U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

25–843PDF 2017

AFRICA’S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FAMINES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 15, 2017

Serial No. 115–39

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

KAREN BASS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Tony P. Hall, executive director emeritus, Alliance to End 

Hunger .................................................................................................................. 5

Mr. Roger Thurow, senior fellow, Global Food and Agriculture, The Chicago 

Council on Global Affairs .................................................................................... 11

Mr. Julien Schopp, director for humanitarian practice, InterAction ................... 17

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Tony P. Hall: Prepared statement ................................................ 9

Mr. Roger Thurow: Prepared statement ................................................................ 14

Mr. Julien Schopp: Prepared statement ................................................................ 19

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 44

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 45

(1)

AFRICA’S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL 

FAMINES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:53 a.m., in room 

2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. This hearing will come to order, and I want to thank 

again my colleagues for being here and I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for not only being here and their extraordinary 

expertise but also for their flexibility. 

We moved yesterday’s hearing and markup to today, as you 

know, because of the tragic circumstances surrounding the assault 

on Steve Scalise, two members of the Capitol police and, of course, 

a member of the congressional staff who are wounded. 

So I want to thank you for your indulgence and patience for that. 

I’d like to say a few opening remarks and I’ll yield to my colleagues 

for any comments they might have. 

The Bible, Ecclesiastics chapter 3, verse 2, tells us that ‘‘there is 

a time to plant and there is a time to harvest.’’ That ancient sage 

prescription has allowed multitudes to be fed over the course of humankind. 

But now ruthless men seeking power have disrupted the cycle, 

potentially causing manmade famines where none should exist in 

African countries from South Sudan to Nigeria to Somalia. 

Famine in Africa has been called the worst since World War II, 

even worse than the catastrophic 2011 famine in east Africa. 

What makes this round of famine even more tragic is how preventable it is. For example, South Sudan contains the most arable 

land in what was once a united Sudan. 

Aside from oil reserves, agriculture was seen as the key to South 

Sudan’s future success. Now areas of the Equatoria provinces, 

South Sudan’s breadbasket, are engulfed in conflict with citizens 

fleeing the country in the thousands, daily. 

There are now more than 4.8 million displaced South Sudanese. 

One point eight million refugees in neighboring countries, over 900 

million of those are in Uganda alone and at least 2 million are internally displaced persons. 

2

South Sudan is experiencing heightened levels of food insecurity 

with as high as 27 percent of the population in some areas facing 

famine. 

Despite the government’s contention that people are merely 

being frightened by rumors of conflict, South Sudan has quickly 

surpassed Eritrea to become the world’s fastest emptying country. 

Another country seeing a major exodus due to conflict is Somalia. 

There are an estimated 881,000 Somali refugees and the anticipated scale of population displacement from Somalia due to pervasive conflict and the threat of starvation will increase refugee flows 

throughout the region and into Europe. 

In Somalia, nearly 6.2 million people are currently in need of humanitarian assistance and more than 2.9 million people are facing 

crisis or emergency levels of acute food insecurity including nearly 

1 million children under the age of 5. 

Nigeria is yet another country facing famine due to conflict. 

There are 14 million people in northeast Nigeria who are in urgent 

need of humanitarian assistance including more than 8 million 

children and almost 6 million people are also facing food insecurity. 

About 9 million Nigerians are projected to suffer from food insecurity by August 2017, including more than 3 million people living 

in the northeast State of Borno. 

We focus on the part Boko Haram has played in creating chaos 

and famine in Nigeria and quite rightly so. More than 30,000 lives 

have been lost in violence related to Nigeria’s Boko Haram insurgency. 

But there is a developing threat that could widen the likelihood 

of food insecurity there. Attacks by Fulani extremists on farmers 

in Nigeria’s middle belt are increasing in intensity and can further 

exacerbate hunger in the region. 

The El Nino/La Nina weather cycles have caused drought as well 

as flooding in parts of Africa in recent years. The possibility of 

drought currently threatens famine in countries ranging from Angola to Sudan, Mozambique, and Madagascar. 

Nevertheless, it is conflict that poses and even greater threat of 

famine in countries such as the Central African Republic, the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mali, and could cause or exacerbate famine should the fighting disrupt planting-harvesting cycles and markets where locally produced food can be purchased. 

Ranking Member Bass and I, joined by Greg Simpkins, our staff 

director for the subcommittee, and Leslie Warner, who’s on the full 

committee staff, just returned from a mission to South Sudan. 

Piero Tozzi, our counsel, was there in February and I was in 

South Sudan 9 months ago in August 2016. We found, both Ranking Member Bass and I and our delegation, that the situation is 

absolutely appalling and, again, it’s absolutely preventable. 

Humanitarian aid officials repeatedly told us that no matter how 

much aid is provided it will not be enough to meet the ever expanding need, although we do have to provide as much as it takes as 

a bridge to help people who are suffering with the potential of starvation. 

Although we need to do more, I would say, we have to really 

focus on ending the conflict and ending the impunity that has been 

practiced by many in the military in disrupting convoys and those 

3

who are trying to bring food and humanitarian assistance to people 

who are at grave risk. 

We heard and know that some 84 humanitarian aid workers in 

South Sudan have been killed. There is no other country on earth 

where so many women and men trying to assist their neighbors 

have been targeted for killing than in South Sudan. 

And when you add the rapes and all of the other terrible, terrible 

aggressions, it cries out for reform as quickly as possible. 

And that’s what we weighed in with Salva Kiir with his new 

Chief of Defence Forcer, Ajongo, who our hope is that he will take 

the country and the military into a professional way rather than, 

unfortunately, the way it has deteriorated. So that is our hope, 

going forward. 

So before I introduce our extraordinarily distinguished panel I 

would like to yield to Dr. Bera and members of the subcommittee 

for any comments they might have. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you for your 

tireless work to address suffering around the world. 

Folks might wonder, why is this such an important issue to the 

United States? And I would just think back to my childhood, growing up in the 1970s and 1980s and sitting around the dinner table 

watching some of the footage and pictures of children and mothers 

starving in Ethiopia and Somalia. 

And some of that call to action and we have seen a repetition of 

that cycle over and over again in Africa. 

As the chairman rightfully pointed out, there certainly are climate causes to this, significant droughts and so forth. 

But underlying that, there is the manmade causes as well—the 

violence, the disruption. And unless we dedicate the time and resources to dealing with these root cause issues to working with the 

nations in Africa to develop the infrastructure, to build in the political systems, et cetera, to create stability and end this endless violent extremism and civil conflicts, we will continue to see a repetition of the human suffering. 

So, we had in full committee yesterday the Secretary of State 

talking about the State Department budget and, certainly, one of 

my big concerns with the budget that’s been put forth is the devastating cuts to our development funding. 

And the repercussions if that budget were to go forward would 

change who we are as a nation and historically how we have engaged with the rest of the world. 

So in my remarks yesterday as well as I’ll reiterate my remarks 

today, we can’t cut development like that because, one, that’s not 

a reflection of who we are as a nation. 

I think America is a great nation, but a great nation leads with 

its moral values. It doesn’t withdraw from the world when it sees 

suffering around the world and it is my hope as we start moving 

through the budget cycle we are able to restore those development 

funds. 

We are able to keep the funding at a minimum where it’s at if 

not expand funding for aid around the world in development. 

And, again, it is a world led by American values. Those values 

of compassion, those values of trying to relieve the suffering around 

the world is a better world. 

4

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield my time. I 

have to attend something else that is starting at noon. I will yield 

my time so the witnesses have more time to speak. Thank you. 

Mr. SUOZZI. I will just say that so much of Africa is in not only 

crisis but, as this document I am using from the Africa Center for 

Strategic Studies, are facing emergencies and catastrophes as well. 

And these are short-term problems that we have to face right immediately because people are suffering so dramatically. 

But there is also long-term problems that are related to climate 

change and this battle in the world between stability and instability, and instability is growing throughout the world and there is 

people that are trying to promote instability. 

And long-term strategies along the lines of what Dr. Bera was 

just talking about are essential. So thank you for the good work. 

This is an emergency that needs to be addressed but there is also 

a long-term that we need to develop. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

And I would like to now welcome our panel, beginning first—

what an extraordinary honor it is to welcome Ambassador Tony 

Hall, former member, former chairman of the Hunger Committee 

who has done more than just about anybody—I don’t know anybody 

in Congress who has done more. 

I would put him right up there with the great Mickey Leland and 

Bill Emerson, who also co-chaired the Hunger Caucus in the past. 

But Tony has done it all. 

He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times, 

a leading advocate for hunger relief programs and improving 

human rights around the world. He serves as executive director 

emeritus of the Alliance to End Hunger. 

He also leads the alliance’s engagement with the Global Alliance 

Against Hunger and Malnutrition. He served as the United States 

Representative to the U.N. Agencies for Food and Agriculture in 

Rome. 

I remember visiting him there, no one had a better handle on 

what needed to be done and how to make it get done than Tony 

Hall. 

And then prior to his diplomatic service, Ambassador Hall represented the Third District of Ohio in the House of Representatives 

for 24 years. So, Tony, thank you again for your extraordinary 

leadership. 

We will then hear from Mr. Roger Thurow, who joined the Chicago Council on Global Affairs as senior fellow for Global Food and 

Agriculture in January 2010. 

And after three decades at the Wall Street Journal, for 20 years 

he was a foreign correspondent based in Europe and Africa, in 

2003, he and his colleagues wrote a series of stories on famine in 

Africa that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting. 

He’s the author of several books on hunger and his most recent 

book, ‘‘The First 1,000 Days: A Crucial Time for Mothers and Children—And the World,’’ was published in May. 

5

I would point out that when Karen Bass and I met with President Museveni for what I thought was an extraordinarily important meeting of pushing him, he is very welcoming to the refugees—over 900,000. 

We gave him a copy of your book, and while Uganda has signed 

up with the United Nations for the effort to deal with that first 

1,000 days with nutrition supplementation, we said, you read this 

book and you will be the leader, Mr. President. 

So as I said to your staff and you, the more copies you give us, 

the more heads of state, health secretaries, and everyone else will 

get a copy. 

Thank you for that and thank you for your presentation to the 

ambassadors from Africa several weeks back. I really appreciate it. 

Then we will hear, third, and thank you for being here as well, 

Mr. Julien Schopp, director of humanitarian practice at InterAction. 

In this capacity he supports humanitarian emergency responses 

and contributes to the improvement of humanitarian practice on 

behalf of the network’s members. 

He works on improving partnerships with U.N. agencies, overseeing countries’ specific working groups, and facilitating the development of clear advocacy positions on humanitarian issues. 

Before joining InterAction, Mr. Schopp worked as a senior policy 

officer for the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, focusing 

on forced displacement issues. 

He has substantial field experience and has worked in Ethiopia, 

the Ivory Coast, Uganda, Congo—Brazzaville, Sudan, and Chad, 

and again, brings a wealth of experience that we need to benefit 

from here on this subcommittee. 

Ambassador Hall. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TONY P. HALL, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR EMERITUS, ALLIANCE TO END HUNGER 

Ambassador HALL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am 

really glad to be here with my two distinguished colleagues and 

they have amazing backgrounds and so it is great to share this 

table with them and associate with them and what they’re going 

to say to you. 

In regard to yesterday, I am so sorry what happened at the ball 

diamond. I am very grateful that more congressmen didn’t get 

hurt. Had to be an act of God that, gee, that so many congressmen 

didn’t get hurt. 

And I, being a member—a former Member of Congress for 24 

years I know so many people don’t appreciate the time that you put 

in—the effort, and the effort that you give to the country. 

So I am very appreciative of what you—very thankful for your 

service. 

I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman 

Bass, for your travelling to Uganda and to South Sudan. I think 

that is so important for Members of Congress to travel. 

I know that you travel, Chris and Congresswoman Bass, because 

I travelled with you, Chris, before when I was here and it’s so important to travel and it’s so important to see what is going on in 

the world and because you vote on this. 

6

It is important to see it and to smell it and to walk around in 

it and to experience it, because when you come back here, you 

know, we are in the information age. 

I mean, there will be—as I understand, every Congress has 

20,000 to 30,000 bills and issues that come before it and you can 

sit back here and try to understand it. 

But until you see it and feel it, walk around in it, you don’t really understand it. And so thank you very much for going out to see 

it and witnessing these tragedies that we are seeing in this world 

today. 

You know, we have made tremendous progress in combatting 

hunger in this world. In the past 30 years, we have cut—when I 

say we, the hunger community—humanitarian community—we 

have cut hunger in half and actually, we—I like to associate myself 

with it—I want to associate myself with it—we have actually cut 

poverty in half, which is amazing. 

I mean, these programs that you have backed and supported, 

they work. These food programs—these school feedings, this clean 

water programs, these sanitation programs, microcredit, microfinance, teaching women how to read and write, basic education—

these work and they have actually cut poverty and hunger in half. 

I think that is amazing. Thirty years ago when I was here, I used 

to say today 42,000 people are going to die today from hunger and 

hunger-related deaths. 

Now, we say, today, 21,000 people are going to die today. I mean, 

that is still a lot of people. But that is a tremendous reduction and 

these programs work. 

Now we find ourselves at a crossroads. Tens of millions of people 

in Africa and the Middle East, they are on the verge of starving 

to death. You saw it. Famine is something that is hard to truly 

comprehend unless you have seen it with your eyes. 

Mr. Bera, when you were probably a little boy, in the 1980s when 

I took my first trip. I went to Ethiopia and I saw 25 children die 

in about 15 minutes from that great famine. 

I was the first congressman to go to Ethiopia. I never got over 

it. Chris has heard me tell this story and 10,000 people were up 

on a plateau in the northern part of Ethiopia. I was travelling with 

Mother Teresa’s group, Sisters of Charity. We were going to their 

clinic. 

The clinic was no bigger than this room in the middle of nowhere 

up near a place called Alamata. And these people were running, 

trying to get away from this civil war that was going on and the 

drought turned into a famine and it was a manmade kind of famine, pretty much similar to what we have today. 

And people just laid down, these 10,000 people, and died. And I 

walked through them to get to this clinic. Mothers were handing 

me their dead children. They thought I was a doctor. They thought 

maybe I could revive them in some way. 

I still think about that every—I can’t say every day but a lot. I 

never got over that. Twenty-five children in 15 minutes. 

These famines that we are facing today are manmade and it was 

a failure of leadership that led to these crises, and it will take global leadership to respond. 

7

And this is not only because of the sense of moral responsibility 

but, frankly, saving lives makes strategic sense as well. 

My good friend, David Beasley, he is the former Governor of 

South Carolina—he is the new director of the World Food Programme. 

He visited my organization, the Alliance to End Hunger, last 

week, and he came along with the FAO director, General Graziano 

da Silva. And David spoke frankly and convincingly about the importance for the United States to take the lead in responding to 

these famines and he stated that where there is hunger there is 

migration and extremism and that food security programs are a 

powerful weapon against these forces. 

Even went as far as to say that as a conservative Republican he 

could in all confidence tell policy makers that funding for food security programs, both relief and development, could do more to prevent and combat extremism than many other measures the U.S. 

takes. 

As I have seen this as I have travelled I can’t tell you how 

many—and I’ve been to 130 nations in this world. Some of these 

nations like Ethiopia I’ve been to maybe three dozen times. 

I can’t tell you how many times people have come up to me, because they know I am a representative of the United States, and 

they’ll say to me, thank you. I mean, these are the people that are 

starving. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 

The good will that the United States gets. You know, we’ve put 

on—and you’ve seen this—we put on our bags—and we demanded 

this when we were in Congress 30 years ago. 

We put on our bags of food the flag of the United States, and in 

the language of the country that we are in, whether it’s North 

Korea, which we used to feed, or it’s Arabic or whether it’s Swahili 

or whatever it is, in the language that that country is in, it says 

donated by the people of the United States. People never forget 

that. 

I will never forget when I was Ambassador in Rome. The President, Berlusconi, said—I think this was in 2002—he said, never 

forget about the Americans. 

Even when we weren’t allies, he said, never forget what they did 

for us after World War II about the Marshall Plan. People don’t 

forget. 

Just last week, Admiral Mike Mullen and General James Jones, 

they co-authored a piece in Politico that stated that in the 21st century weapons and war fighters alone are insufficient to keep America secure. 

They went on to say that development assistance is a modern national security tool and that cuts to USAID would increase risk to 

Americans and to our brave military service members. 

This is something that many if not all of us generally agree on. 

Earlier this year, thanks to the leadership of Members of Congress 

in this room, a budget was passed that provided nearly $1 billion 

in emergency famine relief. 

This follows last year’s bipartisan support for the Global Food 

Security Act, which will help to provide critical development 

projects and funding. And this leads me to my next point. 

8

We cannot talk about addressing current famines without talking 

about how we prevent them in the future. We have said never 

again too many times. 

There have been troubling conversations and proposals recently 

around cutting and even eliminating much of our international development funding. 

There are some who argue that we should restrict development 

to those countries that provide strategic advantage to our defense 

and economic agendas. 

But I tell you this, if we choose to cut development, that we 

choose to disengage with a significant percentage of the world’s 

population, this is not strategic. It is poorly informed shortsightedness. 

If we choose to scale back our development activities in the 

world, other countries should not be shy about stepping into the 

gaps. 

Last month, China’s Xi Jinping, he pledged—they pledged more 

than $100 billion for development projects in Asia, Europe, and Africa, adding poverty-focused programs and emergency aid to a list 

of infrastructure plans to link China more closely with the developing world. 

In an increasingly globalized world, with refugee situations and 

migration constantly in flux, the threat of extremism threatening 

our own citizens and our allies, there is no corner of the world that 

is not strategically important. 

We must end these famines now and bolster development that 

would both save and improve lives and livelihoods. The United 

States must continue to be the leader in global relief and development. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hall follows:]

9


25843a-1.eps

Tony P. Hall I Executive Director Emeritus of the Alliance to End Hunger 

United States Congressman {Ret.) 

Former US Ambassador, United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture 

Remarks on "Africa's Current and Potential Famines" 

Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 

June 14, 2017 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

address you today. 

I want to first thank both Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bass for travelling to the 

famine and war-ravaged areas of South Sudan, as well as areas dealing with impacts of refugees 

such as northern Uganda. As I can personally attest to, there is no substitute for seeing these 

things with your own eyes, and witnessing these tragedies is the first step towards finding 

meaningful solutions. 

We have made tremendous progress in combating hunger in this world. Over the past 30 years, 

we have cut worldwide food insecurity nearly in half. This, along with the 50% reduction in 

extreme poverty, is due in no small part to the exceptional leadership of the United States 

government and the generosity of our citizens. 

Now, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Tens of millions of people in Africa and the Middle East 

are on the verge of starving to death. Famine is something that is hard to truly comprehend 

unless you have seen it with your own eyes. I know that many people here today have heard 

me talk about my witnessing of famine in Ethiopia in the 1980's, but it was a truly lifechanging 

experience. Over the course of just one afternoon, I saw two dozen children die in a tragedy 

that could have been prevented. 

These famines that we are facing today are manmade. It was a failure of leadership that led to 

these crises, and it will take global leadership to respond. This is not only because of a sense of 

moral responsibility, but frankly- and as sick as it makes me feel to have to argue this- saving 

lives makes strategic sense as well. 

My good friend David Beasley, the former governor of South Carolina and the new Executive 

Director of the World Food Program visited my organization, the Alliance to End Hunger, last 

week; along with the FAO Director General Graziano da Silva. David spoke frankly and 

convincingly about the importance for the United States to take the lead in responding to these 

famines- stating that where there is hunger, there is migration and extremism, and that food 

security programs are a powerful weapon against these forces. He even went as far as to say 

that as a conservative Republican, he could confidently tell policymakers that funding for food 

security programs-both relief and development-can do more to prevent and combat 

extremism than many other measures the U.S. takes. 
10


25843a-2.eps

David is not alone in this outlook. Just this week, Admiral Mike Mullen (Ret.) and Gen. James 

Jones (Ret.) co-authored a piece in Politico that stated that "in the 21'' century, weapons and 

warfighters alone are insufficient to keep America secure." They go on to say that development 

assistance is a "modern national security tool," and that cuts to USAID would "increase risk to 

Americans and to our brave military service members."' 

This is something that many, if not all, of us generally agree on. Earlier this year, thanks to the 

leadership of Members of Congress in this room, a budget was passed that provided nearly $1 

billion in emergency famine relief. This follows last year's bipartisan support for the Global 

Food Security Act, which will help to provide critical development projects and funding through 

an efficient whole-of-government strategy. 

This leads me to my next point. We cannot talk about addressing current famines without 

talking about how we will prevent them in the future. We have said "never again" too many 

times. There have been troubling conversations and proposals recently around cutting, and 

even eliminating, much of our international development funding. There are some who argue 

that we should restrict development to those countries that provide "strategic advantage" to 

our defense and economic agendas. But I tell you this, if we choose to cut development, then 

we choose to disengage with a significant percentage ofthe world's population. This is not 

strategic, it is poorly-informed shortsightedness. 

If we choose to scale back our development activities in the world, other countries would not 

be shy about stepping into the gaps. Just last month, China's Xi Jinping pledged more than $100 

Billion for development projects in Asia, Europe, and Africa- adding poverty-focused programs 

and emergency aid to a list of infrastructure plans to link China more closely with the 

developing world. 

In an increasingly globalized world, with refugee situations and migration constantly in flux, and 

the threat of extremism threatening our own citizens and our allies, there is no corner of the 

world that is not strategically important. We must end these famines now, and bolster 

development that will both save and improve lives and livelihoods. The United States must 

continue to be the leader in global relief and development. 

Thank You. 

Mullin (Ret.), Adm. Mike and Gen. James Jones (Ret.). "Why foreign aid is critical to U.S. national security." 12 

June 2017. Politico. <http:/ /www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017 /06/12/budget -foreign-aid-cuts-nationalsecurity-000456?cidoapn>. 
11

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for that and, 

again, for your leadership that has been lifelong. 

Mr. Thurow. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROGER THUROW, SENIOR FELLOW, GLOBAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON 

GLOBAL AFFAIRS 

Mr. THUROW. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Hall, it was 

very poignant and emotional comments and reminding us, again, 

why we are all involved in this. 

And thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bass and 

distinguished members of this subcommittee, for inviting me today 

to testify in this very important and extremely timely topic. 

And thank you for carrying the book halfway around the world. 

It is all part of our great effort to make the first 1,000 days a 

household phrase around the world, not only in those countries but 

here in the United States as well and the importance of that. 

So in order to respect the subcommittee’s time, my oral testimony will differ slightly from my longer written statement, which 

we submitted for the record. 

And I also wanted to thank you for your steadfast support of agriculture development efforts for leading the way on the Global 

Food Security Act, Mr. Chairman, and now for raising the clamor 

about famine in your resolution and in this hearing and for all the 

tremendous, hopefully, good that comes out, the legislation on global health and, again, for raising the clamor on famine. 

That this medieval suffering continues today in the second decade of the 21st century is, I believe, the biggest stain on the world’s 

conscience. 

I witnessed famine and hunger crises, unfortunately, many times 

as a journalist, first as a foreign correspondent with the Wall 

Street Journal and now as a senior fellow to Chicago Council on 

Global Affairs and author of three books on hunger and malnutrition. 

My first travels in the hunger zones of Africa came during the 

Ethiopian famine of 2003. So nearly two decades after the one that 

Tony described where we all linked our hands and said never 

again, and here we were back again in 2003 when about 14 million 

people were on the doorstep of starvation then. 

Upon arriving in the country, I met with the World Food Programme workers who were scrambling to provide relief as the hunger spread. 

One of them gave me this piece of advice which, to me, sounded 

like an ominous warning. Looking into the eyes of someone dying 

of hunger, he told me, becomes a disease of the soul. 

The next day I stepped in an emergency feeding pen filled with 

dozens of starving children and their parents. And I looked into 

their empty lifeless eyes. 

What I saw did indeed infect my soul like a disease. I saw mothers in misery unable to stop the crying of a hungry child. I saw the 

resignation and defeat in the eyes of the farmers who had lost everything. 

12

I saw families on the move, abandoning homes and hope. I saw 

communities shattered, an entire generation—the children—vanishing in the arms of their parents. 

For me, it was impossible to see and not act, as I imagine it is 

for you, having just come back from the trip and the things that 

you’ve seen. What propels my writing and I am sure what propels 

your action and the action of everybody on this subcommittee is the 

firm conviction that things don’t have to be this way. 

Yes, droughts will occur. Conflicts will rage. Corruption will complicate relief efforts. But starvation and famine can be avoided. 

Emergency responses of food aid and water and shelter and medicine are absolutely vital actions for sure. But they alone won’t prevent the next famine. 

The next famine will only be prevented by long-term agriculture 

development investments—the investments that give farmers and 

their families resiliency against climate and economic shocks—that 

provide food security that reduce conflict—that promote economic 

prosperity and spread the hope of better futures—the kind of investments we have seen work pretty well under Feed the Future 

in the Global Food Security Act. 

So ending hunger wherever it may be is certainly the right, the 

moral thing to do and that should motivate us all. 

But it is also the smart thing to do for famine isn’t just something that happens over there somewhere. Famine impacts all of 

us, no matter where it may be. The economic ripples of hunger and 

malnutrition are powerful and long-lasting. 

Even though a famine may end, the costs continue to accumulate 

and roll over time. We are told by the World Food Programme that 

today about 5.4 million children are dangerously malnourished and 

more than 1 million are at risk of starvation during these current 

famines and that without sufficient and timely relief up to 600,000 

children are at risk of death in the coming months. 

That’s shocking and unconscionable. But from my observation, 

the most pernicious impact of any hunger crisis along with the 

lives lost is what becomes of those who survive. 

The impact is greatest on women and children, particularly those 

that are in this first 1,000 days period, the time from the beginning 

of mother’s pregnancy to the second birthday of her child. 

Any lack of food, any bout of malnutrition during this time often 

leads to stunting, physically and cognitively. Stunting is a life sentence of underachievement and under performance. 

Currently in our world today, one in every four children under 

the age of five is stunted. One in every four children. The toll on 

the individual, the family, the community is profound in the loss 

of education and labor productivity over time. 

For a stunted child becomes a stunted adult. Collectively, this 

weakens our trading partners and it limits our global opportunities. 

Childhood malnutrition and stunting can cost individual countries 8, 10, 12 percent of their annual GDP, according to the World 

Bank, which also estimates the cost to the global economy at about 

$3.5 trillion annually—trillion dollars annually in lost productivity, 

higher health care costs, and less in trade. 

13

Those are big numbers. But perhaps the greatest cost to childhood malnutrition and stunting are immeasurable. A poem not 

written. A horizon not explored. An innovation not nurtured. A 

cure not discovered. 

What might a child have contributed to the world if he or she 

hadn’t been stunted? For, you see, a stunted child anywhere becomes a stunted child everywhere. 

To close, I just want to return briefly to Ethiopia and to the 2003 

famine. The first eyes that I looked into were those of a starving 

5-year-old boy named Hagirso. 

The doctors and nurses and humanitarian relief workers were 

working extremely hard to save him and all the other dozens of 

children there. But they worried that Hagirso may not survive. 

What I saw that day has continued to haunt me. I have often 

wondered, well, whatever happened to Hagirso. So 10 years later 

I returned to the scene of that awful famine. I was delighted to find 

that Hagirso had survived but it was also clear he wasn’t thriving. 

He was severely stunted. At 15 years old, he only came up to the 

bottom of my rib cage, physically stunted, and he had just begun 

attending first grade class, learning the alphabet at 15—cognitive 

stunting. 

Imagine what might this child have accomplished were he not 

stunted. A lost chance at greatness for one child becomes a lost 

chance of greatness for all of us. 

That is what compels us to act today. This historical American 

imperative to lead the way to the end of hunger and malnutrition 

that bides today stronger than ever before. 

So thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thurow follows:]

14


25843b-1.eps

Written testimony of Roger Thurow 

Senior Fellow, Global Food and Agriculture Program at the 

Chicago Council on Global Affairs 

As delivered to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global 

Human Rights, and International Organizations 

Wednesday, June 14,2017 

Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and distinguished Members of the 

Committee for inviting me to testify today on this this very important and very timely topic. 

Thank you for your steadfast support of agricultural development efforts, and for raising the 

clamor about famine in your resolution. And thank you for this opportunity to testify about the 

causes and consequences of famine. That this medieval suffering continues now into the second 

decade of the 21'1 Century is, I believe, the biggest stain on the world's conscience. 

T have witnessed famine and hunger crises, unfortunately, many times in my four decades as a 

journalist- first as a foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal and now as a senior 

fellow for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and author of three books on hunger and 

malnutrition in the 21 '

1 Century. 

My first travels in the hunger zones of Africa came during the Ethiopian famine of 2003, 

when 14 million people were on the doorstep of starvation. Tt was the first great hunger 

catastrophe of our grand new Millennium. On my first day in Addis Ababa, the capital, I met 

with World Food Program workers who were scrambling to provide relief as the hunger spread. 

One of them gave me this piece of advice, which to me sounded like an ominous warning: 

"Looking into the eyes of someone dying of hunger becomes a disease of the soul. For what you 

see is that nobody should have to die of hunger." 

Certainly, not now, not in the 21 '

1 Century when so many scientific and technological 

achievements are literally at our finger tips. The next day, T stepped into an emergency feeding 

tent filled with dozens of starving children and their parents- and !looked into their empty, 

lifeless eyes. What T saw did indeed infect my soul, like a disease. Tn addition to the immense 

human suffering, I saw resignation and defeat of the farmers who had lost everything. I saw 

families on the move- abandoning homes and hope. T saw communities shattered, an entire 

generation, the children, vanishing in their parents' arms. From the women, I saw that the 

deepest form of misery was to be a mother unable to stop the crying of a hungry child 

For me, it was impossible to see and not act. Thus, as a journalist, an author and Fellow at the 

Council I continue to write and write and write about hunger and malnutrition. I believe that 

those of you who recently traveled to South Sudan and Uganda also looked into the eyes of the 

hungry. And thus, with similarly diseased souls, I imagine you too feel compelled to act about 

hunger and malnutrition. 

What propels my writing- and, I'm sure, your action-- is the firm conviction that things 

don't have to be this way. Yes, droughts will occur. Conflicts will rage. Corruption will 

complicate relief efforts. But starvation and famine can be avoided. Timely humanitarian 

response with food aid, and water, and shelter, and medical assistance, is absolutely necessary to 

reduce the suffering and save lives. I've seen it happen, heroically, with American leadership. 
15


25843b-2.eps

Emergency responses cmdfood aid are crucial action now, but it alone won't prevent the next 

famine. This we mast acknowledge and remember. The nextfamine will only be prevented by 

long-term agricaltaral development investments- the investments that give farmers, 

particularly small-scale farmers, and their families resiliency against climate and economic 

shocks, that provide food security, that reduce conflict, that promote economic prosperity, that 

spread hope of better futures. The kind of investments we've seen under Feed the Future, made 

possible by the Global Food Security Act- which the Chainnan staunchly championed and 

continues to do. Thanks to the long arc of American leadership in the post-World War II era, 

progress has been made on reducing hunger and malnutrition and stunting- and the 114111 

Congress can now add its name to that long and storied list after passing the global food security 

act Now is not time to retreat Exactly seventy years ago this month, with hunger looming in 

Europe after the war, the Marshall Plan was launched and now the EU is our largest trading 

partner. Today, famine and hunger on a scale rarely seen in Africa and the Middle East call us to 

act 

We know these investments in agriculture development work The programs that have been 

in play on the ground in Ethiopia since the 2003 famine have created a resiliency that has the 

country better prepared to combat the current drought, better than its neighbors. According to 

new USAID evidence, Ethiopian households reached by US agricultural development programs 

were far more resilient than their neighbors, both within Ethiopia and in surrounding countries, 

to maintain their food security in the face of an historic drought 

1 have seen the benefits of agriculture development investments myself 1n my books, 1 have 

followed farmers and their families over time. As harvests improve, as surpluses grow, the 

hunger season wanes. Malnutrition disappears. Children stay in school longer- 1 have seen 

families celebrate high school and even college graduations because of increased prosperity from 

agricultural advancement The farmers become more entrepreneurial, eagerly expanding their 

operations to feed not only their own families but their communities and their countries as welL 

They no longer strive merely to survive, but to robustly thrive. 

Ending hunger wherever it may be is certainly the right thing to do- and that should motivate 

us alL We're told by the World Food Programme that today about 5.4 million children are 

dangerously malnourished and more than one million are at risk of starvation during the current 

famines raging in Africa and the Middle East, and that without sufficient and timely relief, up to 

600,000 children are at imminent risk of death in the coming months. That's shocking and 

unconscionable. 

Doing what we can to prevent those deaths and end that suffering is also the smart thing to do. 

For famine isn't just something that happens "over there" somewhere. Famine impacts all of us. 

The economic ripples of hunger and malnutrition are powerful and long-lasting- they roll over 

time and space. Even though a famine may end, the costs continue to accumulate. The most 

pernicious impact of any hunger crisis -along with the lives lost-- is what becomes of those 

who survive. 

The impact is greatest on women and children, particularly in the First 1,000 Days- the time 

from the beginning of a mother's pregnancy to the second birthday of her child. Any lack of 
16


25843b-3.eps

food, any bout of malnutrition, often leads to stunting- physically and cognitively. Stunting is a 

life sentence of underachievement and underperformance. Currently, in our world today, one in 

every four children under the age of five is stunted. One infbur chi1dren. Think about that. 

The toll on the individual, the family, the community are profound in the loss of education 

and labor productivity over time- for a stunted child becomes a stunted adult. Collectively, the 

problem weakens our trading partners, limits global opportunities. Childhood malnutrition and 

stunting can cost individual countries 8-10-12% of their annual GOP according to the World 

Bank. The World Bank also estimates the costs to the global economy at $3.5 trillion annually in 

lost productivity, higher health care costs, and lessened trade-- that is "trillion" with a "T." 

Those are big numbers. But perhaps the greatest cost of childhood malnutrition and stunting 

are immeasurable: A poem not written. A gadget not invented. A horizon not explored. An idea 

not formed. An innovation not nurtured. A cured not discovered. What might a child have 

contributed to the world if he or she hadn't been stunted" You see, a stunted child anywhere 

becomes a stunted child everywhere. 

In closing, I'll return briefly to Ethiopia. During the 2003 famine, the first eyes of a starving 

child !looked into belonged to a 5-year-old boy named Hagirso. He had withered away to skin 

and bones, the doctors and nurses worried that he might not survive. What I saw that day 

continued to haunt me. 1 often wondered whatever happened to Hagirso0 Ten years later 1 

returned to the scene of that awful famine. I was delighted to find that Hagirso had survived. 

But he clearly wasn't thriving-- he was severely stunted, physically and cognitively. At 15 years 

old, he only came up to the bottom of my rib cage. And he had just begun attending first grade 

classes, learning the alphabet. 

For me, he is the embodiment of what is at stake when we allow famines to continue. What 

might this child have accomplished were he not stunted? A lost chance at greatness for one child 

is a lost chance for us all. 

That is what compels us to act today. The American imperative to lead the way to the end of 

hunger and malnutrition and stunting abides, stronger than ever. 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 
17

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JULIEN SCHOPP, DIRECTOR FOR 

HUMANITARIAN PRACTICE, INTERACTION 

Mr. SCHOPP. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Bass, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here to testify. 

I do not have the impressive resume of my co-panelists, but hopefully I can bring here to this table some operational realities that 

my members of InterAction face on a day-to-day basis, bonded to 

those three famines. 

So first of all, I would like to preface this testimony by clarifying 

that InterAction is not an operational organization itself but an alliance of operational NGOs, many of whom work in these contexts. 

I am, however, personally very familiar with these countries as 

I have come back from South Sudan and Nigeria very recently. So 

as you have all said, it bears repeating that this is really an unprecedented crisis. 

I won’t go into the numbers, again, but what I would really like 

to underscore is that when we speak of famine in Nigeria, Somalia, 

and South Sudan, we are mostly speaking of avoidable manmade 

crises as both state and nonstate actors are putting civilians in 

harm’s way and possibly in some cases using hunger as a weapon 

of war. 

In that sense, it is very important to have an effective technical 

response to food insecurity but we also have to be aware that it is 

only a temporary reprieve. It has to be accompanied by robust diplomacy and commitments to respect the rules of war. 

I will go now a little bit into the challenges of the humanitarian 

response. Access to those in need is paramount for effective humanitarian action. But our field staff face countless obstacles when 

they operate in those environments. 

Chairman, you have mentioned the numbers of aid workers 

killed in South Sudan—84. That is more than in Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq that we maybe in our collective view see as much more 

dangerous. 

So put simply, the challenge lies in reaching the people where 

they are, mostly because of security but also because of acts from 

the governments. 

In Nigeria, for instance, the military dictates the area where humanitarians can go and we actually believe that the need is actually greater than what we actually know today. When new areas 

will be open, we fear that more need will be discovered in those. 

The host governments are also imposing undue obstacles on humanitarian actors and goods, obstructing and delaying much-needed humanitarian response. 

As an example, in South Sudan, the 2016 NGO Act has placed 

significant burdens on NGOs. We have recently faced challenges 

with work permits, slowdowns in visa processing as well as import 

licenses and, more importantly, travel is restricted for NGOs that 

try to reach central Unity State where the famine has been declared and that’s really where the needs are. 

My second point will be on the need for comprehensive response. 

It is worthy to remind ourselves that famine is not only providing 

18

food aid and nutrition assistance. By the time a famine is reached, 

people are suffering from malnutrition. 

They are weak, they are vulnerable to diseases and threats of 

abuses and, of course, children under the age of five are the most 

at risk. 

Furthermore, in each context, instances of sexual exploitation 

and abuse, forced recruitment and gender-based violence are particularly acute. 

Women, especially, are subject to the predation of those in a position of power and authority. The ones that actually provide the assistance can become the problematic actors in these instances. 

In Somalia, the increased household burdens placed on women 

and girls has led to negative coping strategies including transactional sex and early marriage. 

So as a consequence, I think the humanitarian response needs to 

be comprehensive, not only focused on nutrition and food aid but 

look at a holistic picture, looking at health consequences, as was 

already said, and also protection intervention—how can we protect 

the most vulnerable in these communities. 

So the question is: What can the United States Government do? 

We believe that the U.S. can take action to meet immediate and 

urgent needs and to remove obstacles that impede access to populations affected by famine. 

So the U.S. should strongly encourage parties to the conflict to 

respect the rules of war and guarantee that the affected populations have access to humanitarian assistance. 

Also, this in turns will make it less likely that aid is diverted 

and more costly. Also, the U.S. should consider granting humanitarian actors a clear and well understood general license from the 

Treasury Department to operate in areas that may be controlled by 

sanctioned entities because that also is an issue for our members. 

The United States should use diplomatic leverage to ensure that 

bureaucratic impediments are minimized so humanitarian actors 

and goods can get to the field in a timely and effective manner. 

The United States should also use flexible funding mechanisms 

to facilitate a rapid, effective, coordinated, and comprehensive humanitarian response. 

Again, we have talked about the need for food, shelter, water, 

and medicine that are essential but also programs to prevent sexual exploitation, sexual violence, and forced recruitment. 

And within this, the U.S. should continue funding U.N. agencies 

like the World Food Programme that have been already mentioned 

but also beef up funding directly to NGOs that are at the forefront 

and on the front lines of these responses. 

So Congress, with the support of the chairman and the ranking 

member on this committee provided $990 million to respond to 

these alarming food security crises. It is now also essential to ensure that these funds are allocated quickly and effectively in all 

these three countries before it’s too late. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to address these operational challenges that humanitarian actors face. Chairman Smith, 

Ranking Member Bass, other members of the subcommittee, you’ve 

demonstrated your leadership on this issue, and we count on you. 

Thank you. 

19

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schopp follows:]


25843c-1.eps

Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee Hearing on 

Africa's Current and Potential Famines 

Written testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global 

Human Rights, and International Organizations 

United States House of Representatives 

June 14, 2017 

Julien Schopp 

Director of Humanitarian Practice 

InterAction 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, Members of the Committee1 thank you for inviting me to testify 

on this urgent and important topic. 

As the Director of Humanitarian Practice at InterAction, I have a somewhat unique perspective on the 

current and potential famines taking place in Africa. InterAction is not an operational organization itself, 

but is an alliance of operationaiiNGOs, many of whom are working to respond to each of these crises. In 

my role, I oversee several working groups focused upon ongoing humanitarian crises, including 

InterAction's Horn of Africa, Lake Chad Basin, and Sudan I South Sudan working groups. Earlier this year, 

InterAction stood up a Joint Famines Working Group in order to coordinate IN GO information sharing 

and advocacy to facilitate humanitarian responses and address operational and funding challenges 

across Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. 

I have also seen the seeds of these crises on the ground. In the past 18 months, I undertook field visits to 

South Sudan, Nigeria, and Chad. I have seen the operational challenges my colleagues are facing first 

hand. My career before InterAction also saw field service in many African nations, including Uganda, 

Sudan, and Ethiopia- experience which has informed my observations of humanitarian operations 

today. I have also worked for years on forced displacement issues, including at the International Council 

of Voluntary Agencies. 

Overview 

When considering global food insecurity, it bears repeating that we face an unprecedented crisis. Nearly 

14 million people are in acute need of humanitarian assistance due to the threat of famine across 

northeast Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan, with that figure jumping to 20 million when including 

Yemen, the world's largest humanitarian crisis by number of people in need. 1 While these circumstances 

must be addressed, there are additional food insecurity crises on the continent, in Central African 

Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. 

It is critical to underscore that when we speak of famine or the threat of famine, we are speaking of 

avoidable, man-made crises. Widespread food insecurity can also be the result of climatological events, 

such as drought, but in each context where we speak of famine conditions, the key factor is conflict. 

1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, June 2017. 

ilttgf~~~:f~SL.9JXI.E!.....r~!_2!Xt?.DS.i.~L~~~!rf§b\Ldocu men_~reso~rces_:Q..~tellLf¢JJ/sLfJ2:1.f.:~-.:'!L 
20


25843c-2.eps

People are trapped in conflict, caught between state and non-state armed groups using hunger as a 

weapon of war and often inflicting deliberate harm on civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. 

People forced to flee conflict have left their possessions behind, and fields and herds untended. Conflict 

interrupts livelihoods and severs support networks and coping mechanisms- impacts that 

disproportionately affect women and girls. These conflicts also take a toll on economies, with insecurity 

and rising inflation disrupting markets and impacting access to food and basic goods. 

During a March hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the state of global humanitarian 

affairs, Yves Daccord of the International Committee of the Red Cross called for a 1

'diplomatic surge'' to 

address civilian protection by parties to conflict- state and non-state actors have a positive obligation to 

protect civilians in situations of armed conflict, but instead have put civilians in harm's way and are 

instrumentalizing food aid with impunity. This call for urgent diplomacy is one that InterAction and I 

support. More broadly, without dialogue and negotiated solutions to conflict, including forceful 

diplomacy with all major actors across the affected regions, these humanitarian crises will persistfurther devastating and destabilizing communities, and keeping millions in need of humanitarian aid. 

When it comes to funding the response vis a vis humanitarian needs in each context, it is useful to look 

at the status of United Nations appeals for humanitarian funding as a proxy indicator. While these 

figures do not account for funding in the exact same way as the U.S. government, nor do they speak of 

operational challenges, they are a key in determining how much funding has made it into the field for 

the various responses. 

In Nigeria, an appeal of just over $1 billion has only been 28% funded with $102 million of that 

amount obligated by the U.S. government 2 

In Somalia, an appeal of just over $1.5 billion has only been 36% funded with $125 million of 

that amount obligated by the U.S. government.' 

In South Sudan, an appeal of $1.64 billion has only been 47% funded with $132 million of that 

amount obligated by the U.S. government 4 

The World Food Program's (WFP) funding requirements for the crises in Nigeria, Somalia, South 

Sudan and Yemen are only 27 percent funded, and in each context, there will be breaks in the 

supply pipeline without immediate funding 5 

The humanitarian community appreciates the U.S. Government's approval of $990 million in emergency 

supplemental funding to respond to these famine and food insecurity crises. These funds have to be 

appropriated without delay if we are to avert further deterioration of an already dire situation. As part 

of the Office of Management and Budget's report to Congress on the $990 million mandated in the 

Fiscal Year 2017 Omnibus, Congress should demand the administration address impending breaks in the 

World Food Program (WFP) funding pipeline and ongoing shortages in overall humanitarian appeals in 

each context to enable the delivery of life-saving assistance to reach those most in need. 

2 United Nations Office of Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking System (FTS), accessed 

June 8, 2017. bJlll~.Jfl.t.s,unocha.o_rg[<m!l"-'!J-'12lwummeL\C 3 UN OCHA FTS, accessed June 8, 2017. h!~1f.f:t~:.-YJJ ... !.?.!='J'~:S!Ig/~QP.§.§..!..§i528/:'i!JfTI!ll~IY 4 UN OCHA FTS, accessed June 8, 2017. h!.!.f-TI_:.liftlLUQQf.b_?..:fLLgig_gp_!>:J>J~~lf?.L~umrr.t~i:Y. 5 United Nations World Food Program, Fighting Famine Snapshot, May 30, 2017. 

l.JJ12.1.LcJ.2.0Jill~~:_wtP_,_Q_!:S/st el !~V.&rr!l!P.Y.QiltdJsL9.9SllJil.ffit~L~..PM!21.9.2126.JLrj1 
21


25843c-3.eps

I should also note my use of terminology related to the different levels of the Integrated Food Security 

Classification (IPC) 5 system -a set of tools and procedures to classify the nature and severity of food 

insecurity. While the definitions for each level are technical, effective shorthand is: 

IPC level 3 indicates severe food insecurity that requires urgent humanitarian response. 

IPC level4 indicates severe food insecurity that has not seen an adequate response- by this 

stage, the effects of widespread malnutrition will have permanent effects, including increased 

deaths. 

IPC level 5 indicates full famine conditions- conditions have collapsed, starvation and death are 

widespread. 

It is important to note that just because IPCS has not been reached or officially verified in each context 

does not lessen the urgent need for humanitarian assistance. For example, anticipated reductions in 

verified IPCS conditions in South Sudan have been counteracted by a large-scale spread of IPC4 

conditions. Taken as a whole, conditions in South Sudan are actually worsening and needs are 

increasing. 

Humanitarian Response 

Despite tremendous needs and ongoing geo-political challenges which require diplomatic solutions, 

humanitarian actors will continue to work tirelessly to provide life-saving assistance to vulnerable 

populations. Further support is necessary in a number of key areas to assist the staggering number of 

people in need due to famine conditions and the threat of famine in Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. 

Humanitarian Access 

Access to those in need is vital for humanitarian actors, yet field staff face numerous obstacles while 

operating in these environments due to violence, insecurity, and bureaucratic impediments. Put simply, 

the challenge lies in reaching people where they are. 

Concerns abound about possible violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which regulates the 

conduct of hostilities particularly around the protection of civilians and humanitarian aid workers, by all 

parties to conflict. Insecurity is a major challenge to humanitarian access, not just for NGO staff- who 

face considerable safety concerns- but also for affected populations suffering from increased 

protection threats and risk perpetrated by parties to the conflict. 

In Nigeria, counter-insurgency operations against Boko Haram have forcibly displaced the civilian 

population from rural areas of Barno state. Other concerning actions include the intentional destruction 

of livelihoods, as well as arbitrary detentions, where the displaced are held in inhumane conditions in 

prisons, barracks, and camps closed to humanitarian actors. 

In Somalia, the ongoing conflict in ai-Shabaab held areas and widespread criminal activity are preventing 

civilians from reaching assistance. The African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) needs to improve its 

reporting of civilian casualties resulting from its operations, including addressing sexual violence. 

Additionally, donor risk protocols due to concerns about ai-Shabaab are limiting NGOs' ability to deliver 

assistance in disputed areas. 
22


25843c-4.eps

In South Sudan, the conflict between government and opposition forces- particularly the campaign in 

southern Unity state- has created a famine. These operations continue to impact civilians trapped in 

the area, and impede access to the most affected communities. Using conflict insecurity to block access 

to front-line areas, the South Sudanese government prohibits access by humanitarians because it does 

not want humanitarian actors to report on conditions and possible human rights violations. 

Physical access to the most vulnerable populations is constrained by violence and conflict in all three 

contexts. In Nigeria, the military dictates the areas where humanitarians can go. A grave concern is that 

the actual number of affected people is likely to be much higher once military operations conclude and 

populations are accessible. There must be negotiated access to northern Barno in order to provide 

access to populations believed to be in IPCS. The Nigerian military is a major contributor to abuses and 

secondary displacement. Humanitarian actors, not the military, need to be managing displacement 

camps to provide assistance directly to communities displaced by conflict. Assistance to communities 

that are hosting displaced persons must be independent of the government. 

In Somalia, populations at the highest risk of IPCS are in areas controlled by ai-Shabaab or tribal actors 

outside of government control. While InterAction members have been working around these challenges 

using air bridges, UN Humanitarian Air Service flights, private traders, and rapid response operations to 

take advantage of short-window opportunities, true access has to be negotiated to reach these 

vulnerable people with basic humanitarian interventions. Assistance also needs to be provided at the 

community level, as people who can move are heading to urban areas. InterAction members report that 

internal displacement is occurring at higher rates than during the 2011 Somalia famine, when urban 

crowding led to disease outbreaks and localized conflicts. 

In South Sudan, we have verified that there are people trapped in IPCS conditions in southern Unity 

State. Negotiated access is essential to provide assistance to people currently in famine. Other regions in 

the country, such as northern Bahr El Ghazal and Upper Nile, also require scaled-up assistance to 

prevent further deterioration. The challenges are only exacerbated by the rainy season, during which 

time 90 percent of all roads in South Sudan become impassible, requiring more limited and costly 

delivery of relief by air. 

Each of these three contexts is also marked by bureaucratic impediments where host governments are 

imposing obstacles on humanitarian actors and goods, obstructing and delaying much needed 

humanitarian responses. 

In Nigeria, there are delays and restrictions on importing humanitarian supplies and movement of 

humanitarian staff. For example, the Nigerian government limits access to travel hubs in the northeast 

of the country. Furthermore, the Nigerian military controls delivery of assistance to IDP camps that have 

been closed to humanitarian actors. 

In Somalia, there are challenges in reaching areas controlled by armed actors. This includes physical 

roadblocks and fee systems set up by both state security forces and ai-Shabaab. This phenomenon also 

existed during the 2011 famine and imposed considerable impediments to the delivery of relief with 

devastating consequences for affected people. There are further issues with local and regional 

government structures, who may not know of or respect arrangements made with the weak central 

government in Mogadishu. 
23


25843c-5.eps

In South Sudan, the 2016 NGO Act has placed restrictions on NGO coordination and advocacy, placing 

significant burdens on NGOs operating in government-held areas, at times bringing operations to a near 

halt. NGOs have also faced recent challenges with work permit fees, slowdowns in visa processing, 

import licenses to bring goods into the country, and travel restrictions on NGOs seeking to access 

southern Unity state in the midst of famine conditions. 

Displacement 

The ongoing conflicts and growing food insecurity in all three countries have forced people to move 

internally and across international borders. In many cases, people are unable to access basic services 

and reach aid. 

In the heavily militarized response in Nigeria, civilians trying to access IDP camps face widespread arrests 

and detention. People fleeing rural areas controlled by Boko Haram are systematically detained and 

screened by security forces, often imprisoned without access to their families or to due process of law. 

In Somalia1 civilians in rural areas are unable to reach assistance. AMISOM needs to prioritize roadclearing- including removal of illegal roadblocks- instead of counter-offensives, in order to address 

further obstacles to populations attempting to reach humanitarian relief. 

Each of these conflicts and food insecurity crises place enormous burdens on neighboring countries. 

Displacement from South Sudan has placed significant pressure on Uganda, which is currently the 

largest refugee host in the region with up to 1 million South Sudanese displaced into the country, and 

thousands more arriving daily; almost another million South Sudanese refugees seek safety in the 

broader region 7 Somalia has seen over 700,000 people displaced by drought since November, with the 

number of refugees unclear due to halted registrations in Kenya.' Nigeria has seen over 2 million 

displaced, with over 200,000 refugees in neighboring countries.9 

Beyond forced displacement, IDPs and refugees often face obstacles when registering to receive 

humanitarian assistance. 

In Nigeria, IDPs face ongoing registration challenges in both traditional camp settings and non-camp 

environments. These problems are linked to systems of corruption, which include cycles of sexual 

exploitation and abuse. The government is also collecting assistance provided by humanitarian agencies, 

leaving vulnerable IDPs without access to assistance which the government reports has been received 

by affected people. 

For displaced Somalis, suspension of new arrivals in Kenya has left tens of thousands without refugee 

status- even though they continue to arrive in Kenya. Without the ability to register, newly arriving 

Somalis in Kenya are left unable to access shelter and other humanitarian assistance. These registration 

issues also hinder analysis and understanding of needs inside Somalia, which poses an obstacle to the 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in its fundraising for programming in Kenya. 

http :I Ire liefweb. i ntlsiteslreliefweb. i ntlfil eslresou rcesiU N HC R%2055 D%200perationai%20U pd ate%20No%20 10% 

20-%2016%20-31%20May%202017.pdf 

'r~u1~~~~~~.~~~~.m~~~u~~,~~ 

http: I I reliefweb. i ntlsiteslreliefweb. i ntlfil eslreso u rcesiU N HC R%20Regiona I%20U pdate%20-

%20Nigeria%20Situation%20-%20May%202017.pdf 
24


25843c-6.eps

Forced returns are another problematic dimension in this displacement cycle, as the challenges continue 

even after refugees have been displaced and able to register. In some cases, people are being pushed to 

return from IDP and refugee camps with limited information and before situations in their home regions 

have stabilized, putting them at risk and hindering their access to humanitarian assistance. 

In Nigeria, the Barno state government is pursuing forced returns by providing misleading information. 

In some cases, IDPs who agree to return have experienced secondary displacement. 

Ongoing forced returns from Dadaab, Kenya to areas in IPC3 and 4 in Somalia continue despite 

assurances from the government of Kenya and UNHCR that the paid return program is voluntary. 

Returning refugees increase the humanitarian caseload as well as the pressure on urban population 

centers in Somalia, which in turn increases the risk for disease outbreaks and conflict triggers resulting 

from competition for access to limited services. 

In South Sudan, IDPs continue to require protection in Protection of Civilian sites set up at UN Mission in 

South Sudan (UN MISS) facilities. Proactive engagement is needed to address periodic calls to relieve 

pressure on POC sites by 11 encouraging11 civilians to leave involuntarily and return to often insecure 

areas. 

Programming 

Famine response is not simply about providing food and nutrition assistance. By the time famine is 

reached, people suffering from malnutrition have been weakened and made vulnerable to diseases and 

protection threats. Children under the age of five are most at risk. Therefore, humanitarian response 

needs to be holistic and include the direct provision of food, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene 

(WASH), health, and protection services. 

Modalities such as cash have been a key element in the humanitarian response, and need to be adapted 

to contexts as appropriate, as seen in South Sudan where the collapse of markets actually limits the 

utility of cash modalities. 

In Somalia, vitally important cash transfer programs funded by non-U.S. donors are ending without any 

follow-on funding. When combined with the previously mentioned break in the WFP pipeline, this will 

lead to further shortfalls that could counteract and undermine the effects of limited improvements in 

drought conditions. 

In each context, we are witnessing increased vulnerability and protection concerns even outside 

situations of direct conflict. These concerns are particularly acute in the areas of sexual exploitation and 

abuse (SEA), where those in a position of vulnerability are subject to the predations of those in a 

position of power and authority1 and forced recruitment. 

In Nigeria, there is widespread exploitation of women and girls by the Nigerian military, the Civilian Joint 

Task Force, and civilian authorities around IDP camps. Examples of this abuse include demands for 

transactional sex for food or entry to IDP sites, and protection threats as women and girls leave IDP sites 

to collect fuel and water. Furthermore, there is a lack of basic services for women and girls, including 

those who have been subjected to SEA. 

In Somalia1 the combination of lack of livelihoods and increased household burdens on women and girls 

has led to negative coping strategies1 including transactional sex and early marriage. There has been a 
25


25843c-7.eps

tremendous increase in documented cases of SEA, with 1,600 incidents reported during the months of 

January and February. Additionally, boys and young men are vulnerable to recruitment by armed 

actors. 

In South Sudan, sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war, exacerbating the inability of people 

to meet their basic necessities, such as food, water, and fuel. Women are sent to gather these 

necessities despite the constant threat of sexual violence and abuse, because men and boys are simply 

killed by armed actors. Women and girls are also regularly attacked while gathering goods around POC 

sites, underscoring the need for increased and consistent foot and vehicle UN MISS patrols. 

Funding 

Congress, with the personal support of the Chairman, Ranking Member, and other members of this 

Committee, provided $990 million in order to respond to these alarming food security crises. But an 

appropriation is not enough. These funds must be allocated quickly and effectively in all three countries. 

The U.S. government must make firm pledges to get funding to beneficiaries before it's too late. 

These humanitarian emergencies require adequate, timely, and flexible funding through a diversity of 

sources and modalities. The UN structures and agencies are vitally important in responding to these 

crises and need to continue to be robustly funded. However, rapid response necessitates direct funding 

to NGOs who are front-line responders. 

U.S. funding is also necessary to leverage both traditional and non-traditional donors. Particularly in 

Somalia, there is an opportunity to engage with Gulf States and other Middle Eastern donors. The U.S. 

and UN recently hosted a donor mission for Middle East governments in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya. 

This is a very encouraging action, and should be followed up vigorously by the U.S. government. But 

these donors will not be quick to respond if more traditional donors are slow to commit funding. 

What can the United States Government do? 

Beyond diplomatic pressure to address on-going conflicts and civilian protection, there are a number of 

concrete actions the United States can take to meet immediate and urgent operational needs. 

The United States should support humanitarian actors as they negotiate physical access to the 

areas of greatest need. 

o Through diplomatic means, the U.S. should encourage parties to conflict to respect and 

address humanitarian access. Negotiated access makes it less likely that aid would be 

distributed by or even diverted to parties to conflict, and would reduce the use of 

costlier, less reliable work-arounds like air-drops and use of private traders. 

o This means giving humanitarian actors a clear and well-understood general license from 

the Treasury Department to operate in areas that may be controlled by sanctioned 

entities. 

The United States should use diplomatic levers to reduce bureaucratic impediments and get 

humanitarian actors and goods into the field in a timely and efficient manner. 

o The State Department should support relevant actors to grant expedited humanitarian 

visas and humanitarian imports into these countries. 

o Diplomatic support should be applied to remove obstacles from both national- and 

regional-level governments in the face of grave crises. 
26


25843c-8.eps

The United States should use a variety of flexible funding mechanisms to facilitate a rapid, 

effective, coordinated, and comprehensive humanitarian response. 

o The traditional basic necessities for survival- food, shelter, water, and medicine- are 

essential, but not sufficient. 

o Protection, particularly against sexual and gender-based violence, SEA, and forced 

recruitment, should also be considered as part of a basic humanitarian intervention. 

Those who commit violations against these norms should be held accountable. 

o The United States should find opportunities to engage with development actors, 

including the World Bank, who can help rebuild these societies as these crises are 

ongoing- not just when the worst is over. 

o Direct funding of NGOs should be ramped up while continuing funding for UN agencies 

such as OCHA, UNHCR, WFP, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the 

UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). 

The United States should address issues around forcible displacement. 

o The State Department should support efforts to get governments to provide access to 

essential services and to stop arbitrary detention of populations who need those 

services. 

o The United States should work with governments in the region and the UN to ensure 

that those who have been displaced are able to register and reach assistance. 

o The United States should encourage governments in the region to ensure that returns 

are truly voluntary, safe, and dignified. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to address the operational challenges that humanitarian actors 

are experiencing in responding to these crises. I know that Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and 

other Members of this Committee and Congress have shown their deep commitment to this response. 

You have stepped up to fund the response. You have visited the affected regions. You have led a robust, 

American response. I hope my testimony is able to inform additional steps you can take to continue the 

leadership you've demonstrated to date in alleviating the suffering from hunger and malnutrition 

affecting millions across northeast Nigeria, South Sudan, and Somalia. 
27

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Schopp, thank you very much for your testimony 

and to the leadership of your organization. 

I would note for the record that we had thought of inviting a 

number of the NGOs that make up your very important coalition. 

But it has been my experience and the experience of many in 

this work that when they come and testify, when they speak candidly as you have just done so well, there is often a retaliation incountry. 

So I will never forget during the famine in Ethiopia, Ambassador 

Hall, which you were there on the ground, the first member of the 

U.S. House or Senate to be there, that there was a big, big meeting 

and a lot of the NGOs did come. 

I was at that hearing. I actually chaired it for a while because 

everybody—it was a getaway day. A lot of people left. 

So I asked a series of questions about impaired access, fees. 

Mengistu, as we all remember, would not allow humanitarian corridors and was also charging a per tonnage fee, the same way that 

Salva Kiir now is doing on NGOs, which is outrageous, and Karen 

Bass and I really pressed him on that—how dare you charge the 

people that are feeding and clothing your people because of the war 

that you have promoted and they—and now you are charging a fee 

to do that lifesaving work. 

When I asked some very specific questions back during that famine, nobody wanted to answer out of fear of retaliation. 

So you put it all on the table in a very, very, very, I think, succinct and persuasive way about, you know, the work permits, the 

visa denials, certainly the fees and a whole lot of other impairments. 

So thank you for getting that on the record the way you have. 

All your members should be very happy with the way you have 

stood up for them and I don’t think there is fear of a retaliation 

because you have done it as the organizer—the unity aspect of all 

this. 

Let me just ask a few questions. Then I will yield to my good 

friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, and then to Mr. Garrett. 

You know, despite its visibility, Iraq and Syria, which—what 

could be more in the news than Iraq and Syria—than Iraq and 

Syria with all of the problems? 

Despite all of that, there has been a gross under funding from 

the very beginning for the UNHCR, for the World Food Programme, so much so that in 2015 I chaired a hearing and we had 

the Regional Representative of UNHCR to the United States and 

Caribbean. 

We had the Assistant Secretary for PRM (Population, Refugees, 

and Migration) and the UNHCR representative said the reason for 

the mass exodus into Europe was the 30 percent cut in the World 

Food Programme and the 40 percent only meeting of the obligations that UNHCR had done in their annual appeals. So 60 percent 

went unfunded, despite all the visibility. 

So Germany and all these other countries that got huge influxes 

of people and that presents challenges and also presents opportunities. 

28

Had they provided sufficient humanitarian assistance, people 

might not have fled. They got to the point where they said, I give 

up—they are not going to help us—we need to vote with our feet. 

That is compounded exponentially by South Sudan and several 

potential African famines and there we do have gross under funding of the World Food Programme. 

When Karen Bass and I and Greg were in the refugee camp in 

Bidi Bidi, despite the welcoming of the Ugandans for them, while 

we were they said there was a 50 percent cut in food rationing was 

under—and we saw that they were getting half of the corn because 

there wasn’t enough in the kitty, I know Karen and I were both 

shocked as was Greg. 

We came away and said, what? Who among us could live on 

about 1,000 calories per day? There, everybody looked gaunt already and it only will get worse. 

So, again, to your point again, Ambassador Hall about 

resourcing, if the Europeans won’t step up we’ve got to make sure 

that we are. 

I am encouraged that Mark Green will be our new USAID Administrator. He was on this subcommittee years ago—on my subcommittee of all things—but, certainly, his real expertise was developed as Ambassador to Tanzania and other work that he did 

over the years. 

So we will have a friend and I think he will push hard, along 

with a few others, to make sure that we don’t go below. But there 

needs to be a bridge, which means even more for this food aid and 

the like. 

So thanks for underscoring that. But this hearing is being held 

to be a catalyst hearing. We’ve reached out to Mike Pence already. 

I’ve talked to his chief of staff, a follow-up to Karen and I’s trip. 

Gave him all kinds of information and said, if not us, who? These 

people are going to—wonderful people. We had conversations. 

Remember that one little 15-year-old in Bidi Bidi camp, eyes 

down. He looked stunted, sadly, and your heart breaks because it 

doesn’t have to be this way. It is a manmade problem. 

So I think the diplomatic surge, Mr. Schopp, that you referenced 

needs to be done. We have asked the administration, my question 

yesterday to Rex Tillerson, and both Karen and I, when we had 

breakfast last week said, a window of opportunity. 

We need to be on the phone to President Salva Kiir and say we 

mean business. And so my hope is that your testimony will further 

that going forward. 

So we will also hold a oversight hearing on the Global Food Security Act. We will do it soon and because that is a plan, it’s a strategy. 

It stresses resiliency. Dr. Shah, the former USAID Administrator, was brilliant in his leadership and helped us with that legislation. So I want to thank him. But now we need to see implementation. That’s the key. 

So you have really covered just about everything but I would ask 

one other thing, if I could. In August, when I went there, I stressed 

with Salva Kiir that the Terrain compound and the humanitarian 

aid workers that were raped including an attempted rape on a person from my own district who fought back and when the troops 

29

came in to rescue, thankfully, she had not been raped but she was 

traumatized. 

I said to Salva Kiir, his Chief of Defence Force—we said it again 

together in a joint voice, you need a zero tolerance policy, President 

Salva Kiir, with your security forces and your military. No sexual 

assault, period. 

So the upcoming trial, which has already begun, should be a 

landmark, but not one and done prosecution. They need to hold 

these soldiers to account for their exploitation that they have gotten away with with impunity. 

And that was our message, make sure this is done right but it 

can’t be over. There are so many indigenous South Sudanese 

women who have been raped and harassed and hurt and, of course, 

men and women have been killed. Hold the perpetrators of that violence to account on an equal basis. 

So and we did stress that when Karen and I met with Ajongo, 

the new Chief of Defence Force, who we hope is a welcome breath 

of fresh air and you might want to comment on that. 

But our takeaway, mine and, I hope, yours was the same, that 

he said the right things. He was very articulate and the era of Paul 

Malong, hopefully, is over forever. He is under house arrest. 

So they need to change. Our meeting with Salva Kiir was about 

almost 2 hours, would you say? And Ambassador McPhee, who is 

doing a wonderful job there, has been pressing these issues and we 

just added additional bipartisan support. 

To your point, Ambassador Hall, about the United States of 

America, we were at a warehouse where there was enough food to 

feed 400,000 people—this was in Bentiu Camp in Unity State—for 

how many months? A month? For 400,000 people, all courtesy of 

us and that was great to see. 

But we did meet with a member of our Embassy who, just as you 

said, Mr. Ambassador, the thanks is long lasting. 

He got into this work because 30 years ago he was in the same 

situation, about 30 years ago, as a refugee and remembers the generosity of the American people and now he’s giving back ever since 

to help others who are severely situated. 

So question is more about the fees, we got to fight those. We did 

raise it jointly, very aggressively, I thought and hopefully, something comes out of it. 

Ms. Bass. Unless you wanted to comment and then I will go to 

Mr. Garrett. 

Ambassador HALL. I don’t have much to say because I think you 

answered so many of the questions that I thought might come to 

us and you answered in such a positive way. 

I mean, we are very thankful to both of you for the way that you 

supported the famine relief bill—the $1 billion—almost $1 billion. 

I mean, that was tremendous and that is a shot in the arm to the 

famine victims. 

What the anti-hunger community is worried about—I mean, this 

is their number-one worry is what the budget for 2018——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL. They are worried because, as you know, they 

have—they have zeroed out many of the—not only the food programs but they zeroed out the—almost the whole development proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Jul 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061517\25843 SHIRL
30

gram under USAID and all the things that we have made such 

progress in—cutting hunger in half, cutting poverty in half—would 

just absolutely stop and reverse everything that’s going on. 

We are very worried about that and it scares us because we 

know all of the good work that you did with that $1 billion would 

stop at the end of the year—at the end of this fiscal year. 

And so that scares us and that would absolutely cause all these 

people, at the end of October to start—I mean, they would die in 

alarming numbers because what the United States does, we are the 

leader and what we do every other nation follows us. So if we cut 

everybody else is going to cut and that’ll just be a disaster. 

Ms. BASS. Well, I think the good news is is that when we did 

have the hearing on the budget there really wasn’t support. I 

mean, bipartisan—Democrats and Republicans—all rejected the 

cuts and so I think that’s very helpful. 

Now, on the other hand, I am a little concerned and I am not 

sure how you feel about this, Mr. Smith. But we had Tillerson, you 

know, at Foreign Affairs yesterday and I am just a little concerned 

about whether or not that money has hit the streets, when it’s 

going to hit the streets and if it’s held up whether then it will be 

carried over into the next year and we don’t want to see this carried over. 

We need additional funds. And so I really think that’s where you 

all come in because for us to know when exactly it hits or if it’s 

being held up we need for you guys to communicate to us that the 

money has not been received. 

It has not gotten there. But so I think we need to be on the alert 

for that. 

So I wanted to ask a few questions of each of you and really appreciate you taking your time out for being here and just also very 

much appreciate all of your work over the years. 

So you mentioned the Global Food Security Act and, Mr. Thurow, 

you wrote a blog a few years ago that said common sense had long 

ago left the U.S. food aid system. 

And so I wanted to know, given that we have taken a step forward in the right direction, if you think there are further modifications that you would recommend that Congress consider. 

I was encouraged—I will tell you that when we passed—when we 

were passing the bill I received a lot of push back from my Democratic colleagues because they were concerned that if you purchase 

food locally that there wouldn’t be that message that you spoke 

about—a gift from the American people. 

So I was happy when I was in South Sudan I saw the differences 

in the bags. So this is locally purchased. It says a product of Uganda but it does say it’s a gift of the American people along with this 

is food that we actually shipped. 

So we took a step in the right direction and how much further—

what more would you recommend we do and I’d like to ask that 

of both Ambassador Hall and Mr. Thurow. 

Mr. THUROW. Yes, thanks for that and, yes, I was trying to 

think—I was talking with my colleagues about what have I written 

in the past on this——

Ms. BASS. That was one. 

31

Mr. THUROW [continuing]. Just to be consistent. No, exactly. I 

was back and reading the first book and things that come, basically, out of what we saw during the famine of Ethiopia of 2003. 

And I think it was kind of coming out of there where this whole 

need for some kind of reform, of greater efficiency to our U.S. food 

aid system was emerging because I remember having discussions 

then and my colleague at the Wall Street Journal, Scott Kilman, 

at the time and speaking with Andrew Natsios, who was the 

USAID Administrator there, and he felt at that time, you know, 

that he needed more flexibility to address that famine on the 

ground. 

The food wasn’t getting there quick enough that he thought. 

USAID had calculated that it might, through some kind of cash 

component, if the food got there cheaper, was there quicker, also 

provides an incentive to the local farmers and the markets there 

that here’s some purchasing action coming, that an additional, I 

think it was back then 50,000 lives saved or so could be achieved 

and so that is the goal and that is what one is looking for. 

I think continuing with the efforts that we’ve seen on kind of adjusting and reforming the food aid to make it as efficient as possible can in whatever kind of construct that it is but that we want 

to feed as many people as possible and as quickly as possible and 

as cheaply as possible. 

And I think that the U.S. administration, Congress, the people 

on the ground, to have as many options and as many tools available to be able to achieve that I think is what really needs to happen. 

So I would say yes, continuing with the efforts to make it more 

efficient, to save more lives and to have this flexibility and this variety of options and tools there for people to actually be able to deploy I think would be great and you can kind of see the progress 

then that has been kind of evolutionary since the 2003 famine in 

Ethiopia. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Ambassador Hall. 

Ambassador HALL. If we can buy the food locally it’s a good idea 

to buy it locally because it’s much less expensive and it helps the 

farmers. It is a good deal. 

Oftentimes, a lot of people say, oh, let’s buy the food locally. We 

can’t buy the food locally sometimes. 

Ms. BASS. Mm-hmm. 

Ambassador HALL. I remember this problem we had when I was 

Ambassador in Rome and we had this—we had this tremendous 

drought in South Africa and all the ambassadors in Europe they 

were pushing, oh, let’s buy the food locally—let’s buy the food locally. We couldn’t buy the food locally because that’s where the 

drought was. 

Ms. BASS. Yes, but doesn’t locally mean within the region? I 

mean, it doesn’t have to mean down the street. 

Ambassador HALL. We couldn’t buy it in the region. So we had 

to ship——

Ms. BASS. Somewhere in Africa? 

32

Ambassador HALL. We couldn’t—the whole region of South Africa 

didn’t have enough food for us to buy. So we had to bring food in 

from America, which was fine. 

But the European ambassadors were up in arms because we 

were bringing in GMO foods. And I, personally, support GMO 

foods. There is nothing wrong with it. But that raised a whole 

other problem. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL. And so you can’t always buy——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL [continuing]. Local foods. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL. That’s the first thing. So if we can’t buy local 

foods, that’s great. Secondly, school feeding is really great. If we 

could do school feeding, you get not only the boys in there, you get 

the girls. 

And when you do that, it’s one less meal that the farmers have 

to feed. If you do vaccinations—if you do vaccinations, if you teach 

the mothers how to read and write, if you do micro credit, if you 

clean water—you do those four or five things you will change the 

country overnight. 

Ms. BASS. Well, those are—those are things that I would classify 

and maybe you would or maybe you wouldn’t as helping to build 

the resilience of communities. 

I mean, it’s one thing to address the famine. My concern is is 

that we are going to have this big effort this year and 12 months 

from now, because the underlying problems haven’t been solved, 

we’ll be right back. 

We might not have a drought but, you know, the conflicts will 

be carrying on. So were you describing resiliency—some programs? 

Ambassador HALL. I am describing the resiliency. We have to 

feed them first. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL. You’ve got to save their lives. You must answer the famine. If you don’t do that, they will die and we have 

to keep that up. 

And what you have to be aware of is you got to be aware of the 

bureaucracy—of the U.N. system and the bureaucracy of the countries, whether it’s the United States bureaucracy——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL [continuing]. Or it’s the European bureaucracy, because they’ll kill you. 

Ms. BASS. And——

Ambassador HALL. If you don’t have that money in the system 

and if you don’t push that system, we’ll wake up all of a sudden 

and, you know, in January or February we’ll say, what the heck 

happened. 

So it’s incumbent now, not only on us, the anti-hunger community—it’s incumbent upon the Congress then to push that money 

that you passed, that that is pushed out into the system—that that 

money is used to buy the food whether it’s local or here——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALL [continuing]. In the United States and get out 

there to those countries where it’s needed. 

33

Ms. BASS. And my request to you all is that you help us with 

that in terms of letting us know. 

Ambassador HALL. We will do that but you also have to use your 

power. 

Ms. BASS. Absolutely. 

Ambassador HALL. Because when you call—when a Congressman 

or a Senator calls the bureaucracy and says, what the heck is going 

on, they get excited. 

Ms. BASS. Yes, but——

Ambassador HALL. They get nervous. 

Ms. BASS [continuing]. I guess the point I was making is for you 

to assist us in terms of when to make that call because as we move 

on we won’t necessarily follow the money trail. 

You raised several issues that I wanted to—you mentioned Nigeria dictates where we can go so that was of concern to me because 

I am wondering does that mean that you can’t get to where you 

need to go, and I know that situation in South Sudan. 

Now, one of the things, as Mr. Smith raised, when we were there 

we were very, very strong on the fees because the fees have been 

$10,000 and then it was lowered to $3,500 and I think that was 

supposed to be okay. But it wasn’t. 

And so we pressed very hard that they not do that and so then 

the question are they doing that? What happened? 

You also mentioned funding directly to NGOs and so my question 

is well, what happens now—where does the money go? Are there 

intermediaries before it gets to your member organizations? So 

hopefully you got all those. 

Mr. SCHOPP. Okay. So thank you. In terms of the question on Nigeria and the army telling us where to go, the first instance is, of 

course, a security concern. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. 

Mr. SCHOPP. Boko Haram is, of course, not very friendly to our 

activities and there is this desire to protect and not have incidents 

happen as they are conducting their counterinsurgency operations. 

At the same time we do believe that they’re trying to, hide is 

maybe not the correct word, but to do some cleanup away from the 

eyes of the international community. 

And so the issues around access, the issue around the ways that 

the counterinsurgency operations are conducted because we’ve 

heard of a number of reports of human rights violations as those 

were happening, I think, is of concern. 

So that’s about that. In terms of the fees, I think the fear that 

we have is it’s—thank you, really, for raising this issue forcefully 

with the Government of South Sudan. 

Sometimes the chain of command between the top and the local 

representative or the representative of this minister or this minister is not happening very well and therefore each bureaucrat, if 

you will, either honestly——

Ms. BASS. Well, is that what that is or is that corruption? 

Mr. SCHOPP. I wouldn’t use the word corruption necessarily. 

There is rent-seeking. There is rent-seeking at all levels of the 

South Sudanese Government and so I wouldn’t call it corruption, 

that directly, but it’s trying to get some resources where they are 

34

and such a resource for a country, as you know, those NGOs represent a source of resources. 

Regarding direct funding to NGOs, I mean, it sometimes gets lost 

within the big system response. I think there needs to be a little 

bit more analysis on who is on the ground and who can provide the 

assistance the best. 

Ms. BASS. Well, isn’t it an intermediary that funds your member 

organizations or——

Mr. SCHOPP. I think there are really different models. Some 

money comes through U.N. agencies, in which case then there is 

a bureaucratic slowdown. 

But at the same time, it allows for coordination and harmonization. So we just have to make sure the money goes quickly. 

And in other cases, it’s just not going sufficiently to NGOs. Sometimes it’s not really the case necessarily for the U.S. Government 

but for other governments that have less means to program their 

money. 

They’ll just sign a big check and it gets lost. So, really, getting 

more analysis done on how can we reach the beneficiaries the best 

way and who are the best organizations, which requires a little bit 

more work. 

Ms. BASS. You also mentioned removing obstacles. So is that 

what you’re describing? 

Mr. SCHOPP. Well, the obstacles are more the impediments 

around fees, around the visas. In Nigeria, there were a lot of issues 

around visas. In Somalia, some access to airstrips and things like 

that that are off limits. 

I think for us money is the first priority. The second one is access 

to the people and this is where security bureaucratic impediments 

come and prevent us from responding as well as we are ready to. 

Ms. BASS. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. 

One thing before I yield back my time is after we came back last 

week we went up to—I went with Representative Lee and we went 

to New York and visited a couple of the missions—the U.N. missions—and I am concerned about the European response because 

everybody seemed as though they understood and that they were 

going to weigh in but at the level of which they were going to contribute was of major concern—$7 million, $8 million, $9 million. 

And so I also think we need to pay attention to that and I believe 

there is a donor conference that’s coming up soon, I think in the 

next couple of weeks. 

Ambassador HALL. Yes, that’s a really good point. Oftentimes 

they have these pledge conferences in New York and oftentimes in 

Rome because the big humanitarian organizations are really in 

Rome through the World Food Programme, FAO, and those are the 

conferences where these countries really need to be put on the spot 

because they give these flowing speeches and then they like to 

blame the United States—you guys don’t do enough. 

And like you say, United States will come up with $1 billion and 

they will say—and then they will give a wonderful speech and they 

will say, well, we’ll give $8 million or $9 million and it drives you 

crazy. And so we——

Ms. BASS. Who follows up when they——

35

Ambassador HALL. We pushed—we push them very, very hard 

and we try to embarrass them to give a lot more money, and it 

just—it is very frustrating sometimes. 

And I think when you travel like you do, you and the chairman, 

I think it’s very, very important to really point that out. To even 

write about it sometimes, and publicity and stuff like that, that oftentimes a lot of the countries do a lot of talking but they don’t 

produce. 

And I used to sit in those pledging conferences and it would surprise you of the money—of the speeches that they would give and 

the lack of money that would back it up. 

Mr. THUROW. I was just going to say I think there is also a shortsightedness, certainly, to their response and their contributions, 

and then to kind of also hammer home, and I am sure everybody 

does this and as a journalist writing about these things why it is 

in their interest—in the Europeans’ interest to be involved in this. 

As you were talking about, the number of refugees then that 

have flooded into Europe because that’s their first stop as they’re 

fleeing hunger, they’re fleeing poverty, they’re fleeing conflict. 

That is where they are ending up first and that a lot of this could 

be preventative. They are more proactive in saying, let’s do what 

we can to resolve these issues so all these people stay where they 

are because that’s what those people want to do as well. 

They don’t want to have to flee. And so that’s where the whole 

resiliency comes in. They have no option. What are they going to 

do? 

So they go, and that’s their first stop, and so it’s their self-interest. 

Mr. SCHOPP. Just to add one word, I think we need to ask more 

of the Europeans but also of the global community because in general the humanitarian needs, if you look at the global picture, is 

growing, growing, growing, growing in terms of dollars amounts 

and number of people that need to be assisted. 

So we need to talk more to the Gulf countries, to talk more to 

China, to talk more to nontraditional donors because at some point 

it’s not going to be possible for the U.S. or Europe to continue carrying that load and it’s part of our responsibility to work with 

them. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. Some observations laced with questions. 

There are entities who we certainly could appreciate seeing more 

done by who will only export food aid when they export ideology 

and I think that becomes problematic, and I think we need to discourage this. 

I commend all members of the panel. I am an interesting thinker 

and what I’ve written in my flow chart is that food equals stability, 

stability facilitates education, education facilitates development 

and development facilitates peace. 

We don’t want to create a perpetual state of foreign aid sustaining populations and nations. We want to create a circumstance 

where nations can sustain themselves. To paraphrase a book I once 

read parts of, teach a man to fish. And so that’s the goal. 

The one point that I’ve heard made that turned the light bulb on 

for me to get to that end, that stability, via food, facilitating eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Jul 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061517\25843 SHIRL
36

cation which facilitates development—and the stunting testimony, 

by the way, was compelling—which would facilitate peace and then 

more stability was the school feeding. 

And so to the extent that that’s a paradigm that we need to learn 

more and foster I think which should be encouraged and I also 

think that given the fact that ideology is optional but food is necessary that your school feeding creates a paradigm wherein young 

women might have access to opportunities and thank you for pointing that out. 

But by virtue of some of the events in some of the regions of Africa that we are discussing I would welcome more input on how we 

foster programs like that. 

The other point that I want to make, and open the floor to you 

all to speak to, is that you have this self-perpetuating cycle that’s 

not stability, education, development, and peace but instead lawlessness, hopelessness, and then displacement. And, ultimately, 

where there is helplessness, radicalization occurs. Very rarely do 

you see a young woman or man who is aspiring to be a doctor or 

a teacher commit an act of radical violence. 

It is only where hopelessness has manifested itself in a community, which usually occurs where there is lawlessness, and where 

a vacuum is filled by someone who’s a strongman, usually, who visits violence to control a community. 

I guess what I am driving at is that we need to sell to people 

the peace dividend of food, right? And so, again, I would invite 

comment on that. But I think to the extent that we can show that 

where that works they will have a hard time selling our colleagues, 

and an easier time selling our colleagues on the expenditure. 

Where have we seen stability as a result of feeding, and education, and development as a paradigm moving forward? It is 

amazing for me, having visited with refugees in Europe, and my insistence that Europe doesn’t see the upside to the investment. 

It just blows my mind, and I’ve often argued that the one thing 

that six—and then we’ll talk about Syria. I will get—I will jump 

out of Africa for a moment. The one thing that 6 million displaced 

people have in common is that they don’t want to be displaced. 

So if you could help people where they are and create opportunity where they are. But, again, it’s not ultimately about just 

sending food. It is about creating a circumstance where, ultimately, 

they can lift themselves up and feed themselves, which brings—I 

am sorry for the soliloquy but, my gosh, they gave me the gavel, 

we are all in trouble—which brings to mind Ethiopia, which is an 

amazing situation because while we’ve seen economic development, 

particularly by percentage, impressive on the world stage, I challenge the folks in the audience today to pull out their cell phones 

and Google Ethiopia population density and Ethiopia rainfall, and 

then compare Ethiopia’s 270 persons per square mile and then 

multiply it by two because about half of Ethiopia is virtually uninhabitable—to the United States’ 91 or Russia’s 22. 

And so what we have now is a circumstance where if we don’t 

get education and we don’t see continued growth on the pace that 

Ethiopia is growing, which is improbable because they’ve exploded, 

although the people at the bottom haven’t gotten the memo, it’s 

unsustainable, right. 

37

I mean, tell—you can tell me otherwise. So we have to get that 

education component in and it becomes as ultimate chicken and 

egg game. 

So I would ask you all to help us speak to our colleagues in a 

language they can understand and I look to the doctor and say 

you’re right, what appeals to a member of my party might be, hey, 

we can stem global radicalization by virtue of feeding, and what 

appeals to a member of another party might be something else, but 

we are all working toward the same end, which is peace and stability. 

So maybe talking points on how to sell this. I would hate to see 

what is a tiny percentage of the discretionary budget axed, by virtue of people who I think are rightly fiscally conservative, because 

they don’t understand just how darn much good this does. 

So I guess I am asking for help with messaging and maybe any 

guidance you all could give. 

Ambassador HALL. Well, you make a lot of good points and you 

ask a lot of good questions. I think the first issue I’d like to talk 

about is school feeding, and school feeding is really important because especially in these—in these developing nations that are extremely poor, most of these kids, they don’t get proper nutrition at 

home and they’re lucky if they get one good meal a day. 

We fortify the food oftentimes at the schools and they get the vitamins and minerals that they need and these are really well-fortified meals, and oftentimes what happens is is that the fathers, 

you know, they have to keep their children home to work in the 

fields but they can’t really afford to feed them. And so it’s very, 

very difficult. 

But when you tell the father and the mother that we will feed 

them in schools, they will send them to schools. And we give them 

enough food—enough fortified food in those schools and they will 

send daughters which often, in a lot of countries, they don’t do. 

But because we feed both of them, I mean, that is really something that they go for. So it’s—school feeding really, really works 

and it—it is very——

Mr. GARRETT. Where—go ahead. I am sorry. Where are we doing 

this now? What countries are we——

Ambassador HALL. We are doing it in almost all of these countries. Where we have a problem is is where we have civil war it’s 

very difficult to do it. 

You know, we don’t necessarily do it in countries where there is 

civil war but we do it—we do it in, of course, all the Feed the Future countries, which are 19 countries, most of which are in Africa. 

So we do it in a lot of the countries and it really works. 

The second thing you ask about is that where there is hunger, 

when people are hungry, especially a young man, you’ll do anything to eat, and you put a gun in somebody’s hand and he will 

use that gun. 

He will figure out a way to get food. And, you know, when you’re 

hungry and you put a gun in somebody’s hand, you got a security 

problem. So feeding somebody and school feeding is really a security problem. 

38

When people are hungry, the chances of recruiting terrorists are 

pretty good. It is pretty easy to recruit them. It is a real security 

problem. 

The third thing you asked about is that education and one of the 

things that we have found out is that a very simple thing of teaching mothers how to read and write is one of the best things that 

we can do. 

When you teach mothers how to read and write, the population 

of the country goes down. Birth rate drops and the malnutrition 

goes down and the gross national product goes up in the country. 

We found that through hearings when we had the Select Committee on Hunger. That is an amazing statistic, because the 

women, they not only get smart, they realize they don’t have to 

have as many children. 

They start to understand what it is to boil water, what it is 

about nutritious foods. They understand about breastfeeding and 

they start to think, I know how to make a little bit of money now. 

I mean, we start to give them loans—small loans. They pay it 

back with interest—micro credit—and all of a sudden they start 

hiring a few people and the gross national product of the country 

goes up. 

And micro credit and education of the mothers is one of the 

smartest things you can do. You start doing those three or four 

things in a country and you will see the country improve by leaps 

and bounds within 10 years. 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes, I am just thinking out loud. I really appreciate your testimony and I really think I’ve learned a lot today. 

I think it would be an interesting exercise to look at U.S. military expenditure by nation in Africa versus food expenditure and—

because, again, it’s about ROI. I am a budget hawk. 

We have a problem as a nation with spending. But just because 

we need to make cuts doesn’t mean we need to cut everything. 

So I think the way to sell the right thing to so, which I think 

the hunger relief that you’re advocating for is on multiple levels, 

because it’s a humanitarian thing to do, because it’s a national security interest. 

Because we want to see stability and prosperity so that we can 

continue to thrive and prosper as a global marketplace. 

But you’ve got to show the ROI to the reluctant, to the skeptic, 

and say this money will save money and lives on the front end and 

the back end. So——

Ambassador HALL. The other thing, too, is a lot of them are eating the very food that our farmers have grown. That’s not a bad 

deal, either. 

Mr. THUROW. Right. There is one more economic analysis on the 

ROI points but then also the benefits of food aid of the global 

health efforts—of these efforts on the 1,000 days. And so that’s 

what makes this point that, you know, and we all agree all these 

things are the right thing to do and the moral thing to do. 

That’s why we should do them. There are the security aspects of 

it. There are the security reasons to do it. But it’s also just essentially the smart thing to do economically. 

And in terms of talking points, Congressman, what you had said 

kind of earlier at the outset even before the testimony began, globVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:26 Jul 20, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061517\25843 SHIRL
39

al health is American health. Global prosperity is American prosperity. Global well-being is American well-being. 

And so that’s why what happens on the hunger front, on the nutrition front, on the ending famine front in Africa is so vital for 

here because none of these problems—the problems of hunger and 

malnutrition there is no kind of sequestering that or putting a wall 

around any of that because it seeps over time and over space. 

And the whole thing about the youth and it’s just this huge 

youth bulge that we see in Africa and other countries and in places 

like India, they’re looking for, and we are also then looking for, 

from them, this demographic dividend that comes from that. 

But the hunger, the malnutrition, particularly in this 1,000 day 

period, if all these children that are there are getting off to such 

a lousy start in life and that are sentenced to this life sentence of 

underachievement and under performance, basically by the time 

they’re 2 or 3 years old that demographic dividend becomes a demographic disaster not only for those countries but for all of us. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Schopp. 

Mr. SCHOPP. I don’t have much to add, just to agree that to some 

extent all these cases be it hunger, be it radicalization, all you 

want to call it, are the result of development failures and of governance failures. 

So if we address these issues there is a return on investment 

that comes at the end of the day because you don’t need to invest 

in mitigating measures be they humanitarian or others further 

down the line. 

So I think we have to see a long-term and we have to have humanitarian and development actors work closer together. 

Mr. GARRETT. Very quickly, how can the U.S. Government, in 

rendering assistance, and I know that the budget for school feeding 

is zeroed on paper—I hope we can change that—but how can the 

U.S. Government in working with private entities maximize output? 

Who can give me some examples of what can be done or what 

is being done to get the greatest, again, ROI, for lack of a better 

term, with some of the entities like the ones with whom you work? 

What can we do better? What’s being done well? 

Mr. THUROW. I was going to say, one example that I think has 

been zeroed out is the McGovern-Dole feeding program. All the 

things that Tony was talking about and the incentive to get the 

children into school if the food is there—one, feeding them but then 

also the education that comes from that. 

And I’ve seen that program and then also school feeding in the 

U.S. in terms of the number of countries where school feeding is 

on the ground. 

It is been in a number of countries and particularly in Africa 

where I’ve seen that. You really do see the impact of that in terms 

of the health of the children, the education of the children, and 

then the well-being of the communities that comes from that as 

well. 

Ambassador HALL. The other thing, they have completely zeroed 

out the whole development budget for USAID. I mean, how can 

you—I mean, development, that’s what we’ve been talking about 

here for the past hour is development programs. 

40

I mean, yes, we have got to help with the famine. You have got 

to help people live. But if you don’t have development programs 

like school feeding, like teaching mothers how to read and write, 

like micro credit, you can’t help these people get on their feet. And 

it’s zeroed out. It is, like, zero. They didn’t leave anything in there. 

So yeah. 

Mr. GARRETT. I would offer Mr. Bera the floor for any comments 

or questions he might have and I thank you gentlemen for your 

testimony. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Very quickly, since those bells going off are 

votes getting called so we have got a few votes. 

But I think this is pretty fascinating. I mean, if I think about the 

crisis that we are about to face, we are not looking at one famine. 

We are looking at potentially four famines simultaneously and as 

I talked about my childhood, watching some of these horrific pictures, we’ve got the short-term challenge, right—the relief of suffering and so forth. 

But then I think we’ve got to look beyond that so we don’t have 

this cycle of repetition and look at some of the long-term stability. 

How do we create stable political structures in some of these 

countries? How do we make those investments, Ambassador Hall, 

that you were talking about in terms of school lunch programs, in 

terms of educating mothers, continued investment in maternalchild health, that continued investment in family planning, which 

may not necessarily, as you already pointed out, be the political divide that sometimes we get into here. 

But family planning could be education, right, and empowerment 

and as a way of reducing birth rates. 

So I know we are running out of time here but would love to follow up and have that conversation because really when you do look 

at our foreign aid budget and where we make those investments, 

we may not be making the right investments for long-term stability, you know, to get the right return on those investments. 

So we will reach out and I would love to have a longer conversation and also love to work with Mr. Garrett on thinking about how 

we build some of those structures because, again, I think—this is 

a bipartisan issue when you’re thinking about how you address and 

create long-term stability and infrastructure. 

That is not only in the interests of the countries, it’s in our interest as well. So thank you. 

Ambassador HALL. I will just say real quickly you have already 

started your long-term programs through one of the best programs 

I’ve seen here in the last 5 years as Feed the Future. 

You’ve started it. It is a tremendous investment in agriculture 

because agriculture is 80 percent of all the workers in these developing nations is in agriculture area, and you’ve started it. 

I mean, and that really is working. It is an investment in research. It is an investment in seeds. It is an investment of the 

right type of agriculture and it’s really working and that really is 

an investment in the future. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentleman, I thank you and I thank those in attendance—Dr. Bera. Unfortunately, they have called the votes. 

We’ve got about 7 or 8 minutes on the clock, so we are going to 

adjourn, and I thank you again. 

41

[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

44

f


25843n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

W ASHTNGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 

Organizations 

Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Chairman 

June 15, 2017 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, to be held by the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and 

International Organizations in Room 2255 of the Rayburn House OtJice Building (and available 

live on the Committee website atbimJ!i'>J.Yw.ForeignAtiairs.house.gQY) 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, June 15, 2017 

11:45 a.m. 

Africa's Current and Potential Famines 

The Honorable Tony P. Hall 

Executive Director Emeritus 

Alliance to End Hunger 

Mr. Roger Thurow 

Senior Fellow 

Global Food and Agriculture 

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs 

Mr. Julien Schopp 

Director for Humanitarian Practice 

InterAction 

By Direction of the Chairman 
45

Æ


25843m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON Africn, Global Health, G/obnl Hm11m1 Higllf~, Md fll/12masimml0tgmrfwtiom HEARING 

Day _ ___:T.:.:1'.:.:"c::_'.':::.':::la,.,~_· __ Da(e, __ _:Ji_::".:.:n_:e_::l_:5:;_,.=2_::_0::_1:_7 __ Room _ _.::22:::5::.:5'-R=aocY::.h::m:..:·n.:__ 

Starting Time 11:53 a.m. Ending Time 1:21 p.m. 

Recesses U L__to __) L__to __)(~_to__) L__lo ~-) L__lo ~-) L__to __ ) 

Presiding Mernber(s) 

Rep. C/u·i.o~ Smith, Rep. Tom Gm·rett 

Check all of lite following that apply: 

Open Session [Z] 

Rxecutivc ~sctl) s~ssiun D Televised [l] 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Aji"ic11's Current ami Potential Fmnines 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Elcctrunic•lly RecOJ"dlli.{taped) [Z] 

Stenogmphic Record lLJ 

Rep. Dan Donomn, Rep. Ami Bem, Rep. Tom Strozzl, Rep. Karen Bass 

NON-SUBC0Ml\1ITTFF MFMI!FRS PRFSFNT: (Mark ll'illt wt • if they are no/members offidl cmnmfttee.) 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes 0 No 0 

(If "no", please list below and include title, agency, department, or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submilledfor the record.) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOUill'IED 1:21 p.m. 

Subcommitt 'tall' Associate