffering the cruelest poverty of all, and that is 

going hungry. You are doing outstanding work, and I think your 

insights today helped this committee, and this is a bipartisan issue. 

I have worked along with Tony Hall since I have been in Congress, 

for 29 years, on hunger issues, and there has never been any separation between the chairman and I on these issues. 

When I chaired this committee, and we did not have time limits 

then either on questions, we always worked, I think, hand in glove, 

and I think the chairman should be commended for his work relative to PEPFAR that he insisted that there be focus on nutrition. 

You cannot take your meds, you cannot take your retrovirals, you 

cannot get well, relatively speaking, if you are HIV positive, if you 

are undernourished or starving. 

So this is a very important hearing. It keeps that focus and 

keeps the subcommittee pushing hard on the hunger issue. 

Let me ask a number of questions. I will lay it out, and those 

who would like to answer, please do so. 

Let me, first of all, ask, with regards to the actual amounts of 

money; Dr. Melito, you spoke about the pledged amounts. All of us 

always talk about pledges versus the money that you actually end 

up with in hand, whether or not there is just a reprogramming or 

a reattribution of funding. 

76

What is really ‘‘new funding’’? And you even pointed out that it 

is a doubling of last year’s budget request, what was actually appropriated versus what actually gets in, whether or not you really 

believe we are seeing a real breakthrough in new money, not just 

from the United States but from the other donor nations. 

You also pointed out, Dr. Melito, that 10 countries had net the 

goal of 10 percent. My question would be, is that an accurate barometer, the 10 percent? I know it is hard to come up with barometers as to what is really needed or not, but 10 percent of one budget is not 10 percent of another, and I would note that the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development program said only 

eight, so have some countries slid in the meantime? That was in 

June when they put out those numbers. 

On the infrastructure issue, President Kikwete was here from 

Tanzania just a few weeks ago, and I had a very fine meeting with 

him. He is an outstanding leader. In every meeting he had here in 

Washington, and he thanked President Bush for his work in this 

country. He also thanked President Obama, but he talked about 

the importance of having that local control, and we have learned 

that with the states that when it comes to incubators and innovation and using money very wisely and prudently, local control is so 

important. All of you, or some of you, might want to speak to the 

very important issue of local control of those funds so that we are 

not directing it from Washington or from U.N. Headquarters or 

anywhere else. 

Also, on the issue of infrastructure, I was in DR Congo a couple 

of years ago, and farmers told me that they could grow all that 

they could possibly want but cannot get it to market: Roads and 

bridges. The Millennium Challenge Account saw a decrease last 

year, much of that attributable to the Senate, but that money is 

so important. What good is it to grow it if you cannot get it to the 

market? Highways here, and the infrastructure of those highways 

have made it all important as to why we have our robust economy 

here. It is one of the linchpins. 

On microfinance, some of you might want to touch on the issue 

of microfinance. I have worked on that my entire congressional career, as well as wrote two laws on it. I believe passionately in 

microfinance, but we need to do more for the rural farmer and for 

infrastructure systems. While microfinance will not build roads and 

bridges, it can help create a transportation, a FedEx, or something 

of that nature, that can get the food to market on a small scale and 

then build it up to a larger scale. 

Let me ask you, Reverend Beckmann and others who might want 

to answer, faith based; does the strategy adequately include faithbased groups? I know it is tough to say it because you are a part 

of it, and you also derive funding from the Federal Government, 

but we need honest assessments. Are the faith-based organizations 

being adequately funded, in your view, when it comes to nutritional 

and food support, and can we do more? 

It seems to me, and I have said this, and the chairman, I think, 

and I have agreed on this as well, from PEPFAR to all of the programs, the churches and the faith system in Africa provide such 

added value to getting food to the hungry mouths, so if you could 

touch on that. 

77

And, finally, on the issue of security, a different kind of security, 

military security, we have an Africa Command, as you know, that 

has set up in Africa. We have had hearings on it here, and we have 

tried to stay abreast of what they are doing, and it seems to me 

that if you have war or the threat of war or conflict or bandits, it 

is pretty hard to get food to hungry people: The role that you think 

that security, in the traditional sense, plays in ensuring that hungry people are no longer hungry. 

Mr. MELITO. I think I will start. That is an extraordinarily great 

list of questions. I think it covers a lot of the areas that we all care 

about. I am going to touch on two of them, and then I will move 

on. 

First, on the budget issue, you raised an issue about a possible 

double-counting, how you measure this. On the work that my team 

is doing right now for Chairwoman DeLauro, we are trying to get 

a handle on the U.S. Government’s total budget on food security, 

and it is much more difficult than you might think. 

We are working very closely with each of the agencies to try to 

create clear definitions of what is an ‘‘expenditure on food security’’ 

to try to get an understanding of what their particular missions 

are. I think that is going to be an important step in trying to create 

a baseline to then try to understand how things have changed over 

time, and that report is due early next year. 

As far as the CAADP goal, I want to say both a positive and a 

negative thing. On the positive side, we put eight countries in 

2007, and it is twice as many as the four countries in 2005. However, this was a goal for 38 countries, and it is supposed to be completed by 2008. So we have not gotten the 2008 data yet, but it 

seems unlikely that we are going to reach the full 38 countries by 

2008. 

What is the right number? I do not know. They did commit to 

10 percent, and, in a situation where one-third or more of your population is undernourished, having it be 10 percent of your expenditures does not seem to be out of hand, and success of the initiative, 

as we move forward, is going to require active participation by the 

host governments. They need to make sure, whatever we do is in 

line with what they think is a priority, and they need to be active 

participants, and one way for that active participation is with their 

own budgets. Thank you. 

Dr. GAYLE. Maybe just a couple of comments. I would agree with 

your comments on the issue of budget. 

On the infrastructure, yes, local control is critically important, 

and that is why I think each of us, in different ways, addressed 

this issue of flexibility and why it is so important that there be 

country-driven plans and that countries have the flexibility to decide what their priorities are and to match the different strategies 

with their own needs and to make sure that the funds are used in 

a way that they think make the biggest difference for the circumstances that they face. 

Yet that said, that does not mean that all monies should be directly transferred to governments because we also want to make 

sure that the governments have the capability to be able to administer and implement programs well. That is why organizations like 

ours work with local communities, as well as working with the govVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
78

ernments, to strengthen their ability to be able to manage programs as effectively as possible. 

So it is that partnership, but making sure that the decision-making really can be a country-led decision-making, so I think that is 

critical. 

You mentioned the issue of MCC and other sort of infrastructure, 

like road infrastructure, and, again, I think, in different ways, we 

have all touched on the importance of making sure that there is 

coordination on the ground so that roads are being built in the 

places that would best support farmers’ ability to get their crops to 

market. 

So I think this issue of better coordination so that MCC can do 

what it does well, USAID can do what it does well, USDA can do 

what it does well, et cetera, and that we do it in a coordinated way 

so that it can really have the comprehensive pieces that you talked 

about, but, clearly, this issue of infrastructure is critical. 

Microfinance; our work in providing village savings-led associations has been critical to the issue of food security, the ability for 

people to save, to make loans within communities, so that they can 

buy the best seed, so that they can develop the kinds of agricultural businesses that allow particularly women, small, holder farmer women, who oftentimes do not have resources otherwise, microfinance can be a lifeline to be able to contribute to a comprehensive 

approach to food security. 

So, yes, we believe that microfinance linked to some of these activities can be a really important way of being an engine for building food security and improving agricultural productivity, and, 

again, particularly for women. 

Finally, you mentioned the issue of overall security. We know 

that food insecurity has led to things like riots in countries, instability, and that if we do not take care of the issue of food insecurity, it goes hand in hand with instability and insecurity within 

countries as well. 

That said, in issues of high conflict, the issues of security are 

very intertwined, but it is important that we recognize what the 

role of security forces is and what the roles of long-term development and humanitarian assistance are and that we do not blur 

those lines in ways that ultimately are damaging to the efforts of 

either. 

Ms. HOWARD. Just to take a couple of these questions, on the 10-

percent issue, I think it has been a very important marker for 

many African governments. I think it has helped to focus attention 

in Africa on the roots of the food security issue. 

I think if you look at the trends over the past several years, the 

10 percent is a barrier. Many countries are close to that, so I think 

we definitely are seeing progress, some setbacks perhaps in the last 

year because of the food-price issue, but I think there are a couple 

of larger questions. 

One is, you know, because so many countries are so dependent 

on foreign assistance for a large part of their budgets, their own 

flexibility in saying, are they going to spend more on agriculture, 

also depends on the importance that donors attach to that, so that 

is one thing. 

79

The other thing that is a little troubling for us is that the 10 percent, just like Mr. Melito said, we do not have a clearly understood 

definition in our own U.S. Government of what ‘‘food security investments’’ comprise. It is the same in Africa. We know it is not 

just the Ministry of Agriculture budget, but what part of transportation, what part of other health ministries go into this? 

So there is no clear agreed definition, and also, if you look across 

the countries that have achieved the marker, I think some of us do 

not feel comfortable that the investments that are being made are 

necessarily the right ones that are going to push those countries in 

the right direction. 

So I think we, in the next phase, we really need to think more 

clearly about a kind of peer-review mechanism, helping NEPAT develop so we will have full confidence that not only is the funding 

target being met but that the right things are being invested, and 

I think that is very important, maybe thinking about expanding 

the doing-business-indicator approach. 

Just to comment on local control, I absolutely agree with that. 

Having transparency, having local groups that are able to participate in monitoring an evaluation of impact is really critical to this 

because, definitely, it is the government, but it is also the private 

sector, and it is also NGOs that need to be involved in that process. 

On infrastructure, I also could not agree with you more. In our 

report, it shows we would not have had an increase in agricultural 

investment over the last 4 years had it not been for key MCC investments. USAID funding in 2005 to 2008 was just flat. MCC was 

what drove it. 

I think the next stage in this is looking at, how do we make critical regional investments in infrastructure? Because MCC, the way 

it is set up now, is not able to do that, yet we know regional integration is critical, developing these regional markets. How can we 

aid the investment of those? 

Rev. BECKMANN. I will focus just on the question that you specifically addressed to me. I really appreciated your remarks about 

hunger as a bipartisan issue. I know that that is shared by all 

three of you, and I am deeply grateful for the bipartisanship of 

Congress on this issue and what Tony Hall has done with people 

like Mr. Smith, Mr. Boozman, Frank Wolf. It keeps that tradition 

very much alive, that when it comes to hungry kids, we can park 

some other debates at the door. 

I just want to clarify that Bread for the World does not have any 

money from the U.S. Government. We are an advocacy organization, and we are financed by our members and the churches, and 

because we are an advocacy organization, we cannot get money 

from the U.S. Government to lobby the U.S. Government. 

So our focus is on what is good for hungry people. We do not 

have any other motive. 

I think, certainly, the whole food aid program, from the very beginning, has given a very strong role to faith-based and other community organizations, Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, American Jewish World Service. I may be wrong, but I think, in fact, 

the origins of CARE, it was partly people wanted to establish a secular agency that could be part of that administration of food assistance. 

80

So from the very beginning, food aid has been a model of engaging faith-based and other nongovernmental actors, and I think also, 

more broadly, in agriculture nutrition assistance, that U.S.-based, 

faith-based, and community organizations have a lot of capacity 

and should be, and probably will be, part of this initiative. 

As we move forward, I think the place to focus first is, how do 

we get programs that interact directly with poor communities? So 

your point about more decision-making has to be shifted to good 

governments in poor countries but also at the community level. 

Those poor communities ought to have more of a say. I mean, they 

are the actors. 

They are going to do 90 percent of the work in the end, so the 

money that is coming in from outside needs to work with them and 

support good things that those local communities are doing, and I 

think if we focus on how we are going to get some of this money 

into programs that will interact with those local poor communities, 

that is what is going to drive us, then, to use CARE and Catholic 

Relief Services, and then also, in country, to use the National 

Council of Churches, the Conference of Bishops. Every African 

country has a Conference of Bishops Office and a National Council 

of Churches. Most of them have Islamic Councils. Often, they work 

together. 

If we focus on how to get help in a way that the community will 

get it and have a voice in it, those entities will get involved, and 

I think we have a chance that the way the Food Security Initiative 

of the administration has started, this plan for country consultations, at least the language about how they want those to go, give 

us a chance to involve the religious community and other civil society actors in the developing countries in formulating what should 

the Food Security Initiative look like in Malawi, and if they are 

there as the thing is planned, they will also be there as it is implemented, and even more important—they are intermediaries—what 

is most important is that poor communities, the people who are 

doing 90 percent of the work to get out of hunger, that they are 

reached and that they have a voice in how they are reached and 

what happens in their community. That is the way to make sure 

that this thing actually reduces hunger in the world. 

Mr. LEACH. It is good to be here. I remember, 20 years ago, on 

the Select Committee on Hunger, we had the opportunity to work 

together, so I really appreciate your continued dedication to this 

issue. 

Three quick points: One, with regard to the funding, we have 

seen increases in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget and expect, in the 

Fiscal Year 2011 budget, in emergency response in terms of the annual appropriation. It will probably be about the same amount that 

was provided in prior years if you add in the emergency 

supplementals, but the annual appropriation is, in the Title II 

budget, $500 million higher than it was in prior years, and there 

are additional resources to add flexibility in the emergency response that was put in the foreign operations. About $300 million 

was suggested—I am not sure what the final number will be—to 

allow for some cash resources in emergency response. 

Similarly, in the agriculture-development area, there is a substantial amount of money, upwards of $1 billion, of new resources, 

81

but I am really looking forward to Dr. Melito’s work because we 

have not been able to figure out where the safety net of the nutrition money is. I mean, we spent a lot of time, and we still do not 

know what the number is, and a lot of groups have been doing a 

lot of work, and we are still scratching our heads. 

Just to add to Dr. Gale’s comments about the national security 

issue, she shared how the World Food program says that when people are suffering from severe hunger, they do one of three things: 

Either they move, they revolt, or they die. The fact is that we have 

seen 30 to 40 countries experiencing riots. 

Dennis Blair, in testimony earlier in the year, said that the financial crisis was the number one national security threat to our 

country because of issues like this. 

Just to add to Dr. Beckmann’s comments about the local planning, the local planning, which has been a key point to the administration’s principles, needs to ensure that the folks on the 

ground—the NGOs, the multilaterals, the locals—are involved in 

the process of mapping out the problems, looking at what interventions, and coordinating, and that will ensure that we are achieving 

some of the goals that you have referenced. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. To the co-chair, Dr. Boozman, who is cochair of the Malaria and Neglected Tropical Disease Caucus and 

was so helpful getting then-First Lady Mrs. Bush and U.N. Ambassador for Malaria Ray Chambers as we kicked off the Malaria Caucus. I would like to ask you for your comments. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we certainly appreciate your leadership in that regard. 

I think we all agree that what we are doing is not working, and 

we definitely need reform. You mentioned, Reverend Beckmann, 

about you go into these places, and you see the different offices and 

things. I think the reality is, to me, the reason that we have gotten 

in that position is where you have the PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge Account, in different areas is because different administrations have felt those programs were important and have 

separated them off so that the money does not get lost in the black 

hole if you go the conventional way. 

So I do not know. I mean, I am interested in what do we do because that is the other side of it. When you start combining things, 

when you do not have good accountability, it does seem to be a 

black hole, and the things that you are trying to accomplish that 

you feel like are very important, and certainly those things were 

very important, the Millennium Challenge Account, PEPFAR, and 

things, in responding to a crisis. So how do you deal with that? I 

am just interested in what you guys think we need to do. 

The other thing—you could be thinking about this, too—is that 

it seems like, in visiting with others that have been around for a 

long time, and some of you all have been around for a long time, 

the idea that we have moved, over the decades—I know I was in 

Ghana, not being in Africa a lot, and was in Ghana not too long 

ago, and they were lamenting the fact that the seed varieties that 

they were using there were back at the turn of the century; very, 

very primitive, very whatever. 

82

Through the decades, it seems like we have moved from instead 

of building up the agricultural program versus just handing out 

food. Is that a correct statement? 

So let us talk about, again, how do we unfragment? I think we 

are fragmented for a reason. Like I say, you throw the money 

where it was thrown. It is a black hole; there is no accountability. 

How do we change? 

Mr. MELITO. I guess I will start. You highlighted an important 

factor. In the last 10 or 15 years, the U.S. Government has moved 

most of its resources into emergency, and that was in line with a 

lot of the other donors. 

In the mid-eighties, a lot of frustration developed over the lack 

of success of the ag.-development efforts that had been ongoing, bilateral programs by the World Bank and such, and I think, as you 

move forward here, there is a lot of enthusiasm and energy to bring 

resources back to that sector, and I think that is vital, but I think 

it is also vital that we do not make the same mistake, which was 

we did not really devote the resources to monitoring and evaluation 

in the eighties. We really did not, you know, put the investment 

in to learn what was working and what was not working and then 

leverage what is working to improve it. 

So the consultation document does emphasize monitoring and 

evaluation. That is key. I think that Congress needs to make sure 

that it stays in and that the resources are devoted to monitoring 

and evaluation. 

Dr. GAYLE. I think you are also asking more broadly about our 

whole kind of foreign assistance industry, if you will, and the reality that we fragmented it perhaps for a reason. 

I think, as several of us have said, this effort, in many ways, is 

an effort that can be a harbinger or kind of a cutting edge for how 

we can do development better and our foreign assistance overall in 

a better way, and I think one of the things that we have lacked 

in the past is an overall comprehensive plan. Where do we want 

to go with foreign assistance? If we do not have a blueprint, if you 

will, some sort of a comprehensive plan, just like this effort is talking about, it is hard to hold an agency accountable. It is hard to 

know what your impact measurements really are. 

So I think, first and foremost, we have to have some sense of 

where do we want to go with our foreign assistance? What do we 

want to accomplish in development? Have a plan that then all of 

the agencies can work off of, and there can be a much greater and 

much more coordinated effort. Without that, the natural tendency 

will be to say, ‘‘Well, you know, if we are not sure whether or not 

we are going to get any results, we want to make sure this one particular effort works.’’

So I think if we have an overall blueprint, some clear goals laid 

out, and then measurable impacts to hold us accountable for 

achieving those results, I think we really can have a much more 

coordinated overall foreign assistance. 

So, again, I think this kind of effort shows that there can be a 

whole-of-government approach, that it clearly needs to be coordinate and have a lead, but it is having that overarching plan in 

mind and also having the willingness to look at this as long term. 

Too often, our efforts have been short term. They have been doing 

83

small projects that do not really have the kind of impact that we 

want. 

So we have to look at this in a much more comprehensive, longterm way, recognizing that we have to have a way of measuring 

our overall impact and that impact is the goal, not just doing 

projects. 

You talked about whether or not we have shifted in our efforts 

from just giving aid out and giving food out to actually building capacity, and I think we have, and I think we need to do that more, 

but, again, as several of us said earlier on, this is not a ‘‘one size 

fits all.’’

We still do need emergency aid, and we still will need to provide 

food and food substances to people in emergency situations, so we 

have to remember that that is going to be important in some situations, all the while we are looking at how do you build productivity, 

food security, and have a much more long-term strategy. So we 

need both, but we definitely want to make sure we are building the 

kind of capacity so that, ultimately, communities and populations 

can feed themselves and be sufficient in food and agricultural productivity. 

Ms. HOWARD. I think we are at the beginning of this changeover. 

I think, really, for the past two decades, we have been focused 

more and more on emergency assistance. We are just beginning to 

get back, creep back, into agriculture. 

On the fragmentation-and-why issue, I think that is an excellent 

point, and I agree with the previous comments about tying that directly to monitoring and evaluation, but I think we have some really important lessons from MCC in this regard because I think MCC 

has really been kind of a model of both consultation and what it 

means to put a plan together that has very specific benchmarks, 

indicators, and what is expected at the end of the day. 

So I think really looking closely at that model as we go forward 

with the Food Security Initiative that there will be some added 

twists, or I hope there will be some added twists, and that will be, 

how do we track not just the MCC impact or USAID impact but 

the total impact of all U.S. Government agencies, and then also relate that to other entities—multilaterals, bilaterals—that are contributing to that. 

I think that is what we really need. That is a tough evaluation 

question to track, but I think that is where we are all at right now. 

We need that kind of specificity. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Rev. BECKMANN. Thank you for the question. I also just want to 

say, I think you have played a role with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is in 

your district, I think, and Wal-Mart is doing a lot of funding now 

on domestic hunger and in other ways, in their own work force, 

they are addressing issues of poverty and hunger in a way they did 

not do maybe 10 years ago. 

So Mr. Smith mentioned hunger in America, and what you have 

done with Wal-Mart, based in your own district, I think is really 

important actually to reducing hunger in America, so I want to 

start by thanking you for that. 

On the broad question of how to get reform in foreign assistance, 

I think what we need is, in a way that has not happened for decVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Apr 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\102909\53139 HFA PsN: SHIRL
84

ades, for Congress and the President to agree, first, what are we 

trying to do with foreign aid? We have now got something like 30 

goals, so there needs to be a grand bargain in which Congress and 

the President agree on what are the goals, and then what are the 

administrative arrangements to achieve those goals because that 

has not been reauthorized? We are still dealing with the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961. 

So because there has not been a reauthorization, the way we 

have set up, we keep adding things and earmark an agency, but 

if Congress and the President could agree on the basic goals, then 

there could also be an agreement on the administrative arrangements and an accountability system so that Congress knows it is 

not a black hole. You are giving authority to somebody, and you 

want to know what the results are in terms of the agreed goals. 

Then also, if we would do that, we could make our assistance 

program more responsive to local governments and local people because they are really in a much better position than anybody in 

Washington to know whether the thing is working. If our assistance is responsive, then they are going to be saying—they can see 

on the ground if the money is working. So, broadly, that is the big 

hope. 

Now, to get to that, I think doing something in the full committee—there is H.R. 2139—some kind of amended form of that 

maybe that would be acceptable to the minority. It is a pretty 

unobjectionable bill. It would strengthen accountability. That is the 

main new thing in it. 

On the Senate side, on the 19th, the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee is marking up N.S. 1524, which is a counterpart bill. 

So I think it would really help this process of getting to the 

grand bargain if those two bills were conferenced and maybe 

passed so that Congress is saying to the President and the Secretary of State, ‘‘You are laying down some markers in terms of 

strengthening USAID, better accountability,’’ and then, beyond 

that, then there is the process of reauthorizing the Foreign Assistance Act, and I do not think that has got to be done. 

Now, in the meantime, the world cannot wait. There are a lot of 

hungry people, and the Secretary and the President are right that 

they have got to go ahead and deal with the problems we face now 

with the laws we have got now. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Reverend Beckmann and Mr. Leach, we 

have a vote, and I do want to ask our Congresswoman Watson if 

she would like to ask some questions. If you would yield, Dr. 

Boozman. 

Ms. WATSON. Let me just make a statement, and then I will 

leave to go to the floor. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you so much for this hearing—

it is so timely—on global food security. Yesterday, one of our most 

noted senators was given the Congressional Gold Medal, Ed 

Brooke, and the first thing he said is that, together, we can change 

the world, and he pointed at all of the leadership sitting behind 

him, and he said, ‘‘If we are going to change the world attitudes 

toward the United States, we must address the famine, the starvation, and the needs of people who call themselves our opposition.’’

85

So I cannot think of a more timely subject to be dealing with because we are facing a new worldwide food security crisis. He understood that. He was 90 years old. The changes in weather have 

caused droughts and hurricanes. I come from California. I can tell 

you about a drought. 

I can tell you about the fire that burned for 3 weeks several 

weeks ago. I can tell you that where I am, in Southern California, 

we are desert. The northern part of the State has 6,000 miles of 

delta. They have got the water; we do not, and we suffer every day 

because of it, and hurricanes that resulted in an increase in the 

number of the world’s hungry. 

The global economy crisis and soaring food prices have concurrently reduced the ability of people to purchase a minimum food 

supply. Because of these combined factors, hunger is on the rise. 

In the last decade, and I am speaking to the choir, I know, since 

the declaration of the Millennium Development Goals, the number 

of food-insecure, hungry people has increased. 

We have not progressed toward the goal of cutting in half the 

2000 level of hungry people by 2015. Over 700 million people globally are undernourished. A child dies every 6 seconds due to malnutrition-related causes. The U.S., along with other nations, has 

made efforts to restore the human right to nourishment, yet we are 

woefully falling short, and I believe that those of you who have 

made constructive suggestions, you understand this: How do we get 

there? 

We want the world to know that we know the conditions they are 

living in, and I am so reminded of what Senator Ed Brooke said 

yesterday, that regardless of our parties, regardless of our ideology, 

the only way we win is to consider the needs of other countries, 

and I am not talking about getting out there by ourselves but getting the European Union, NATO, our allies, to come together and 

recognize how we win over our detractors. 

So the U.S. will have to maintain a strong commitment to providing emergency support, and assistance must also be matched by 

equally strong investments in agriculture development and attrition to address the underlying causes of hunger, and the question 

becomes how we can best reform our system, USAID, to address 

these underlying causes of hunger. 

We must remember that food supplies a vital part of the development, health, and stability of a nation, but developing better farming practices in a region will not help a farmer get his produce to 

market without a road, and lessons in nutrition will remain unused 

if we do not help improve access to better choices. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your overall commitment, and I always kid him, if he is missing for Monday, he has 

been in Africa, and I do not know if there is any one member who 

has put himself on the line and knows the problems throughout the 

world, mainly on the continent of Africa, and so thank you so much 

for holding this hearing. I am going to rush on down to the floor. 

I was at the Health Access news conference, very well attended, 

and we actually had people from various parts of our country who 

were testifying on their condition and how our bill will help improve their living standards, so thank you so much, and I yield 

back the remainder of my time. 

86

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, and, as we do know, it is extremely important that we take care of our needs here as we try. 

We can do both, and we can do both better, and I do not think we 

have to ever think we have to compete domestic issues against 

international issues, and that has been settled years ago. 

Mr. Smith might have a short——

Mr. SMITH. Yes, very brief. Again, thanks for the hearing. It was 

a very good and important hearing. 

I do want to welcome back Greg Simpkins, who served very admirably and very effectively on this committee on our staff. He is 

now vice president of policy and program development for the Leon 

H. Sullivan Foundation. 

Greg, great to see you again. 

I would just point out again to our distinguished witnesses, the MCC, the Presidential request for 2009 was $2.225 billion. The appropriated amount was $875 million, a little more than a third of 

the request. In 2010, the House appropriated $1.4 billion; the Senate, $950 

million in infrastructure. Infrastructure is the key. It is part of that 

continuum if we really want to mitigate hunger and, hopefully, end 

it. So a very disturbing trend there, but, again, this is an important 

hearing, and I look forward to working with our panelists going forward and with the chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, and I would also like to thank 

the members who participated. We have a number of unanswered 

questions. We could have gotten into GMOs, but not enough time 

to talk about a number of the issues still there. 

We are looking to make sure that the money—as you know, we appropriated $48 billion for PEPFAR. We worked very closely with 

President Bush and the appropriators. We have to see, though, 

that now that we have it authorized, we have to be sure that it becomes appropriated, and we are also pleased that since that appropriations, the new administration has increased the PEPFAR overall, $48 billion, by $4 billion, which is now $52 billion, for 

HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, and another $11 billion that 

makes the total number $63 billion that will include maternal and 

child health, neglected tropical diseases, which there will be a new 

emphasis on, and also developing health systems so that when, 5 

years from now, we are expecting not only people to be served better but also to have health systems that individual countries can 

develop. 

We heard one of the witnesses mention diplomacy, USAID and 

Defense, and we did not get into that whole business about the 

militarization for foreign assistance. They say the military can do 

it better. That is because they get all of the money, so they do it. 

If we could somehow get the aid agencies to be able to distribute, 

in my opinion, we would see better utilization. I am not opposed 

to the fact that there are military people all over the world, and 

the U.S. covers the entire world with some kind of military operation, but I think we are perhaps better on the right track now 

than what we heard initially, that we want the aid agencies. 

I also think that we just simply need to work on better coordination. I hear people say, ‘‘Well, we should, you know, perhaps stop 

one of the programs, you know, Millennium Challenge, and forget 

87

PEPFAR or do PEPFAR and not do another.’’ I think what we simply need to do is to have a strong agency, as has been mentioned, 

in the office of our Ambassador somewhere in a country where 

these agencies would simply be coordinated. It makes sense. Each 

of these programs, perhaps some are obsolete, but many do a very 

specific service. 

All we simply have to do is to coordinate it so that the left hand 

knows what the right hand is doing, and I am sure that we will 

be able to synchronize it so that we can, in the long run, be able 

to modernize and, therefore, have additional resources on the 

ground by virtue of saving of overhead and better coordination. 

So I think it is the smart thing to do, and I am sure that the 

Secretary of State and the Obama administration will come up 

with a good program, but, once again, let me thank all of the witnesses. It was fantastic. We could have gone on, but, as you know, 

the vote is on. 

So I ask unanimous consent for members to have 5 days to revise 

and extend their remarks. Without objection, so ordered, and let 

me once again thank each of the witnesses for your incredible work 

that you have done, and without your advocacy out there, the work 

that we do up here would be much more difficult. Thank you very 

much. The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(89)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

90


53139n.eps
91

Æ


53139m.eps