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

26–309PDF 2017

IMPLEMENTING THE GLOBAL FOOD

SECURITY ACT

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

JULY 18, 2017

Serial No. 115–59

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 

Mr. Theodore Lyng, acting special representative for Global Food Security, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 4

Beth Dunford, Ph.D., assistant to the administrator, Bureau for Food Security, U.S. Agency for International Development .............................................. 11

Mr. C.D. Glin, president and chief executive officer, U.S. African Development 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 20

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Theodore Lyng: Prepared statement ............................................................... 7

Beth Dunford, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 13

Mr. C.D. Glin: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 22

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 48

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 49

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and written responses from: 

Beth Dunford, Ph.D. ............................................................................................ 50

Mr. C.D. Glin ........................................................................................................ 52

(1)

IMPLEMENTING THE GLOBAL FOOD 

SECURITY ACT 

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 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 2:38 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

And let me first and foremost say to our distinguished witnesses, 

I apologize for being late. We did have a series of votes. But more 

importantly, and it goes for our ranking member, Karen Bass will 

be here more momentarily, we deeply appreciate your extraordinary work to bring food to those who need it so desperately. So 

I want to thank you for that work. We look forward to your comments. And so let me initiate the hearing. 

We are here today to assess the impact of the Global Food Security Act and judge how well it is being implemented. We do so with 

an eye toward reauthorization later on in this Congress. 

By way of background, as many of you know, the Global Food Security Act was a standout piece of bipartisan legislation that was 

passed in the last Congress. I was the author of the House version 

of the bill, which had the support of Ms. Bass and Mr. Meadows 

from our subcommittee, and Betty McCollum, who was the principal Democratic cosponsor on our bill. 

While the Global Food Security Act was only signed into law in 

2016, it codified a policy that has a far longer history. Like the 

landmark PEPFAR program, it also bridges multiple administrations. 

By way of history, it was President Bush who, beginning in 2002, 

started to elevate the importance of food security in U.S. foreign 

policy, especially in Africa, via the Initiative to End Hunger in Africa, which was funded through development assistance and implemented through USAID. 

At the same time, the Millennium Challenge Corporation began 

making substantial investments in agricultural-led economic 

growth programs, particularly in Africa. It was from this foundation that President Obama instituted the Feed the Future Initiative launched at a G8 meeting in Italy in 2009. By that time, food 

in security as a national security issue had come to the fore. The 

2

years 2007 to 2008 saw a rise in food prices across the world, and 

the ensuing political turmoil that this caused led to a rise, for example, of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. 

Today, we see President Trump and his administration continuing to implement the Global Food Security Act. We are also at 

a point where we can begin to assess the success of implementation, underscoring an important point for legislators: It is never 

sufficient simply to pass legislation, but Congress has a constitutionally prescribed mandate to make sure that the executive 

branch faithfully executes the laws that it passes, and to find 

where there might be glitches, gaps, and unmet needs that need to 

be remedied. 

Among the things we look forward to hearing about are results 

from our efforts collectively. Have we been successful, for example, 

in reducing stunting, one of the key purposes of the act and an outcome that is measurable? 

We also want to know about the country selection process. How 

are countries that we decide to partner with chosen? What criteria 

do we use, and is the criteria measurable and objective? 

And how faithfully is the Global Food Security Act’s mandate to 

work with smallholder farmers being implemented? To that end, 

we hope to hear from the President of the African Development 

Foundation and what they are doing on that front. 

As we look forward to reauthorization, we need to ask ourselves 

what is working, what isn’t working, and what we can do a better 

job to maximize the effect of our investment. 

Consider, for example, our nutrition programs aimed at mother 

and children during the first 1,000 days of life window, from conception to the second birthday. We know that this period is absolutely critical for achieving healthy outcomes in children and stays 

with them throughout their lives, helping to boost their natural immunities, and to ward off diseases and giving them a head start 

in life. We hope to hear from USAID on the successes of our nutrition interventions, especially during this critical first 1,000 days. 

I would note parenthetically, in 2010, I was actually at the 

United Nations when seven First Ladies of Africa launched an effort to try to combat chronic malnutrition and especially to reach 

those children during the first 1,000 days and their mothers, because it does mitigate maternal mortality and makes mothers that 

much healthier. And it was really something to see. Lady Odinga 

of Kenya was the lead on that, and all the other six First Ladies 

did a wonderful job talking about what could be done and what the 

promise actually was. 

We also need to ask ourselves, are we truly firing on all cylinders? Are we achieving the best possible results in terms of nutrition and stunting reduction, or are we failing to maximize our investments? 

Recently, I was, along with Karen Bass, in South Sudan and 

Uganda. And when we were in Uganda, we met with President 

Museveni, and I gave him not only background on what you are 

doing, Ms. Dunford, on the first 1,000 days initiative, but also a 

book, ‘‘The First 1,000 Days,’’ written by the award winning journalist who used to write for The Wall Street Journal. And he took 

it. And I said, Mr. President, you have got to read this. Your counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
3

try has signed up for it, but it is all a matter of implementation. 

And if you need other resources, let us know, and we could do our 

level best to try to ensure that that happens. 

USAID, for example, has a neglected tropical diseases program 

that addresses intestinal worms, parasites that affects close to 1 

billion people. If this work, however, is siloed, if worms are not addressed concomitantly with our nutrition interventions, the question arises, are we maximizing our nutrition interventions? In 

other words, are we feeding the future or are we feeding the 

worms? 

And we do have a bill that has passed out of committee, which 

I have introduced, along with my friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, 

on neglected tropical diseases. These all work synergistically. Our 

hope is we can get that over the finish line, but I know that you 

are doing wonderful work on that as well. 

It is relatively inexpensive to conduct deworming interventions 

among affected populations. The gains, however, can be enormous. 

One recent study on cost effectiveness concluded that deworming’s 

effect is robustly positive with a weight gain per dollar spent more 

than 30 times greater than those found in simple school feeding 

programs. So the empirical data seems to point that every dollar 

invested goes a long way to making our young people especially 

healthier. 

Thus, we need to ask whether we are taking advantage of those 

synergies and our nutrition efforts by not only including 

deworming, but also following up on behavior changes, like WASH 

or water, sanitation, and health instruction. 

Sometimes the solution of how to keep reinfestation by worms 

from happening can be as simple as providing children with a pair 

of shoes, as worms often enter the body through a foot that can 

come into contact with infected soil, or making sure vegetables are 

washed thoroughly and peeled. 

Today, the question for USAID is whether we are fully utilizing 

such synergies. Tomorrow, the question for us here in Congress 

will be what can we do in our reauthorization legislation to ensure 

the USAID is given the necessary direction and tools to prioritize 

such synergies. 

I would like to now introduce our distinguished panel, beginning 

first with Mr. Theodore Lyng, who is currently serving as Director 

and acting Special Representative of the Secretary of State’s Office 

of Global Food Security. He was previously the director of the Office of International Conferences in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. His most recent overseas assignment was political consular at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. He also 

served in China, Malaysia, as well as in Russia. 

We will then hear from Dr. Beth Dunford, who is the Assistant 

to the Administrator at USAID’s Bureau for Food Security, as well 

as the Deputy Coordinator for Development for Feed the Future, 

the U.S. Government’s global hunger and food security initiative. 

In this dual role she coordinates implementation of Feed the Future across the U.S. Government, oversees in its execution, reports 

on results, and leads engagement with the external community to 

ensure that food security remains high on the developmental agenda. 

4

She also oversees USAID’s technical and regional expertise focused on improving food security to sustainably reduce hunger, 

poverty, and undernutrition. Dr. Dunford testified before this subcommittee before appearing at our hearing in June of last year entitled, ‘‘Leveraging U.S. Funds: The Stunning Global Impact of Nutrition and Supplements During the First 1,000 Days,’’ and gave a 

keynote address on the importance of nutrition in areas of conflict 

as part of this subcommittee’s engagement with diplomats from African countries. And we heard back from those ambassadors, and 

they were deeply impressed with what you had to say that day and 

your work. 

We will then hear from Mr. C.D. Glin, President and CEO of the 

U.S. African Development Foundation, a U.S. Government agency 

dedicated to supporting African-led, African-driven development solutions via financial investments in and local technical assistance 

to African grassroots communities and local enterprises. Prior to 

joining the organization, Mr. Glin was based in Nairobi, Kenya, 

was the associate director for Africa for the Rockefeller Foundation, 

and previously served as a White House appointee at the U.S. 

Peace Corps and the first Director of Intergovernmental Affairs 

and Global Partnerships. 

Again, thank you for being here. 

And, Mr. Lyng, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE LYNG, ACTING SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. LYNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today 

on the implementation of the Global Food Security Act. Your passion and conviction in fighting hunger and malnutrition have been 

crucial to our progress, and it is an honor to speak before you. 

As you know, the bipartisan Global Food Security Act gave the 

President the tools to address food in security and the suffering 

chaos and instability that it causes. Now more than ever global 

food security is critical to the world’s security, and specifically the 

United States’ security. 

When global food prices spiked in 2008, civil unrest and violence 

erupted in more than 60 countries worldwide. And, in fact, a 2015 

intelligence community assessment estimated that the risk of food 

insecurity in countries of strategic importance to the United States 

would increase through 2025. In some countries declining food insecurity could spark large-scale political instability. 

Today, over 80 million people are facing extreme food insecurity, 

and 20 million people face the threat of famine as a result of manmade crises in Yemen, Nigeria, and South Sudan, all of which are 

driven by violent conflict, and in Somalia where conflict is aggravating the effects of a drought. 

Further raising global levels of hunger are the more than 65 million people, more than any time since World War II, who have been 

forcibly displaced from their homes and have lost their livelihoods. 

So the stakes are high and the GFSA provides the basis for U.S. 

action. 

5

Much of this action involves on-the-ground interventions to develop agricultural economies, and promote scientific research. And 

my colleagues, Beth and C.D., will talk about a lot of these on-theground interventions, among other things. 

However, I wanted to set the stage by discussing how diplomacy 

is an essential element of a solution and how the State Department 

and other agencies are working in many international institutions 

to mitigate conflicts, build democracy and governance, and address 

the causes of prolonged instability. That we are facing the threat 

of famine in four countries highlights the need to address root 

causes and build long-term resilience. 

The Department of State engages foreign governments, international organizations, and other partners diplomatically through 

bilateral and multilateral channels to address the causes of global 

food insecurity and famine. Multilaterally, we are working through 

the U.N. system, the G7, the G20, APEC, and other fora. For example, global food security and nutrition featured prominently at the 

G7’s Taormina summit that President Trump attended in May. 

In APEC, the Department is actively involved in the Policy Partnership for Food Security, which supports the goals of the GFSA 

by strengthening public-private cooperation to address food security 

issues. Engaging the U.S. private sector in these initiatives is a 

win-win; it addresses the problem of hunger, while creating economic opportunities within our own country. 

In addition to these diplomatic initiatives, the Department is also 

engaging in global resilience programs focused on vulnerable food 

sectors, such as fisheries. For example, the Department is engaging 

on the Caribbean Oceans and Aquaculture Sustainability Facility 

(COAST)—I take no responsibility for that acronym, by the way—

a program aimed at establishing innovative insurance facilities for 

the fishery sector. 

Innovation is a key element of our work on food security, and 

programs like COAST have shown how the U.S. Government can 

use new models to mobilize private and public resources to address 

food insecurity. 

Today, I will briefly mention two issues that I think are of growing importance: Nutrition and urbanization. Under the GFSA, improving nutrition, which has a major impact on economic and 

human development, is a key objective. The State Department supports GFSA objectives by fully engaging in forming global policy on 

nutrition. 

This helps create some of the synergies that the chairman mentioned earlier. So in that sense, in that context, the Department cofounded the 1,000 Days partnership and engages in the Scaling Up 

Nutrition Movement, the U.N. Decade of Action on Nutrition, and 

the Nutrition for Growth Summit to try to mobilize countries, civil 

society, and the private sector to support global nutrition. 

And while the act quite properly focuses on the smallholder 

farmer, I think urbanization is another important issue that is 

emerging. By 2050, two-thirds of the global population will live in 

cities, and 90 percent of this growth will occur in Africa and Asia. 

While urbanization is often associated with economic growth and 

the rise of the middle class, many urban dwellers cannot access or 

afford an adequate amount of nutritious food. In this context, feedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
6

ing rapidly urbanizing populations is becoming a central concern 

for food security policy, an issue the Department brought to the 

U.N.’s Habitat III summit last year. 

So to conclude, addressing global food security is a critical need, 

as reflected in the GFSA. The State Department supports the 

GFSA objectives to help alleviate the suffering of hunger, to help 

guarantee U.S. security, and to help create opportunities for U.S. 

businesses. 

We thank you for your support. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyng follows:]

7


26309a-1.eps
8


26309a-2.eps
9


26309a-3.eps
10


26309a-4.eps
11

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Lyng, thank you very much for your leadership. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

I would like to now yield to Dr. Dunford. 

STATEMENT OF BETH DUNFORD, PH.D., ASSISTANT TO THE 

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR FOOD SECURITY, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you very much. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak 

with you today, and thanks to the Congress for your continued support in leadership on food security and nutrition. 

I also want to thank my colleagues, C.D. Glin and Ted Lyng, for 

being here today, as well as our interagency partners with whom 

we collaborate closely under Feed the Future. 

Mr. Chairman, today, there are nearly 800 million hungry people 

in the world, and by 2050, there will be more than 9 billion mouths 

to feed. This is both a challenge and also an opportunity for our 

country. 

Feed the Future, guided by the Global Food Security Strategy, is 

leveraging investment from partner countries and the private sector to reduce reliance on humanitarian aid and promote American 

prosperity, deliver results, and build stability around the world. 

While the world responds to the devastating situation of near 

famines in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and Nigeria, we must 

bridge the gap between humanitarian and development action, 

building resilience to address increasingly complex risks and their 

impacts on vulnerable people, and lasting food security for future 

generations. 

Through Feed the Future, we are combating the root causes of 

hunger and strengthening the resilience of communities and countries by investing in agriculture. Today, 9 million more people are 

living free from poverty, and 1.8 million more children are living 

free from the devastating effects of stunting, where Feed the Future works. And the old adage holds true: An ounce of prevention 

is worth a pound of cure. 

By investing in long-term solutions to food security today, we can 

reduce the need for costly food aid in the future and help entire 

countries move from food aid dependence to self-sufficiency. 

And while we have achieved impressive gains over the last 6 

years, there is still more to be done. As populations soar, lack of 

opportunities and food can push people to take desperate measures. 

And far too many children in vulnerable communities around the 

world still don’t get enough nutritious food to eat, robbing them of 

their future potential. 

In response, over the last year alone, Feed the Future efforts 

have reached nearly 27 million children with interventions to improve their nutrition, particularly in the critical 1,000-day window 

from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. 

Food security also affords opportunities for America’s own economy and prosperity. Feed the Future supports policies that open 

trade in the agriculture sector, reduce corruption, help U.S. businesses compete and expand into new markets, and increase foreign 

demand for American products. 

12

And as diseases that threaten foreign crops and livestock make 

their ways to our shores, American farmers and ranchers benefit 

from the work that we are already doing to combat them through 

24 Feed the Future innovation labs, which are supported by over 

70 top U.S. universities and colleges. 

I would like to conclude with an update on how Feed the Future 

is evolving under the Global Food Security Act. We have worked 

with the 11 Feed the Future partner agencies and departments to 

develop a new whole-of-government Global Food Security Strategy, 

along with department and agency-specific implementation plans 

incorporating findings from evaluations and consultations. 

We are identifying target countries where U.S. Government investments have the greatest potential to achieve sustainable improvements in food security and nutrition. We have also begun developing a process for creating country plans that outline an evidence-based whole-of-government approach to achieve our goals in 

each of the target countries. 

To strengthen Feed the Future’s existing accountability mechanisms, we are upgrading the set of indicators that we use for performance monitoring. And we are developing a new research strategy that will help us improve food security and nutrition in the 

face of complex and dynamic challenges. 

Feed the Future has shown that progress is possible. By bringing 

partners together, the U.S. Government has achieved a great deal 

in lifting families around the world out of poverty and hunger, and 

this is something every American can be proud of. 

When I was in Senegal last month, I saw how our partnerships 

with the government and the private sector are empowering rice 

millers, like Daba Fall. Daba Fall accessed training through Feed 

the Future that equipped her with the tools, the resources, and the 

confidence to become an entrepreneur. She is now helping her community break from the cycle of hunger and poverty and feed itself 

by creating more local jobs. 

We have an approach that works to break the cycle of hunger 

and poverty, and we are refining our systems for continual feedback and improvement. We cannot do this without the United 

States Congress’ support. And I want to thank you again for your 

leadership and commitment on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunford follows:]

13


26309b-1.eps
14


26309b-2.eps
15


26309b-3.eps
16


26309b-4.eps
17


26309b-5.eps
18


26309b-6.eps
19


26309b-7.eps
20

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Dunford, thank you very much. 

Mr. Glin, if you can testify. 

STATEMENT OF MR. C.D. GLIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION 

Mr. GLIN. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you 

today. Thank you for your leadership and support as we commemorate the 1-year anniversary of Congress passing the Global Food 

Security Act. A special thanks for your passion, conviction, and 

commitment to the fight to end global hunger. 

I came to USADF, the African Development Foundation, less 

than 1 year ago, having previously served as a Peace Corps volunteer in South Africa during the Presidency of Mandela, so it is a 

special privilege to testify today on this Mandela Day. 

I went on to live and work in northern Nigeria and most recently 

in Kenya with the Rockefeller Foundation. So I bring a personal 

and professional commitment to this work. I can’t be more honored 

and more humbled to be leading USADF’s efforts at this time in 

the implementation of the Global Food Security Act. 

The U.S. African Development Foundation is an independent 

agency that functions as an alternative to the traditional aid that 

the United States regularly provides in Africa. Established by Congress in 1980 to encourage self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship 

amongst poor and vulnerable populations, USADF is a model for 

doing development differently. 

With the enactment of GFSA and its implementation over the 

past year, USADF’s catalytic grassroots level support has been amplified through enhanced interagency coordination. Our inclusive 

participatory and community-led efforts are linked to and aligned 

with country and continental efforts to reduce hunger and alleviate 

poverty. 

Our foreign assistance provides underserved communities across 

Africa a voice and a choice in their economic development priorities. Our community-led work is critical, now more than ever, as 

sub-Saharan Africa continues to struggle with record levels of displacement and hunger as a result of conflict and drought, as well 

as millions who are on the brink of starvation in South Sudan, Somalia, and Nigeria, all countries in which USADF is active. 

We address hunger and insecurity at the root cause by focusing 

at the grassroots. Through Feed the Future, as guided by the Global Food Security Strategy, USADF has invested over 36 million in 

agriculture investments and nine Feed the Future-focused countries in Africa. We have worked with over 180,000 farmers, over 

half of which who are women, and impacted nearly 1 million people 

who are living free from hunger. 

Many entities talk about smallholder farmers. We talk to them. 

Approximately 70 percent of our investments are focused on supporting agricultural-led economic growth for smallholder farmers 

who represent nearly 70 percent of Africa’s labor force and are the 

backbones of its economies. 

Our grants assist hundreds of agricultural cooperatives to develop better enterprise management skills, improve production and 

distribution capabilities, and access larger markets. For instance, 

21

in Turkana, northern Kenya, we have helped communities move 

from being food-aid dependent to self-sufficient food producers and 

entrepreneurs. 

USADF’s purpose, our programs, and our partnerships bring the 

voices and the choices of smallholder farmers to GFSA implementation. Our purpose is on creating pathways to prosperity for underserved communities, those at the first phase of development, the 

first mile of development. 

At USADF we don’t talk about the last mile starting with program design here in Washington, DC, our programs start where 

there are no paved roads. We respond to the needs of communities 

and catalyze the first mile of development, creating pathways to 

self-sufficiency and pathways to prosperity. 

We don’t simply make grants. We make a difference and bring 

about transformational change in the lives of poor and vulnerable 

people. Our 20 country programs are managed by 100 percent African staff. Our agility, nimbleness enables us to create catalytic 

demonstration projects, which serve as a model for locally owned, 

impactful, and self-sustaining development programs, which deliver 

results utilizing our in-country management and Africa and technical partners, not expats nor contractors. 

We invest directly in early stage grassroots enterprises. We provide seed capital up to $250,000 and local technical assistance. 

Partnerships with communities, countries, and corporations are important elements of USADF’s value-add to GFSA and broader foreign assistance as a whole. 

In the last 10 years, USADF has leveraged approximately $25 

million in host country government cofunding and deployed an additional $5.1 million in funds from other U.S. Government agencies. We maximize the impact of taxpayer dollars by matching U.S. 

funds with leverage cofinancing from host country African governments that invest their resources directly into USADF programs. 

In Uganda, the government recently recommitted an additional 

$5 million over the next 5 years. U.S. corporations, such as General 

Electric and Citigroup, also collaborate with USADF to leverage 

our unique capabilities. Last year, with an appropriation of $30 

million and 20 country programs, we impacted 250,000 jobs and 

improved the lives of 1.5 million people. 

In conclusion, USADF’s enduring relationship with communities 

in Africa provides a unique model for African development, giving 

smallholder farmers a voice and a choice. Our foreign assistance is 

not a donation but rather an investment in local lives and local enterprise. We enable the poor to participate in their own development, to enhance opportunities for themselves, and to create pathways to self-sufficiency and prosperity via local enterprise creation. 

Through the Global Food Security Act, USADF transforms the 

quality of life for millions of people and communities across Africa 

and strengthens America’s leadership in Africa and the world. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glin follows:]

22


26309c-1.eps
23


26309c-2.eps
24


26309c-3.eps
25


26309c-4.eps
26


26309c-5.eps
27

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony and your 

leadership. 

Since we do have a number of members in the subcommittee 

here, I will ask all of my questions at once just to expedite. 

So first—and let me ask Mr. Lyng, if you could—Karen Bass and 

I were actually in South Sudan and Uganda, as I referenced in my 

opening comments, around the Memorial Day recess. And frankly, 

we came away deeply concerned about the cuts in funding for the 

individuals at Bidi Bidi camp, which is one of the largest camps 

anywhere. 

And what we learned was that they cut their food assistance 

available by 50 percent. Corn and other foods were literally cut in 

half. And I am not sure how they subsist on such meager resources, because many of the people are already quite thin from the 

devastating impact of the war and the famine. 

I did note that you pointed out that in Italy, May 26 through 27, 

the G7 had a resolution about mobilizing assistance to address the 

famine or near-famine in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and 

Yemen, which is a great statement, again, the G7 stepping up. And 

perhaps it would be helpful if you could tell us what that could 

mean in real terms for these folks that are suffering. 

I would point out that back in October 20, 2015, I actually 

chaired a hearing and one of many on the refugees fleeing from the 

Middle East mostly, but some from Africa, and even from refugee 

camps run by the UNHCR and others. And the reason given was 

very simply that for year over year, the UNHCR would put out a 

call for funding. And the international community led by the U.S.—

but we would not make up the differences that the EU and others 

failed to provide—would only come up to about 40 percent of what 

the appeal was, so in other words, unmet need every year, every 

year for 5 years, 60 percent. 

And that the proximate cause, according to the UNHCR’s representative at the hearing, was the one-third cut in the World Food 

Programme. And they finally said we are out of here. They upped. 

And once the exodus started, a trickle became a mass exodus mostly into Europe. It seems to me that Europe and all of us could have 

been much more proactive in making sure that those food security 

needs were indeed met. 

So my question would be again, G7, are we meeting it? As you 

mentioned, Dr. Dunford, worldwide, 81 million people are projected 

to need emergency food aid, and of course, 20 million are at grave 

risk in these famine countries. So if you could speak to that. 

Secondly, on the first 1,000 Days, Dr. Dunford—and again, I salute you and for the work that you have done for several years on 

this. It is an outstanding program. How many countries have actually signed up for the program that you lead, and are they being 

faithful in implementing it? 

One thing that we said to President Museveni was, thank you for 

signing up, but more needs to be done because, obviously, the need 

is so incredible. And I do appreciate that you had some of those figures for how the number of children with stunting has gone down 

by 1.8 million. 

You mentioned, Dr. Dunford, upgrading a set of indicators. Either for now orally or perhaps for the record, if you could give us 

28

a detailed list of those indicators. You said you are developing a 

new strategy that supports the Global Food Security Strategy. If 

you could provide us, you know, very, very good details on that, 

that would be very helpful to the committee. And then, again, if 

you could just speak to the resilience issue, which I think is so extremely important. 

We had a hearing in the full committee just the other day on 

microcredit lending. And one of the biggest takeaways of all—because I wrote two laws of microcredit lending. It used to be all 

about donor support, and now it is a matter of money coming in 

from deposits from people who now have bank accounts. The donor 

support from the governments has greatly been reduced, which 

means it is becoming self-sustaining, which is a great news story. 

So if you could speak to that. And how many target countries, if 

you could just be specific, under the first 1,000 Days. 

I have other questions, but, again, out of deference to my colleagues, I will ask you those first. 

Mr. LYNG. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will have to take the question 

on the specific level of cuts in the camp, which I agree is extremely 

concerning, as generally displaced people do not have that margin 

of flexibility in their diet to absorb that kind of change. But I don’t 

know the details right now. 

As far as mobilizing the G7 and what it means in real terms, 

well, the United States has stepped up with an additional contribution in the last few weeks. That will definitely mean much more 

food on its way to these camps. 

The G7 declaration, quite frankly, is a good way to get other nations to step up and also match the commitment to the United 

States, which remains the largest donor in emergency food assistance. 

Ms. DUNFORD. Great. Thank you very much for your questions. 

I would like to start with talking about microcredit. I think that 

is a really interesting and important question, as access to finance 

is one of the critical obstacles to families gaining self-sufficiency 

and improving their livelihoods. 

I was just meeting with some of our colleagues in Ghana and 

seeing a real effort to get more lending into the agriculture sector 

to farmers who really need it to improve their yields on their 

farms. And a bank in Ghana was really searching to do that and 

was very unsuccessful, even though they had loan guarantees helping to defray the increased difficulty of getting loans out to farmers. 

And what we saw was providing these banks with technical assistance really enabled them to better understand farming and 

what kinds of loans that, actually, farmers needed in order to take 

these loans, helped this bank go from $4 million to $54 million in 

loans in just 1 year in the agriculture sector. 

So I think that is the kind of targeted technical assistance that 

we are talking about. It is not necessarily our funds being loaned 

but us making sure that financial institutions have the capabilities 

and the wherewithal to get money out to farmers. So we are seeing 

a lot of success in that front. 

On resilience, I think this is an area where we have really elevated resilience in the new Global Food Security Strategy to a straVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
29

tegic objective. And in the strategy that we submitted to Congress 

on October 1, you can see more details. 

Ethiopia is an area where we have really seen our resilience 

strategy play out. We recognize that the situation is deteriorating 

in Ethiopia, but in 2016, we saw that a very, very devastating 

drought was hitting the lowlands of Ethiopia. Communities and 

families that had been receiving comprehensive resilience and food 

security assistance over a number of years provided by USAID 

were able to maintain their food security status with only a 4 percent drop in that status; whereas, families outside of those areas 

without that assistance had a precipitous 30 percent decline. 

And so I think that is the type of investment that we would like 

to see more of over the long term in order to really mitigate against 

these recurrent shocks. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could for the record, if not now, the number 

of countries, how well they are doing in terms of response. 

Ms. DUNFORD. Right. Okay. So I think we have—in the first 

phase of Feed the Future, we had 19 focus countries. Right now, 

we are undergoing in the final stages of doing country selection for 

the target countries under the Global Food Security Act. 

We used six criteria in order to identify those countries. One of 

them is country commitment, really demonstrating that countries 

are invested in food security and nutrition, that they are committed 

to putting the right types of policies in place in order to really be 

true partners and leaders on taking our efforts in food security and 

nutrition going forward. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I don’t know if 

in your opening comments you mentioned the Washington Post 

today, but they have an editorial talking about the famines. 

A question for Dr. Dunford and Mr. Lyng. I wanted to ask you 

about Somaliland. Actually, representatives from Somaliland came 

and met with me a couple of weeks ago and were concerned that, 

with the attention on Somalia, that Somaliland is not—the issue 

there is not being addressed. And they have said that 80 percent 

of their livestock has been wiped out. 

Also in Ethiopia, there was a presentation yesterday at the council on foreign affairs about Ethiopia. And I wanted to know if any 

of our assistance—and it is not targeted to those countries, but I 

wanted to know if you could comment about that, either one of you. 

Ms. DUNFORD. So on emergency food assistance, I have other colleagues at USAID that manage those programs and will get back 

to you with more specifics on where our assistance is going, our 

emergency assistance. 

I can talk about our longer-term development assistance in agriculture and nutrition. We have an extensive program in Ethiopia, 

and I think I put on the table some of the results we are seeing 

in terms of the ability of families to mitigate and manage through 

these shocks when they have had comprehensive resilience interventions. 

In Somalia, Somaliland, we are seeing that we are able to also 

invest in longer-term development issues and seeing good results 

30

with our value chain projects, focusing mainly on livestock and horticulture. And I can get you more information on that as well. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Lyng, did you want to comment? 

Mr. LYNG. No, other than to reiterate it is just breaking out of 

this cycle of emergency and response that these long-term investments in resilience and food security will—if only to help us stop 

breaking the budget with this enormous humanitarian assistance——

Ms. BASS. Right. Right, right. And, you know, when I think of 

resilience, I think of the ADF and the work that you have done 

over the decades. And, of course, I am very concerned, because in 

the President’s budget it calls for the elimination, if I am not mistaken. Although, I am not sure what kind of support that is going 

to get up on the Hill. 

But given your long track record of focusing slowly on 

smallholder farmers in Africa and giving them voice and choice in 

the process of development, how does this make the GFSA more effective? 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you, Ranking Member. The Foundation feels 

that GFSA has really been able to amplify our impact. The focus 

on agriculture-led growth, on increasing smallholder farmer incomes, on being inclusive of smallholders has really been able to 

not only link our efforts—which have, as you said, have been going 

on for the past 30 years, where we have been working and having 

impact at the community level to link back with broader U.S. Government efforts. 

So we have created somewhat of a conveyer belt where we focus 

exclusively at the grassroots, what we call community-led development. And our work carries over into the work of USAID and OPIC 

and other development partners that may be at the country level. 

So we feel like GFSA has really been able to put a spotlight on the 

unique contribution that we bring to the Global Food Security Act. 

And I wanted to comment on your point around Somalia. Somalia is a country that, since 2011, we have concentrated a lot of our 

programming on, especially as it relates not only to smallholder agriculture, but to youth employment. 

Ms. BASS. In Somalia or Somaliland or both? 

Mr. GLIN. Both. We are operating in five regions of Somalia, 

Somaliland, Puntland, and the other territories. And we have been 

able to focus exclusively on looking at youth engagement not only 

in agriculture, but in job creation and job placement. 

And so youth unemployment is also a challenge that Somalia and 

Somaliland faces, and we have been at the forefront of ensuring 

that they are included in the growth and opportunities and the 

peace and stability of Somalia. 

Ms. BASS. You know, I really think that there needs to be more 

attention to ADF. Because, to me, the way we go about foreign aid 

a lot of times, where we are providing services versus trying to 

build up the capacity of people on the ground, you know, the essence of Feed the Future, to me, and Power Africa is really the 

work that you do. And I think it needs to be lifted up, you know, 

and illustrated more so that it is not just about us—and I am saying this to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

31

But, you know, when we look at sustainability and all of that, 

it is not just about us giving away money or programs, but it is 

really about raising the capacity so our dollars aren’t needed in the 

long run. Of course, they are certainly needed right now. But I 

don’t think that a lot of people are fully aware of the type of programming that you do. 

I wanted to know, in that regard, how do you measure the success of your programs, and how do you ensure sustainability of the 

efforts after funding? So if you give a grant somewhere, you know, 

how long does that last, and how do you make the strategic decision as to where you go next? 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member. We select our grantees and our groups that we provide grant financing 

to based upon a success metric. We actually designed the program 

with success in mind, and we also measure for success. We try to 

be efficient, effective, and have a serious return. 

So with our grants, we focus on capacity-building grants as well 

as growth-oriented grants, building the capacity of grassroots community organizations to be able to have organizational capacity 

strengthened, and to be able to really be an operating, small enterprise. And then we also fund at the level of expanding their enterprise, giving them market access and greater market linkages. 

Ultimate success for us, as you articulate, is that our funding is 

catalytic. It is a jump start. But those groups are on a pathway to 

self-sufficiency, so that we have played an important part in starting them or establishing them or giving them a helping hand, but 

it is a handoff, because they go on to get follow-on financing from 

others. 

That is essential to our development model. And I can say over 

three-fourths of our grants that are designed for growth are sustainable after our funding, and we have intentionality to link them 

to follow-on funding. 

We talk about it as where do our graduates go. Every college or 

university knows where their graduates went and how much they 

made. So when we invest in community enterprises, where do our 

enterprises go, and who else is providing follow-on funding to them 

after we have invested? 

Ms. BASS. Do you have funding outside of government funding? 

In other words, you mentioned a couple of foundations that you 

worked for before. Do you have funding? Does ADF has funding 

there? 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you, Ranking Member Bass. USADF has the 

unique capability to receive direct funding, not only from our, obviously, the appropriation that we get from Congress, but also from 

African governments. So African governments believe in this model 

of grassroots enterprise development of self-sustainability for the 

community enterprises, and they invest along with USADF. 

Uganda is a perfect example of a country that wherein we invest 

$5 million and they coinvest that, that amount. So we actually program $10 million. So countries cofund in the past 10 years. We 

have had $25 million of cofunding directly to U.S. Treasury account 

from African governments that want to advance their own poor and 

vulnerable rural populations. 

32

We also have corporations that say—under Power Africa and 

other U.S. Government initiatives, that say USADF is able to reach 

groups and communities, off-grid energy challenge, those at the 

rural areas in ways that we can’t. And so they coinvest in ADF and 

leverage our unique capabilities to amplify their own impact. So 

countries as well as companies coinvest and leverage U.S. Government-appropriated dollars. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I will take your lead 

and ask my two questions at the same time to save some time for 

answers of our panel. 

One is, I suspect you found better success in some nations than 

others throughout your efforts. Could you explain to us why you 

think that is, and can we take those efforts that are more successful and implement them in the areas where we are less successful? 

And the other thing I want to know is, aside from authorization 

and appropriation of financial resources, what do you believe that 

this larger Committee of Foreign Affairs, that this Congress can do 

to help your efforts? 

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you very much for your question. Regarding success, we have a very, well-developed monitoring and evaluation system where we collect data and indicators across the whole 

range of our strategy. That would be on agricultural development, 

on resilience, and nutrition to see where we are achieving success. 

I think in countries where we have seen great success there are 

a multitude of factors involved. One of the key ones that I think 

we are very focused on going forward is host country government 

commitment to food security. 

We saw last year that we were able to work with governments 

to put in place 100 policies that really set the stage for success in 

agriculture and nutrition. It could be around facilitating the 

groundwork for private sector investment or host country commitment and engagement in areas like nutrition. 

And I think looking at those policies that really unlock and flourish success are what we are trying to put forward in the next phase 

of Feed the Future going forward. And, again, it is a key criterion 

in how we are selecting the countries that we will continue with 

as target countries going forward. 

Mr. LYNG. Well, Beth took the words right out of my mouth 

about government commitment, and I won’t reiterate that. I would 

also say a serious attitude toward corruption, especially official corruption, certainly correlates with success very strongly. 

As far as the second part of your question, I think we have really 

profited from the consultation, especially at the staff level with 

your committee, and continuing that dialogue will be very helpful 

to our efforts. 

Mr. GLIN. I would echo what Dr. Dunford has mentioned, the 

country commitment and, for us, the alignment of our engagement 

with the government strategy so it is not only community led but 

country led where we are a catalyst and an input to a broader development effort of a country. And Uganda is a perfect example of 

that, wherein our investments are leveraged by the Government of 

33

Uganda who adds to the funding that the U.S. Government gives 

USADF in a country such as that. 

And I think the coordination, increased coordination that we 

have and that comes through GFSA to be able to link and to distinguish the complementary effects that ADF gives to foreign assistance by having 11 agencies working together but for a common 

cause has been really essential. And we applaud you for that function within GFSA. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Just a followup and then I will yield the remainder of my time. 

Are State Department using any leverage for those countries whose 

governments are corrupt, aren’t cooperating with your efforts? 

Mr. LYNG. Certainly, corruption has been a focus of the State Department for some time now. It does enter into all this planning, 

and under the leadership of the Chief of Mission as part of a wholeof-government effort, is certainly considered. It has been a factor 

in the discussions we have of the target countries as well. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I thank you all. 

Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time. 

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

Mr. Castro. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you all for your testimony today. 

It looks as though the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, at least 

the President’s proposal, has deep cuts for global food security. And 

I know, at least at USAID and the State Department, you have to 

work with what the Congress approves and the President signs off 

on. But it is deeply disturbing. 

And I want to ask you, quite honestly, how many people do you 

think are going to starve around the world because of these cuts? 

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you for your question. I think that USAID 

is committed to continuing our efforts in food security. And I think, 

as development practitioners, we are constantly forced to make difficult decisions, difficult tradeoffs with resources that are available. 

The problem is immense, as you say. We are really committed to 

using every dollar that Congress provides to achieve maximum impact, and really working with our partners, donor partners, also 

leveraging funds from governments and from private sector to address this monumental challenge. 

Mr. LYNG. Yeah, I agree with Beth. Our task is to maximize the 

effectiveness of the money that we have to work with, and we will 

do that with our greatest effort. 

The administration is committed to addressing global food security. We saw it at the G20, saw it at the G7, and we have seen 

in recent work in the famine. So within the level of budget set by 

the Congress and the President, we will do everything we can. 

Mr. GLIN. So as my colleague said, USADF will be efficient and 

effective with whatever budget we are allocated and appropriated 

by Congress and the President. In fiscal year 2016, we were appropriated $30 million. We impacted 250,000 lives and 1.5 million people. With less, there will be impacts on lives in the communities 

and the countries that we operate. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. 

34

And previously, Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that, ‘‘Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our 

troops are operating today.’’

As climate change leads to increasing droughts, famines, and 

natural disasters, how will the Global Food Security Act supported 

efforts address these concerns? How does a lowered budget request 

align with the realities of climate change? 

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you very much for that question. Looking 

at weather and how it impacts food security, we invest a lot in research to come up with new technologies that really are adapted 

to weather patterns and pests. 

We have, through sustained investment over many years, helped 

come up with a drought-tolerant maize, which is now being used 

among 6 million farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, mostly in southern 

Africa. 

In 2016, when they experienced a significant drought, you saw 

that yields could be up to 40 percent higher for those farmers that 

were using this drought-tolerant maize. That is the kind of investment that we have been making that is very, very important for 

weather-related events and that we will continue to make as we go 

forward. 

Mr. LYNG. Secretary Tillerson has said that the Department remains involved in the issue of climate change and believes that it 

continues to be important, and we will continue to remain engaged 

on this issue. As Beth said, changing weather patterns around the 

world do have an effect on food production. We are doing a small 

project in Central America with corn and bean cultivation in arid 

conditions. It is the type of thing we are working on. 

It is also important to us to make sure that American industry, 

American corporations remain at the table as we develop climatesmart techniques and this sort of thing. Part of the way we do that 

is engagement with the Global Alliance on Climate-Smart Agriculture, which is based in Rome. 

Mr. CASTRO. And then one final comment, Chairman, before I 

yield back. With this severity of cuts—in the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is a fairly bipartisan committee, we talk about concern for people around the world. I believe that these deep cuts will 

make for more desperate people around the world, people who are 

more apt because of their desperation to engage in illicit activity, 

like human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug running, anything 

they can do to survive, crossing borders. It very much goes against 

all of the work that we have put into helping build what I call an 

infrastructure of opportunity for people around the world. And so 

I want to express my deep, deep concern with this proposal. 

I realize it is not the final budget. I realize that a President’s 

budget hardly ever becomes the budget, but it is a disturbing trend 

if this is what we are going to see when the final product comes 

to us. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would acknowledge and add my voice to the comments of my 

colleague from across the aisle as it relates to the negative ramifications of ignoring the problems that exist. And I do that because 

35

he acknowledges that this budget is probably not the final budget, 

but I think he is correct. 

And there are some points I want to hit on because it is neat for 

us to have three people of such influence in this particular important realm in our purview, and that is that you all have the interesting distinction of all working for programs that, if they are done 

well, in 100 years shouldn’t exist, which flies in the face of the idea 

that the closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a government 

program. But really important work, and I think underscored by 

the fact that we place preeminent importance in funding our military and aggressively prosecuting radicalism and extremism across 

the planet, which I would argue is—pardon the bad metaphor—fed 

by malnourishment in developing nations. In other words, if you 

hand a 12-year-old who hasn’t had a meal a rifle and tell him to 

go kill someone, it might be that he has a greater proclivity to do 

that by virtue of the fact that he thinks there is food at the end 

of it. 

And so to that end, I want to touch on a program that I think 

that McGovern-Dole delves into, and that is school feeding programs. The reason I want to do that is because I think they are 

of incredible importance, not just in ensuring that 1,000-day window and the nourishment and sustenance that young people need 

in order to mentally and physically develop to be productive adults, 

but also in empowering communities by virtue of extending education to often heretofore underserved populaces. 

As you all probably know better than others, or I would hope 

know better than others, in the developing world the percentage of 

individuals who work in agriculture is far, far greater than it is 

here. In fact, the size of the American family has shrunken immensely, as we have not needed young people to be at work on the 

farm. And we have arguments these days over things like what the 

school calendar should look like as we have now been decades from 

an agrarian society. 

But whether cultural or religious or based on the work needs of 

the family in order to provide food for the children, what we see 

are birth rates in a place like Ethiopia that in 2014 was 4.4 per 

woman, which is compared to the United States, we are at 1.9, and 

Russia where we are at 1.7. 

And I want to magnify that by some facts that blew my mind 

when they came to my attention, and that is, if you compare the 

population of Russia—this is the first I have heard anybody talk 

about Russia in this building that didn’t have to do with allegations against the administration. If you compare the population of 

Ethiopia to Russia, you find that the population density of—or the 

population of Ethiopia is 102 million; in Russia, minus the east 

Ukraine and Crimea, is 145 million. It is mind blowing. 

The population density in Russia is about 22 per square mile. 

The population density in Ethiopia is 222 per square mile. And if 

you know anything about geography, it really ought to be about 

444 per square mile because about half the nation is not effectively 

arable land. 

And the birth rate in Ethiopia is, again, 4.4 per woman. Now, 

how do you change that? The most effective way to change that is 

to ensure that the young women of Ethiopia receive an education. 

36

The ancillary benefit is that when these young women receive an 

education and we extend microloans and opportunities to them, we 

see more businesses start up. As we see more businesses start up, 

we see a smaller percentage of the population relying on the agrarian lifestyle. As we see a smaller percentage of the population relying on an agrarian lifestyle, we tend to see strives forward in quality of life. And as we see striving forward in the quality of life, we 

see what I think is fundamental to our job here, and that is opportunity, right, and the ability to define success within sort of in a 

Jeffersonian construct, what you wish to do, so long as it doesn’t 

harm another. 

So are you looking—long buildup for a short question. Are we 

looking at programs that work, and are we thinking in the macro, 

in the long term, rather than the micro? To be very cliche, are we 

teaching folks to fish as opposed to giving them fish? 

And further, to follow up, is there any discussion, and I hope 

there is, as to the long-term benefits, aside from simply tackling 

malnutrition problems and getting young ladies, young women into 

schools in areas where heretofore they hadn’t been? But beyond 

that to the stemming, I would argue, of the tendency to be 

radicalized, how many dollars we spend today to help people have 

opportunity and eat versus how many dollars we spend tomorrow 

to build bombs and bullets that we would rather not use. Are those 

sorts of the conversations being had? 

And I will open the floor. We will just go in order from my left 

to right. That is you, sir. 

Mr. LYNG. So those conversations are being had. And this obviously is not a simple topic. I don’t think you can draw a straight 

line equation that vulnerable communities equal radicalization, but 

there is no doubt that freedom from want is one of our best tools 

against radicalization. 

Mr. GARRETT. And I am going to interrupt for a second. And, Dr. 

Dunford and Mr. Lyng, I am going to get to you guys. I mean, the 

really basic argument that somebody—you know, public school kid 

like me would make is you very rarely see someone who is looking 

forward to going to med school in 2 years strap a suicide bomb to 

themselves. Right? 

Mr. LYNG. Right. 

Mr. GARRETT. Hope and opportunity. 

Mr. LYNG. Right. 

Mr. GARRETT. And the aspirational reality that you might 

achieve a goal removes desperation. And where your next meal is 

coming from is—that is real desperation. Right? I am on a diet, all 

right, but I know at some point I am going to eat. So—anyway, go 

ahead. 

Mr. LYNG. And those are baked into our projects now. And I 

think—you know, I think it is important that—although we hear 

a lot of grim statistics, and we face a very important task, there 

is hope. 

I have been lucky enough to spend 9 years of my career in Indonesia. Indonesia is a country that with a noncoercive family planning program was able to bring—and issues that don’t involve contraception, but education and cultural acclimation, was able to reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
37

duce its birth rate, increase the education level of its women, and 

essentially, increase its prosperity over time. 

So a lot of that was done at the USAID and MCC assistance. So 

we do have the tools, and we are trying to implement them in a 

way. We sometimes face very hard, objective practical problems, 

but there is hope, and we can do it. 

I am sure Beth has more. 

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you very much for your question. It is a 

very important one. A recent study from northeastern Nigeria done 

by Mercy Corps found that the number one recruitment tool by 

Boko Haram was providing access to financial services to youth in 

northeastern Nigeria. And so I think that the kinds of programs 

that we have that are offering livelihood opportunities for these 

youth are critically important. And we are moving our programs 

into the areas on the fringes of Boko Haram, moving in to provide 

that livelihood opportunity that people crave. 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you for your question, sir. And as Beth said, we 

have examples of ADF’s work in northern Nigeria, combating the 

threat of Boko Haram through economic empowerment. But let me 

give you an example from the other side of the continent, from the 

Horn of Africa. 

In Somalia, there is information and data that says al-Shabaab 

is able to recruit a young person into al-Shabaab with a promise 

of $50 a month and a cellular phone. Fifty dollars a month and a 

cellular phone. USADF’s programs over the past 5 years have impacted and been focused on job creation and job placement and 

have impacted over 6,000 youths. 

The average income of the youth in our economic development 

programs is $300 a month. So they have a choice now, an opportunity now, an alternative now, because we are saying to those who 

are giving them $50 a month and a cellular phone, there is a job 

that you can create that can give you $300, and they are making 

positive choices. But as you said, this is hard work. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, briefly. 

And the other thing is, what you do, Mr. Glin, specifically, in 

leveraging the local nations to take ownership, right, is great. And 

I don’t want to in any way, shape, or form disparage it, but there 

is so much to be tapped into here in the private sector. 

For example, I think a resident in my district recently donated 

$12.7 million to create a squash facility at the University of Virginia. Uganda chipped in $5 million over 5 years to augment these 

programs in the United States. So I guess what I am driving at is 

not in any way, shape, or form criticism; in fact, I don’t mean that 

to any of you. But if information is disseminated, if we solicit the 

private community, and—I have talked to people about school feeding programs, and I am on the right side of the right side, right, 

politically. And when they understand it, they go, wow, yeah, it all 

makes sense. 

So I hope that this committee, perhaps, can help, and that, you 

know, you all in your capacities can help in sort of telling the 

American citizen, who is an amazing resource of charity, just how 

much good we can do. 

And the problem—and I sympathize with all three of you. I was 

a prosecutor and we did a lot of computer crimes, people that 

38

would pursue children using the Internet. And whenever you 

caught one of those guys, they usually were—you don’t know—you 

know, you don’t know how many kids you saved. And whenever 

you divert a young person from Boko Haram into a productive 

member of society, you don’t know how many people you have 

saved directly, and tangentially, today, and to come, right? But we 

know the work is worthwhile. 

I just hope that we can get the word out to the private sector 

that any individual generous enough—and I in no way, shape, or 

form criticizing this individual either, to generate—to donate $13 

million for a squash facility, might think it is worthwhile to put a 

couple million dollars in the school feeding program. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Garrett, thank you very much. 

I would like to yield the floor to Mr. Suozzi. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to each of the witnesses for the great work that you 

do and for your testimony here today. I want to compliment my colleagues, both those that are here and that have left already for 

their insightful comments and responsible comments that they 

have made here today. 

I just want to point out, and I don’t know if this has been put 

on the record, but for the agricultural development and food security program, the fiscal year 2017 appropriation was $1 billion. The 

budget request from the President is $500 million. The international disaster assistance program, the fiscal year 2017 appropriation was $4.4 billion. The administration request is $2.5 billion. 

The 480 Title II program, Food for Peace, the fiscal year 2017 appropriation was $1.4 billion. The administration request is zero. 

The McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program was $201 million 

for fiscal year 2017 appropriation, and zero in the administration’s 

request. And the Global Agriculture and Food Security fund, $23 

million in fiscal year 2017, and zero in the administration request. 

So we have heard, and you all know, that there is tremendous 

suffering going on in the world right now. We know about the 

costs. You have spoken about the costs of doing emergency feeding 

of people. We have heard testimony about the impact on terrorism 

and how people are recruited because of food insecurity in terrorist 

organizations. 

And I was with the former Governor of South Carolina the other 

day, Governor David Beasley, who is the Executive Director of the 

U.N. World Food Programme, who talked about how his work that 

he is doing with $6 billion to $9 billion a year in food distribution 

is the frontline against terrorism. And he is a very conservative Republican. And some of his colleagues were saying to him, well, it 

is the U.N. He says, well, I don’t know about the whole U.N., but 

this program is essential for the world. 

So there is a battle in the world going on these days, not between 

ideologies, but between stability versus instability. 

We have gone from 35 million refugees 10 years ago to 65 million 

refugees today. And there are people that are trying to exacerbate 

that instability. We have instability due to climate change. We 

have instability due to corruption, to incompetence and lack of reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
39

sources, but there are other governments and organizations that 

are trying to promote instability in the world. 

And the work that you are doing is to try and bring stability. 

You are in the frontline of that battle between stability and instability. And I just would like each of you to please tell me one example of what you think is an example—and you have to put it in 

plain English terms for all of us—a great example of success, of 

something that you have been involved with. It doesn’t have to be, 

you know, in the past year. Past year would be great, but a great 

example of what you see as being a success, where, you know, you 

put in this much money, this is the program that you did, you provided this, and this is the result today. Especially something as far 

as, not as emergency feeding, but as far as building capacity and 

long-term sustainability. 

Mr. Lyng. 

Mr. LYNG. So I will give you a very small example, because I 

think it is very striking and emblematic in a lot of ways. As we engaged a Silicon Valley firm in a partnership to help provide better 

data on metrics of food security, and they were able to apply a lot 

of innovative techniques that someone my age cannot understand 

at all, and we were able to bring to bear a lot of the data that previously was untapped for food security and specifically, sustainable 

development goal number two. That project has now taken on a life 

of its own. The U.N., in May, in fact, engaged this Silicon Valley 

firm to do the monitoring and evaluation for all of the sustainable 

development goals. I think that was a great success. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Okay. But I know that that is a great important 

work, and I know that, and it is very essential. But I want you to 

try and tell me things that—each of you, to tell me things that are 

examples of something on the ground that happened that resulted 

in a now sustainable community. 

So I heard a lot of talk about policy—policy positions put in place 

and metrics that are put in place and different ideas of programs. 

I want to hear in real life, like we invested this much money and 

now they are growing this crop, or put in this much money and 

now they are doing this livestock, or this is how it has impacted 

this particular community. 

You can go to the next person, if you want, and——

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you, sir, for your question. I would like to 

talk about Malawi in 2016, which was suffering a terrible drought, 

and compare two villages. One village needed food assistance in 

2016, and the World Food Programme spent over 10 months $390 

per family to feed that family to make it through the year. And it 

was very clear from visiting this village that this village will need 

food assistance, if not this year, then the next year and the year 

after that. 

Compare that to another village that received less money, or just over $370 over a period of 5 years, from 2009 to 2014, for development, food security, resilience interventions that helped with 

things like irrigation, market access, farming techniques. This 5-

year investment that, in total, cost less per family than to feed 

families in this other village for 10 months over 5 years investment, they then, in 2014, the program ended, come back at 2016 

when there is a drought, and the village is flourishing. They don’t 

40

need food assistance. People are self-sufficient, have strong livelihoods, and it is a happy place to be. 

For me, that is the ultimate success of our programs. You go 

back 3 years later, and they are very successful in the face of what 

is a historic drought in Malawi. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So that is a great example. And thank you so much, 

Doctor. 

So you are saying the money was invested in irrigation. It was 

invested in market access. So what do you mean by market access? 

Ms. DUNFORD. Irrigation, also crop production, market access, 

helping farmers aggregate their products and link them to markets 

so they can sell their products that they grow. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So you show them how they would sell—where they 

would sell it and how they would sell their crop? 

Ms. DUNFORD. Yes, and helping to form farmers organizations 

that can get decent prices on the market. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you, sir, for your question. And your interest 

is exactly why USADF exists, for direct grassroots investments into 

local enterprise not only to help them increase their sustainability, 

but for them to grow. 

A perfect example of that is a cooperative in Liberia, a women’s 

cooperative, Gbelaygeh. These are a group of women who were 

forced to leave their country during civil war in Liberia, returned 

back as widows. They formed themselves into cooperatives, more so 

from a social reason. You know, women and the rice were sort of 

what they had in common. They applied for a grant to USADF 

funding, a grant of under $250,000. We gave them a grant to increase their farming practices, to upgrade their farming practice, to 

become more registered, and to be a viable business unit, a farmer—as I said, a farmer producer organization, and then also to be 

able to have processing equipment. They were growing and then 

milling rice and selling that rice. 

Then Ebola hits. The resilience that they got from having the 

operational assistance and support through the USADF grant and 

their ability to not only survive, but to withstand the shock that 

came through Ebola, and then to thrive after. In Ebola, this group 

actually still turned a profit. Today, sir, that group is selling to the 

World Food Programme, which you referenced. They are selling 

rice, and they are also buying and processing palm oil. 

This is a women’s widowed cooperative that now is a viable business unit, and they have survived and adapted and thrived in the 

face of stresses that they could perceive and some they would have 

never been able to perceive. But that is an example of what 

USADF does all over the continent in 20 countries, cooperative 

after cooperative. 

Last year, we invested in over 500, so I can give you 500 individual resilience and enterprise development stories. And that is 

what our appropriation from Congress does. It impacts people directly. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So in that particular instance of Liberia, the money 

was invested in buying the milling equipment as well as——

Mr. GLIN. As well as the training and technical assistance they 

needed to increase their agricultural practices. So they got equipVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
41

ment. They got training. They had some level of market access in 

the market was—World Food Programme, they have specific quality, quantity, and—specific standards that they needed to be 

trained on. 

Mr. SUOZZI. So an example of a training would be they used that 

grant money, and they hire somebody to come in and show them 

how to run a cooperative? 

Mr. GLIN. Correct, sir. And that person is going to be—in our 

grant funding is going to be a local Liberian technical assistance 

training provider. So the money is also still generated in the country. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Okay. I am in no position to give you advice, but I 

wanted—I think it is very important, when telling people your 

wonderful stories and important stories, to tell specific examples of 

putting a human face on things: We took this money, we bought 

this piece of equipment, we hired this person to train them, we 

helped them form this organization, we introduced them to the 

marketplace, specific examples of things, because it puts a human 

face on these very desperate circumstances. 

So thank you so much for your life’s work, and we are very grateful to you. We will do everything we can to help you. Thank you. 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Suozzi. 

Just a couple of final questions. And, again, thank you for your 

patience with the delay we had at the outset of the hearing because 

of votes. 

The Appropriations subcommittee lead by Hal Rogers last week 

marked up the subcommittee draft, and tomorrow will be the full 

committee. And I think it should not go unnoticed that of the funds 

appropriated under Title II of this act, not less than $1.6 billion 

should be made available to carry out the provisions of the Global 

Food Security Act of 2016, Public Law 114-195, of which not less 

than $60 million shall be made available to Feed the Future innovation labs. That is the exact amount authorized by the Global 

Food Security Act. 

And I have to say, I have been here for 37 years, authorization 

levels are almost never met on their—and to say not less than 

shows, I think, on the part of our friends on the Appropriations 

Committee led by Hal Rogers, a very deep commitment to this initiative. So I think I should—so what was sent up originally—I have 

never seen a budget that was not radically altered, starting with 

Ronald Reagan. 

I would note that even under President Obama—and I remember 

because I raised it here in this subcommittee. Despite the fact that 

I am taking a lead on the neglected tropical diseases, I believe passionately in trying to expand our resources, President Obama sent 

up a 20 percent cut in neglected tropical diseases. He did the same 

thing for TB. And we know we have had multiple hearings in this 

subcommittee on that as well. Mark, I believe, testified, you know, 

as did others on—from the Global Fund on the importance of staying focused on tuberculosis, particularly multidrug resistance; that 

too had a 20 percent cut. 

Congress took the recommendation that came from the Obama 

administration as it did—and is doing right now from the Trump 

42

administration, that said, thank you, we will try to meet some of 

these goals in a different way with more resources. 

So I am happy to say, and I want to express my gratitude to Hal 

Rogers for being so responsive and his staff and his subcommittee 

to this. 

And we have a ways to go, obviously. The bill hasn’t passed the 

House yet, hasn’t passed the Senate, but I think it is a good marker that there is a deep commitment to global food security in general and to the act and its provisions in particular. 

Let me also just point out and ask you, if I could, Dr. Dunford, 

on page—whatever page this was, you said, first, we further elevated nutrition and are seeking to better integrate water, sanitation, and hygiene into our efforts to better nourish women and children, continuing our focus on the first 1,000 days. 

Perhaps you could elaborate on how you are doing that. I think 

it is tremendous and it shows, you know, integrating is important. 

They are all interrelated, and you are doing it, so thank you for 

that. 

I would ask, Mr. Glin, if you could, you talk about in South 

Sudan you have four USADF sustainable agricultural programs 

worth a total of $670,000, and that they are mitigating the effects 

of famine. 

When Karen Bass and I met with Salva Kiir for the better part 

of 2 hours in Juba during the Memorial Day recess, we focused, I 

think like a laser beam, to quote somebody else years ago, on the 

idea that conflict is driving this famine. We also pointed out repeatedly the 84 humanitarian aide workers, many of them indigenous South Sudanese, have been killed, and that is worse than the 

ISIS atrocities in terms of humanitarian workers. It is the worst 

in the world. And that is since December 2013. 

So perhaps, Mr. Glin, you can tell us about your personnel, how 

well have they faired, and maybe elaborate on that program, if you 

would, those four programs, those four initiatives. 

Because we kept stressing with Salva Kiir and his staff: Lay off 

the humanitarian aide workers. Stop interdicting convoys of food 

and humanitarian assistance, fleecing the truck drivers, taking the 

product intended for hungry, hungry people and sick people, and 

then distributing them on the black market. It is your military. 

Yeah, there are some militias, but it is your military. 

And what happened in Terrain Hotel compound a year ago July 

is testimony to how quickly a military can careen out of order. 

You also said, Mr. Glin, that you are very involved with the 

strategy of the Global Food Security Strategy and actively participating in the target country selection process. If you could elaborate on that process. And, again, what are the criteria for selecting 

a country when you sit and, you know, decide country X, Y, or Z 

will be a part of it? If you could, it would be very helpful to the 

committee and to me and I think all of us. 

And if you could also perhaps, Mr. Lyng, informally; you know, 

not going through OMB, I know it all has to be vetted, but ideas 

for reauthorization. You know, unmet needs, your walking point, 

we need to know from you to get it right. And we did have—we had 

great input from the previous administration, starting with Dr. 

Shah, on what the bill ought to look like, and of course, Dr. 

43

Dunford, you provided expert testimony as well. So we got it right. 

I think we did at the end of the day. So any thoughts you might 

have on that now or perhaps for the record, so as we go through 

the process——

The best reauthorizations I believe are those that take a year or 

more, because you just keep vetting every provision, testing it with 

the stakeholders or the administration to try to get it right. And 

so I want to, you know, ask you for that. 

And, of course, Dr. Dunford, you as well, if you could answer 

that. 

I do have a few other questions, but I will submit it for the 

record. 

I do have one more for Dr. Lyng. Food on the water on its way. 

The most efficient way to deliver emergency aid. Is there an analysis about how best to get the delivery of those foodstuffs to the 

people, like how much more it costs to take it over longer distances? And, of course, that reduces the impact of every dollar. So 

if you could. 

Mr. Glin, if you could begin. 

Mr. GLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the questions. 

As it relates to South Sudan, it is an important country that we 

have been operating in since 2011. Our operating model being, as 

we sort of say, African-led and -managed, meaning that our program team on the ground are South Sudanese. Our team is very 

inclusive of a multitude of ethnicities and different people representing different tribes, so we have been able to continue operations throughout the crisis that currently exists. We work at that 

community level, so we think it is important to include all voices. 

Our focus on enterprise creation to lead to poverty alleviation 

has been critical in that we are supporting agricultural enterprises 

that are actually growing food in the midst of the famine. 

One example is an initiative that we have, one of our grants 

where 60 lead farmers are now training 4,000 smallholder farmer 

families, and they are in the maize value chain. They are growing 

and processing maize, and now have used their own profits, in the 

midst of the famine, sir, to sell to and to create a local bakery that 

is able to provide bread for those with need, if you will. 

So South Sudan is an important country for us, and our focus 

around the enterprise creation during the midst of the famine is 

leading to food security and moving groups from food aid dependency to self-sufficiency. 

As it relates to the Global Food Security Strategy, we are—you 

know, we are proud to be one of the 11 implementing agencies. I 

can say on a personal note, Dr. Dunford, as a friend, her whole 

style, sir, is inclusive and has been able to allow USADF to have 

a seat at the table, not only here in Washington but, most importantly, in the countries where we operate as we develop the country’s strategies. And USADF looks at our investments, the regions 

in which we operate, the levels and the groups that we are going 

to support, how do those roll up to broader global food security 

strategy objectives. 

So this has been very a inclusive process, and we have been able 

to have a seat at the table. 

44

Mr. SMITH. If I could, on the strategy criteria, could you elaborate on each of those points? I think there is six of them. Dr. 

Dunford or——

Mr. GLIN. Yes. I defer to Dr. Dunford. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. DUNFORD. Thank you, sir, for your question on country selection. Our six criteria that we submitted with the Global Food Security Strategy on selecting target countries would be need, opportunity for ag-led growth, opportunities for regional synergies, opportunities for partnerships, host country government commitment 

to food security nutrition, and U.S. Government resource availability. So those six criteria are what we are using to finalize our 

country selection going forward. 

Mr. SMITH. And that other question, if you would. 

Ms. DUNFORD. Yes. And I wanted to talk about linkages. Thank 

you so much for raising that question. It is a very, very important 

one. 

We are working so that our food security efforts are linked to 

other efforts in the broader development work of USAID. 

For PEPFAR, it really doesn’t do any good to give someone 

antiretroviral drugs if they don’t have food to eat, if they don’t have 

nutritious food to eat, and then, again, if they are drinking dirty 

water. We want to make sure that we are feeding the people and 

not the worms. I think deworming is very, very important to couple 

with all of this to be sure that the people that we are working with 

are well nourished. 

And locating those activities in the same communities and targeting the same people is one of the ways in which we do that. We 

have a lot of overlap in countries that we work with and really 

work to further synergize those efforts in regional areas. 

Mr. GLIN. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I wanted to complement that 

response. Our work with the Global Food Security Act 100 percent 

complements our work with Electrify Africa and links to our work 

with AGOA. As we look at a smallholder agricultural cooperative 

that now has access to off-grid energy, whether it be solar irrigation or whether it be solar-powered maize mills, that increases 

their level of productivity and leads to agricultural-led growth. 

That, coupled with their ability to find markets, enables them to 

then feed into the African Growth and Opportunity Act. 

So we look at the synergies between GFSA, Electrify Africa, and 

AGOA in almost all of our investments where possible. 

Mr. LYNG. I apologize that saying ‘‘food on the water’’ was metaphorical. Certainly, our colleagues at USAID do work on disaster 

assistance. They look at a wide variety of local procurement as well 

as U.S. shipments from the United States. 

I will say, they are the among the hardest working of all of us. 

You can call their office almost any time night or day and they are 

working, because they understand the responsibility they have to 

keep people from starving. 

Mr. SMITH. One last point. I do hope, especially with the G7 

statement, that if there needs to be a bridge for food security to 

those who are suffering—it was really difficult to—and I know 

Karen had the same takeaway—to see so many people who were 

famished and emaciated being told that they—and they didn’t comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:40 Sep 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\071817\26309 SHIRL
45

plain, because they were happy that they were in a camp—this is 

Bidi Bidi I am talking about—but they were having their foodstuffs 

cut in half. 

And, again, I know we are the leading donor, and it is great that, 

you know, we are trying to get others to provide significantly more, 

but whatever can be done on the shorter term, I hope would be 

that that would be—that would be done on an emergency level. 

Anything else you would like to add before we close? Any ideas 

for legislation? Of course, you can convey that to us for the record 

or privately. But I think we need to know what we missed, what 

you have found that needs to be incorporated, and we will have additional hearings going—in the future on that as well so we get it 

right. 

And it shows authorizing levels do matter. Some people—you 

know, we just passed a reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act, and there were some people who thought why put 

an authorizing number in there that is above the appropriated 

level. Because we do believe, based on input and years of experience, that that number is justified. But if my reading of the plain 

text from Hal Rogers is correct, he hit it right on the nose with the 

authorized level and said not less than, which is cause for additional hope and expectation that if it is needed, more money will 

be provided or allocated here. 

So, yes, back to you. 

Ms. DUNFORD. Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the bicameral and bipartisan support for the Global Food Security Act, 

and we look forward to continuing to work in partnership and close 

collaboration with Congress as we implement the act going forward. 

The increased accountability and oversight that is in the act enables a more in-depth dialogue on specific results, and I think we 

welcome that conversation. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I want to thank you—oh, yes. 

Mr. GLIN. No. Mr. Chairman, just the inclusion and the emphasis on smallholder farmers as it relates to global food security is 

something that is appreciated by USADF, but that is something 

that is so important for Africa and its development. So that is 

something that we wanted to continue to champion. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you. 

Thank you so much for your leadership and for being here today. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

48

f


26309n.eps
49

f


26309m.eps
50


26309d-1.eps
51

f


26309d-2.eps
52

Æ


26309e.eps