[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AFRICA'S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FAMINES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-843 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
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 KAREN BASS, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York AMI BERA, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Wisconsin THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Tony P. Hall, executive director emeritus, Alliance
to End Hunger.................................................. 5
Mr. Roger Thurow, senior fellow, Global Food and Agriculture, The
Chicago Council on Global Affairs.............................. 11
Mr. Julien Schopp, director for humanitarian practice,
InterAction.................................................... 17
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Tony P. Hall: Prepared statement................... 9
Mr. Roger Thurow: Prepared statement............................. 14
Mr. Julien Schopp: Prepared statement............................ 19
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 44
Hearing minutes.................................................. 45
AFRICA'S CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FAMINES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:53 a.m., in
room 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. This hearing will come to order, and I want to
thank again my colleagues for being here and I want to thank
our distinguished witnesses for not only being here and their
extraordinary expertise but also for their flexibility.
We moved yesterday's hearing and markup to today, as you
know, because of the tragic circumstances surrounding the
assault on Steve Scalise, two members of the Capitol police
and, of course, a member of the congressional staff who are
wounded.
So I want to thank you for your indulgence and patience for
that. I'd like to say a few opening remarks and I'll yield to
my colleagues for any comments they might have.
The Bible, Ecclesiastics chapter 3, verse 2, tells us that
``there is a time to plant and there is a time to harvest.''
That ancient sage prescription has allowed multitudes to be fed
over the course of humankind.
But now ruthless men seeking power have disrupted the
cycle, potentially causing manmade famines where none should
exist in African countries from South Sudan to Nigeria to
Somalia.
Famine in Africa has been called the worst since World War
II, even worse than the catastrophic 2011 famine in east
Africa.
What makes this round of famine even more tragic is how
preventable it is. For example, South Sudan contains the most
arable land in what was once a united Sudan.
Aside from oil reserves, agriculture was seen as the key to
South Sudan's future success. Now areas of the Equatoria
provinces, South Sudan's breadbasket, are engulfed in conflict
with citizens fleeing the country in the thousands, daily.
There are now more than 4.8 million displaced South
Sudanese. One point eight million refugees in neighboring
countries, over 900 million of those are in Uganda alone and at
least 2 million are internally displaced persons.
South Sudan is experiencing heightened levels of food
insecurity with as high as 27 percent of the population in some
areas facing famine.
Despite the government's contention that people are merely
being frightened by rumors of conflict, South Sudan has quickly
surpassed Eritrea to become the world's fastest emptying
country.
Another country seeing a major exodus due to conflict is
Somalia. There are an estimated 881,000 Somali refugees and the
anticipated scale of population displacement from Somalia due
to pervasive conflict and the threat of starvation will
increase refugee flows throughout the region and into Europe.
In Somalia, nearly 6.2 million people are currently in need
of humanitarian assistance and more than 2.9 million people are
facing crisis or emergency levels of acute food insecurity
including nearly 1 million children under the age of 5.
Nigeria is yet another country facing famine due to
conflict. There are 14 million people in northeast Nigeria who
are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance including more
than 8 million children and almost 6 million people are also
facing food insecurity.
About 9 million Nigerians are projected to suffer from food
insecurity by August 2017, including more than 3 million people
living in the northeast State of Borno.
We focus on the part Boko Haram has played in creating
chaos and famine in Nigeria and quite rightly so. More than
30,000 lives have been lost in violence related to Nigeria's
Boko Haram insurgency.
But there is a developing threat that could widen the
likelihood of food insecurity there. Attacks by Fulani
extremists on farmers in Nigeria's middle belt are increasing
in intensity and can further exacerbate hunger in the region.
The El Nino/La Nina weather cycles have caused drought as
well as flooding in parts of Africa in recent years. The
possibility of drought currently threatens famine in countries
ranging from Angola to Sudan, Mozambique, and Madagascar.
Nevertheless, it is conflict that poses and even greater
threat of famine in countries such as the Central African
Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mali, and
could cause or exacerbate famine should the fighting disrupt
planting-harvesting cycles and markets where locally produced
food can be purchased.
Ranking Member Bass and I, joined by Greg Simpkins, our
staff director for the subcommittee, and Leslie Warner, who's
on the full committee staff, just returned from a mission to
South Sudan.
Piero Tozzi, our counsel, was there in February and I was
in South Sudan 9 months ago in August 2016. We found, both
Ranking Member Bass and I and our delegation, that the
situation is absolutely appalling and, again, it's absolutely
preventable.
Humanitarian aid officials repeatedly told us that no
matter how much aid is provided it will not be enough to meet
the ever expanding need, although we do have to provide as much
as it takes as a bridge to help people who are suffering with
the potential of starvation.
Although we need to do more, I would say, we have to really
focus on ending the conflict and ending the impunity that has
been practiced by many in the military in disrupting convoys
and those who are trying to bring food and humanitarian
assistance to people who are at grave risk.
We heard and know that some 84 humanitarian aid workers in
South Sudan have been killed. There is no other country on
earth where so many women and men trying to assist their
neighbors have been targeted for killing than in South Sudan.
And when you add the rapes and all of the other terrible,
terrible aggressions, it cries out for reform as quickly as
possible.
And that's what we weighed in with Salva Kiir with his new
Chief of Defence Forcer, Ajongo, who our hope is that he will
take the country and the military into a professional way
rather than, unfortunately, the way it has deteriorated. So
that is our hope, going forward.
So before I introduce our extraordinarily distinguished
panel I would like to yield to Dr. Bera and members of the
subcommittee for any comments they might have.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you for your
tireless work to address suffering around the world.
Folks might wonder, why is this such an important issue to
the United States? And I would just think back to my childhood,
growing up in the 1970s and 1980s and sitting around the dinner
table watching some of the footage and pictures of children and
mothers starving in Ethiopia and Somalia.
And some of that call to action and we have seen a
repetition of that cycle over and over again in Africa.
As the chairman rightfully pointed out, there certainly are
climate causes to this, significant droughts and so forth.
But underlying that, there is the manmade causes as well--
the violence, the disruption. And unless we dedicate the time
and resources to dealing with these root cause issues to
working with the nations in Africa to develop the
infrastructure, to build in the political systems, et cetera,
to create stability and end this endless violent extremism and
civil conflicts, we will continue to see a repetition of the
human suffering.
So, we had in full committee yesterday the Secretary of
State talking about the State Department budget and, certainly,
one of my big concerns with the budget that's been put forth is
the devastating cuts to our development funding.
And the repercussions if that budget were to go forward
would change who we are as a nation and historically how we
have engaged with the rest of the world.
So in my remarks yesterday as well as I'll reiterate my
remarks today, we can't cut development like that because, one,
that's not a reflection of who we are as a nation.
I think America is a great nation, but a great nation leads
with its moral values. It doesn't withdraw from the world when
it sees suffering around the world and it is my hope as we
start moving through the budget cycle we are able to restore
those development funds.
We are able to keep the funding at a minimum where it's at
if not expand funding for aid around the world in development.
And, again, it is a world led by American values. Those
values of compassion, those values of trying to relieve the
suffering around the world is a better world.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield my time. I
have to attend something else that is starting at noon. I will
yield my time so the witnesses have more time to speak. Thank
you.
Mr. Suozzi. I will just say that so much of Africa is in
not only crisis but, as this document I am using from the
Africa Center for Strategic Studies, are facing emergencies and
catastrophes as well.
And these are short-term problems that we have to face
right immediately because people are suffering so dramatically.
But there is also long-term problems that are related to
climate change and this battle in the world between stability
and instability, and instability is growing throughout the
world and there is people that are trying to promote
instability.
And long-term strategies along the lines of what Dr. Bera
was just talking about are essential. So thank you for the good
work.
This is an emergency that needs to be addressed but there
is also a long-term that we need to develop. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
And I would like to now welcome our panel, beginning
first--what an extraordinary honor it is to welcome Ambassador
Tony Hall, former member, former chairman of the Hunger
Committee who has done more than just about anybody--I don't
know anybody in Congress who has done more.
I would put him right up there with the great Mickey Leland
and Bill Emerson, who also co-chaired the Hunger Caucus in the
past. But Tony has done it all.
He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three
times, a leading advocate for hunger relief programs and
improving human rights around the world. He serves as executive
director emeritus of the Alliance to End Hunger.
He also leads the alliance's engagement with the Global
Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition. He served as the
United States Representative to the U.N. Agencies for Food and
Agriculture in Rome.
I remember visiting him there, no one had a better handle
on what needed to be done and how to make it get done than Tony
Hall.
And then prior to his diplomatic service, Ambassador Hall
represented the Third District of Ohio in the House of
Representatives for 24 years. So, Tony, thank you again for
your extraordinary leadership.
We will then hear from Mr. Roger Thurow, who joined the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs as senior fellow for Global
Food and Agriculture in January 2010.
And after three decades at the Wall Street Journal, for 20
years he was a foreign correspondent based in Europe and
Africa, in 2003, he and his colleagues wrote a series of
stories on famine in Africa that was a finalist for the
Pulitzer Prize in international reporting.
He's the author of several books on hunger and his most
recent book, ``The First 1,000 Days: A Crucial Time for Mothers
and Children--And the World,'' was published in May.
I would point out that when Karen Bass and I met with
President Museveni for what I thought was an extraordinarily
important meeting of pushing him, he is very welcoming to the
refugees--over 900,000.
We gave him a copy of your book, and while Uganda has
signed up with the United Nations for the effort to deal with
that first 1,000 days with nutrition supplementation, we said,
you read this book and you will be the leader, Mr. President.
So as I said to your staff and you, the more copies you
give us, the more heads of state, health secretaries, and
everyone else will get a copy.
Thank you for that and thank you for your presentation to
the ambassadors from Africa several weeks back. I really
appreciate it.
Then we will hear, third, and thank you for being here as
well, Mr. Julien Schopp, director of humanitarian practice at
InterAction.
In this capacity he supports humanitarian emergency
responses and contributes to the improvement of humanitarian
practice on behalf of the network's members.
He works on improving partnerships with U.N. agencies,
overseeing countries' specific working groups, and facilitating
the development of clear advocacy positions on humanitarian
issues.
Before joining InterAction, Mr. Schopp worked as a senior
policy officer for the International Council of Voluntary
Agencies, focusing on forced displacement issues.
He has substantial field experience and has worked in
Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast, Uganda, Congo--Brazzaville, Sudan,
and Chad, and again, brings a wealth of experience that we need
to benefit from here on this subcommittee.
Ambassador Hall.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TONY P. HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EMERITUS, ALLIANCE TO END HUNGER
Ambassador Hall. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am
really glad to be here with my two distinguished colleagues and
they have amazing backgrounds and so it is great to share this
table with them and associate with them and what they're going
to say to you.
In regard to yesterday, I am so sorry what happened at the
ball diamond. I am very grateful that more congressmen didn't
get hurt. Had to be an act of God that, gee, that so many
congressmen didn't get hurt.
And I, being a member--a former Member of Congress for 24
years I know so many people don't appreciate the time that you
put in--the effort, and the effort that you give to the
country.
So I am very appreciative of what you--very thankful for
your service.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Bass, for your travelling to Uganda and to South Sudan. I think
that is so important for Members of Congress to travel.
I know that you travel, Chris and Congresswoman Bass,
because I travelled with you, Chris, before when I was here and
it's so important to travel and it's so important to see what
is going on in the world and because you vote on this.
It is important to see it and to smell it and to walk
around in it and to experience it, because when you come back
here, you know, we are in the information age.
I mean, there will be--as I understand, every Congress has
20,000 to 30,000 bills and issues that come before it and you
can sit back here and try to understand it.
But until you see it and feel it, walk around in it, you
don't really understand it. And so thank you very much for
going out to see it and witnessing these tragedies that we are
seeing in this world today.
You know, we have made tremendous progress in combatting
hunger in this world. In the past 30 years, we have cut--when I
say we, the hunger community--humanitarian community--we have
cut hunger in half and actually, we--I like to associate myself
with it--I want to associate myself with it--we have actually
cut poverty in half, which is amazing.
I mean, these programs that you have backed and supported,
they work. These food programs--these school feedings, this
clean water programs, these sanitation programs, microcredit,
microfinance, teaching women how to read and write, basic
education--these work and they have actually cut poverty and
hunger in half.
I think that is amazing. Thirty years ago when I was here,
I used to say today 42,000 people are going to die today from
hunger and hunger-related deaths.
Now, we say, today, 21,000 people are going to die today. I
mean, that is still a lot of people. But that is a tremendous
reduction and these programs work.
Now we find ourselves at a crossroads. Tens of millions of
people in Africa and the Middle East, they are on the verge of
starving to death. You saw it. Famine is something that is hard
to truly comprehend unless you have seen it with your eyes.
Mr. Bera, when you were probably a little boy, in the 1980s
when I took my first trip. I went to Ethiopia and I saw 25
children die in about 15 minutes from that great famine.
I was the first congressman to go to Ethiopia. I never got
over it. Chris has heard me tell this story and 10,000 people
were up on a plateau in the northern part of Ethiopia. I was
travelling with Mother Teresa's group, Sisters of Charity. We
were going to their clinic.
The clinic was no bigger than this room in the middle of
nowhere up near a place called Alamata. And these people were
running, trying to get away from this civil war that was going
on and the drought turned into a famine and it was a manmade
kind of famine, pretty much similar to what we have today.
And people just laid down, these 10,000 people, and died.
And I walked through them to get to this clinic. Mothers were
handing me their dead children. They thought I was a doctor.
They thought maybe I could revive them in some way.
I still think about that every--I can't say every day but a
lot. I never got over that. Twenty-five children in 15 minutes.
These famines that we are facing today are manmade and it
was a failure of leadership that led to these crises, and it
will take global leadership to respond.
And this is not only because of the sense of moral
responsibility but, frankly, saving lives makes strategic sense
as well.
My good friend, David Beasley, he is the former Governor of
South Carolina--he is the new director of the World Food
Programme.
He visited my organization, the Alliance to End Hunger,
last week, and he came along with the FAO director, General
Graziano da Silva. And David spoke frankly and convincingly
about the importance for the United States to take the lead in
responding to these famines and he stated that where there is
hunger there is migration and extremism and that food security
programs are a powerful weapon against these forces.
Even went as far as to say that as a conservative
Republican he could in all confidence tell policy makers that
funding for food security programs, both relief and
development, could do more to prevent and combat extremism than
many other measures the U.S. takes.
As I have seen this as I have travelled I can't tell you
how many--and I've been to 130 nations in this world. Some of
these nations like Ethiopia I've been to maybe three dozen
times.
I can't tell you how many times people have come up to me,
because they know I am a representative of the United States,
and they'll say to me, thank you. I mean, these are the people
that are starving. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
The good will that the United States gets. You know, we've
put on--and you've seen this--we put on our bags--and we
demanded this when we were in Congress 30 years ago.
We put on our bags of food the flag of the United States,
and in the language of the country that we are in, whether it's
North Korea, which we used to feed, or it's Arabic or whether
it's Swahili or whatever it is, in the language that that
country is in, it says donated by the people of the United
States. People never forget that.
I will never forget when I was Ambassador in Rome. The
President, Berlusconi, said--I think this was in 2002--he said,
never forget about the Americans.
Even when we weren't allies, he said, never forget what
they did for us after World War II about the Marshall Plan.
People don't forget.
Just last week, Admiral Mike Mullen and General James
Jones, they co-authored a piece in Politico that stated that in
the 21st century weapons and war fighters alone are
insufficient to keep America secure.
They went on to say that development assistance is a modern
national security tool and that cuts to USAID would increase
risk to Americans and to our brave military service members.
This is something that many if not all of us generally
agree on. Earlier this year, thanks to the leadership of
Members of Congress in this room, a budget was passed that
provided nearly $1 billion in emergency famine relief.
This follows last year's bipartisan support for the Global
Food Security Act, which will help to provide critical
development projects and funding. And this leads me to my next
point.
We cannot talk about addressing current famines without
talking about how we prevent them in the future. We have said
never again too many times.
There have been troubling conversations and proposals
recently around cutting and even eliminating much of our
international development funding.
There are some who argue that we should restrict
development to those countries that provide strategic advantage
to our defense and economic agendas.
But I tell you this, if we choose to cut development, that
we choose to disengage with a significant percentage of the
world's population, this is not strategic. It is poorly
informed shortsightedness.
If we choose to scale back our development activities in
the world, other countries should not be shy about stepping
into the gaps.
Last month, China's Xi Jinping, he pledged--they pledged
more than $100 billion for development projects in Asia,
Europe, and Africa, adding poverty-focused programs and
emergency aid to a list of infrastructure plans to link China
more closely with the developing world.
In an increasingly globalized world, with refugee
situations and migration constantly in flux, the threat of
extremism threatening our own citizens and our allies, there is
no corner of the world that is not strategically important.
We must end these famines now and bolster development that
would both save and improve lives and livelihoods. The United
States must continue to be the leader in global relief and
development.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hall follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for that
and, again, for your leadership that has been lifelong.
Mr. Thurow.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROGER THUROW, SENIOR FELLOW, GLOBAL FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE, THE CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thurow. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Hall, it was
very poignant and emotional comments and reminding us, again,
why we are all involved in this.
And thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bass and
distinguished members of this subcommittee, for inviting me
today to testify in this very important and extremely timely
topic.
And thank you for carrying the book halfway around the
world. It is all part of our great effort to make the first
1,000 days a household phrase around the world, not only in
those countries but here in the United States as well and the
importance of that.
So in order to respect the subcommittee's time, my oral
testimony will differ slightly from my longer written
statement, which we submitted for the record.
And I also wanted to thank you for your steadfast support
of agriculture development efforts for leading the way on the
Global Food Security Act, Mr. Chairman, and now for raising the
clamor about famine in your resolution and in this hearing and
for all the tremendous, hopefully, good that comes out, the
legislation on global health and, again, for raising the clamor
on famine.
That this medieval suffering continues today in the second
decade of the 21st century is, I believe, the biggest stain on
the world's conscience.
I witnessed famine and hunger crises, unfortunately, many
times as a journalist, first as a foreign correspondent with
the Wall Street Journal and now as a senior fellow to Chicago
Council on Global Affairs and author of three books on hunger
and malnutrition.
My first travels in the hunger zones of Africa came during
the Ethiopian famine of 2003. So nearly two decades after the
one that Tony described where we all linked our hands and said
never again, and here we were back again in 2003 when about 14
million people were on the doorstep of starvation then.
Upon arriving in the country, I met with the World Food
Programme workers who were scrambling to provide relief as the
hunger spread.
One of them gave me this piece of advice which, to me,
sounded like an ominous warning. Looking into the eyes of
someone dying of hunger, he told me, becomes a disease of the
soul.
The next day I stepped in an emergency feeding pen filled
with dozens of starving children and their parents. And I
looked into their empty lifeless eyes.
What I saw did indeed infect my soul like a disease. I saw
mothers in misery unable to stop the crying of a hungry child.
I saw the resignation and defeat in the eyes of the farmers who
had lost everything.
I saw families on the move, abandoning homes and hope. I
saw communities shattered, an entire generation--the children--
vanishing in the arms of their parents.
For me, it was impossible to see and not act, as I imagine
it is for you, having just come back from the trip and the
things that you've seen. What propels my writing and I am sure
what propels your action and the action of everybody on this
subcommittee is the firm conviction that things don't have to
be this way.
Yes, droughts will occur. Conflicts will rage. Corruption
will complicate relief efforts. But starvation and famine can
be avoided.
Emergency responses of food aid and water and shelter and
medicine are absolutely vital actions for sure. But they alone
won't prevent the next famine.
The next famine will only be prevented by long-term
agriculture development investments--the investments that give
farmers and their families resiliency against climate and
economic shocks--that provide food security that reduce
conflict--that promote economic prosperity and spread the hope
of better futures--the kind of investments we have seen work
pretty well under Feed the Future in the Global Food Security
Act.
So ending hunger wherever it may be is certainly the right,
the moral thing to do and that should motivate us all.
But it is also the smart thing to do for famine isn't just
something that happens over there somewhere. Famine impacts all
of us, no matter where it may be. The economic ripples of
hunger and malnutrition are powerful and long-lasting.
Even though a famine may end, the costs continue to
accumulate and roll over time. We are told by the World Food
Programme that today about 5.4 million children are dangerously
malnourished and more than 1 million are at risk of starvation
during these current famines and that without sufficient and
timely relief up to 600,000 children are at risk of death in
the coming months.
That's shocking and unconscionable. But from my
observation, the most pernicious impact of any hunger crisis
along with the lives lost is what becomes of those who survive.
The impact is greatest on women and children, particularly
those that are in this first 1,000 days period, the time from
the beginning of mother's pregnancy to the second birthday of
her child.
Any lack of food, any bout of malnutrition during this time
often leads to stunting, physically and cognitively. Stunting
is a life sentence of underachievement and under performance.
Currently in our world today, one in every four children
under the age of five is stunted. One in every four children.
The toll on the individual, the family, the community is
profound in the loss of education and labor productivity over
time.
For a stunted child becomes a stunted adult. Collectively,
this weakens our trading partners and it limits our global
opportunities.
Childhood malnutrition and stunting can cost individual
countries 8, 10, 12 percent of their annual GDP, according to
the World Bank, which also estimates the cost to the global
economy at about $3.5 trillion annually--trillion dollars
annually in lost productivity, higher health care costs, and
less in trade.
Those are big numbers. But perhaps the greatest cost to
childhood malnutrition and stunting are immeasurable. A poem
not written. A horizon not explored. An innovation not
nurtured. A cure not discovered.
What might a child have contributed to the world if he or
she hadn't been stunted? For, you see, a stunted child anywhere
becomes a stunted child everywhere.
To close, I just want to return briefly to Ethiopia and to
the 2003 famine. The first eyes that I looked into were those
of a starving 5-year-old boy named Hagirso.
The doctors and nurses and humanitarian relief workers were
working extremely hard to save him and all the other dozens of
children there. But they worried that Hagirso may not survive.
What I saw that day has continued to haunt me. I have often
wondered, well, whatever happened to Hagirso. So 10 years later
I returned to the scene of that awful famine. I was delighted
to find that Hagirso had survived but it was also clear he
wasn't thriving.
He was severely stunted. At 15 years old, he only came up
to the bottom of my rib cage, physically stunted, and he had
just begun attending first grade class, learning the alphabet
at 15--cognitive stunting.
Imagine what might this child have accomplished were he not
stunted. A lost chance at greatness for one child becomes a
lost chance of greatness for all of us.
That is what compels us to act today. This historical
American imperative to lead the way to the end of hunger and
malnutrition that bides today stronger than ever before.
So thank you for your time and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thurow follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF MR. JULIEN SCHOPP, DIRECTOR FOR HUMANITARIAN
PRACTICE, INTERACTION
Mr. Schopp. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Bass, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me here to testify.
I do not have the impressive resume of my co-panelists, but
hopefully I can bring here to this table some operational
realities that my members of InterAction face on a day-to-day
basis, bonded to those three famines.
So first of all, I would like to preface this testimony by
clarifying that InterAction is not an operational organization
itself but an alliance of operational NGOs, many of whom work
in these contexts.
I am, however, personally very familiar with these
countries as I have come back from South Sudan and Nigeria very
recently. So as you have all said, it bears repeating that this
is really an unprecedented crisis.
I won't go into the numbers, again, but what I would really
like to underscore is that when we speak of famine in Nigeria,
Somalia, and South Sudan, we are mostly speaking of avoidable
manmade crises as both state and nonstate actors are putting
civilians in harm's way and possibly in some cases using hunger
as a weapon of war.
In that sense, it is very important to have an effective
technical response to food insecurity but we also have to be
aware that it is only a temporary reprieve. It has to be
accompanied by robust diplomacy and commitments to respect the
rules of war.
I will go now a little bit into the challenges of the
humanitarian response. Access to those in need is paramount for
effective humanitarian action. But our field staff face
countless obstacles when they operate in those environments.
Chairman, you have mentioned the numbers of aid workers
killed in South Sudan--84. That is more than in Syria or
Afghanistan or Iraq that we maybe in our collective view see as
much more dangerous.
So put simply, the challenge lies in reaching the people
where they are, mostly because of security but also because of
acts from the governments.
In Nigeria, for instance, the military dictates the area
where humanitarians can go and we actually believe that the
need is actually greater than what we actually know today. When
new areas will be open, we fear that more need will be
discovered in those.
The host governments are also imposing undue obstacles on
humanitarian actors and goods, obstructing and delaying much-
needed humanitarian response.
As an example, in South Sudan, the 2016 NGO Act has placed
significant burdens on NGOs. We have recently faced challenges
with work permits, slowdowns in visa processing as well as
import licenses and, more importantly, travel is restricted for
NGOs that try to reach central Unity State where the famine has
been declared and that's really where the needs are.
My second point will be on the need for comprehensive
response. It is worthy to remind ourselves that famine is not
only providing food aid and nutrition assistance. By the time a
famine is reached, people are suffering from malnutrition.
They are weak, they are vulnerable to diseases and threats
of abuses and, of course, children under the age of five are
the most at risk.
Furthermore, in each context, instances of sexual
exploitation and abuse, forced recruitment and gender-based
violence are particularly acute.
Women, especially, are subject to the predation of those in
a position of power and authority. The ones that actually
provide the assistance can become the problematic actors in
these instances.
In Somalia, the increased household burdens placed on women
and girls has led to negative coping strategies including
transactional sex and early marriage.
So as a consequence, I think the humanitarian response
needs to be comprehensive, not only focused on nutrition and
food aid but look at a holistic picture, looking at health
consequences, as was already said, and also protection
intervention--how can we protect the most vulnerable in these
communities.
So the question is: What can the United States Government
do? We believe that the U.S. can take action to meet immediate
and urgent needs and to remove obstacles that impede access to
populations affected by famine.
So the U.S. should strongly encourage parties to the
conflict to respect the rules of war and guarantee that the
affected populations have access to humanitarian assistance.
Also, this in turns will make it less likely that aid is
diverted and more costly. Also, the U.S. should consider
granting humanitarian actors a clear and well understood
general license from the Treasury Department to operate in
areas that may be controlled by sanctioned entities because
that also is an issue for our members.
The United States should use diplomatic leverage to ensure
that bureaucratic impediments are minimized so humanitarian
actors and goods can get to the field in a timely and effective
manner.
The United States should also use flexible funding
mechanisms to facilitate a rapid, effective, coordinated, and
comprehensive humanitarian response.
Again, we have talked about the need for food, shelter,
water, and medicine that are essential but also programs to
prevent sexual exploitation, sexual violence, and forced
recruitment.
And within this, the U.S. should continue funding U.N.
agencies like the World Food Programme that have been already
mentioned but also beef up funding directly to NGOs that are at
the forefront and on the front lines of these responses.
So Congress, with the support of the chairman and the
ranking member on this committee provided $990 million to
respond to these alarming food security crises. It is now also
essential to ensure that these funds are allocated quickly and
effectively in all these three countries before it's too late.
So thank you again for the opportunity to address these
operational challenges that humanitarian actors face. Chairman
Smith, Ranking Member Bass, other members of the subcommittee,
you've demonstrated your leadership on this issue, and we count
on you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schopp follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Schopp, thank you very much for your
testimony and to the leadership of your organization.
I would note for the record that we had thought of inviting
a number of the NGOs that make up your very important
coalition.
But it has been my experience and the experience of many in
this work that when they come and testify, when they speak
candidly as you have just done so well, there is often a
retaliation in-country.
So I will never forget during the famine in Ethiopia,
Ambassador Hall, which you were there on the ground, the first
member of the U.S. House or Senate to be there, that there was
a big, big meeting and a lot of the NGOs did come.
I was at that hearing. I actually chaired it for a while
because everybody--it was a getaway day. A lot of people left.
So I asked a series of questions about impaired access,
fees. Mengistu, as we all remember, would not allow
humanitarian corridors and was also charging a per tonnage fee,
the same way that Salva Kiir now is doing on NGOs, which is
outrageous, and Karen Bass and I really pressed him on that--
how dare you charge the people that are feeding and clothing
your people because of the war that you have promoted and
they--and now you are charging a fee to do that lifesaving
work.
When I asked some very specific questions back during that
famine, nobody wanted to answer out of fear of retaliation.
So you put it all on the table in a very, very, very, I
think, succinct and persuasive way about, you know, the work
permits, the visa denials, certainly the fees and a whole lot
of other impairments.
So thank you for getting that on the record the way you
have. All your members should be very happy with the way you
have stood up for them and I don't think there is fear of a
retaliation because you have done it as the organizer--the
unity aspect of all this.
Let me just ask a few questions. Then I will yield to my
good friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, and then to Mr. Garrett.
You know, despite its visibility, Iraq and Syria, which--
what could be more in the news than Iraq and Syria--than Iraq
and Syria with all of the problems?
Despite all of that, there has been a gross under funding
from the very beginning for the UNHCR, for the World Food
Programme, so much so that in 2015 I chaired a hearing and we
had the Regional Representative of UNHCR to the United States
and Caribbean.
We had the Assistant Secretary for PRM (Population,
Refugees, and Migration) and the UNHCR representative said the
reason for the mass exodus into Europe was the 30 percent cut
in the World Food Programme and the 40 percent only meeting of
the obligations that UNHCR had done in their annual appeals. So
60 percent went unfunded, despite all the visibility.
So Germany and all these other countries that got huge
influxes of people and that presents challenges and also
presents opportunities.
Had they provided sufficient humanitarian assistance,
people might not have fled. They got to the point where they
said, I give up--they are not going to help us--we need to vote
with our feet.
That is compounded exponentially by South Sudan and several
potential African famines and there we do have gross under
funding of the World Food Programme.
When Karen Bass and I and Greg were in the refugee camp in
Bidi Bidi, despite the welcoming of the Ugandans for them,
while we were they said there was a 50 percent cut in food
rationing was under--and we saw that they were getting half of
the corn because there wasn't enough in the kitty, I know Karen
and I were both shocked as was Greg.
We came away and said, what? Who among us could live on
about 1,000 calories per day? There, everybody looked gaunt
already and it only will get worse.
So, again, to your point again, Ambassador Hall about
resourcing, if the Europeans won't step up we've got to make
sure that we are.
I am encouraged that Mark Green will be our new USAID
Administrator. He was on this subcommittee years ago--on my
subcommittee of all things--but, certainly, his real expertise
was developed as Ambassador to Tanzania and other work that he
did over the years.
So we will have a friend and I think he will push hard,
along with a few others, to make sure that we don't go below.
But there needs to be a bridge, which means even more for this
food aid and the like.
So thanks for underscoring that. But this hearing is being
held to be a catalyst hearing. We've reached out to Mike Pence
already.
I've talked to his chief of staff, a follow-up to Karen and
I's trip. Gave him all kinds of information and said, if not
us, who? These people are going to--wonderful people. We had
conversations.
Remember that one little 15-year-old in Bidi Bidi camp,
eyes down. He looked stunted, sadly, and your heart breaks
because it doesn't have to be this way. It is a manmade
problem.
So I think the diplomatic surge, Mr. Schopp, that you
referenced needs to be done. We have asked the administration,
my question yesterday to Rex Tillerson, and both Karen and I,
when we had breakfast last week said, a window of opportunity.
We need to be on the phone to President Salva Kiir and say
we mean business. And so my hope is that your testimony will
further that going forward.
So we will also hold a oversight hearing on the Global Food
Security Act. We will do it soon and because that is a plan,
it's a strategy.
It stresses resiliency. Dr. Shah, the former USAID
Administrator, was brilliant in his leadership and helped us
with that legislation. So I want to thank him. But now we need
to see implementation. That's the key.
So you have really covered just about everything but I
would ask one other thing, if I could. In August, when I went
there, I stressed with Salva Kiir that the Terrain compound and
the humanitarian aid workers that were raped including an
attempted rape on a person from my own district who fought back
and when the troops came in to rescue, thankfully, she had not
been raped but she was traumatized.
I said to Salva Kiir, his Chief of Defence Force--we said
it again together in a joint voice, you need a zero tolerance
policy, President Salva Kiir, with your security forces and
your military. No sexual assault, period.
So the upcoming trial, which has already begun, should be a
landmark, but not one and done prosecution. They need to hold
these soldiers to account for their exploitation that they have
gotten away with with impunity.
And that was our message, make sure this is done right but
it can't be over. There are so many indigenous South Sudanese
women who have been raped and harassed and hurt and, of course,
men and women have been killed. Hold the perpetrators of that
violence to account on an equal basis.
So and we did stress that when Karen and I met with Ajongo,
the new Chief of Defence Force, who we hope is a welcome breath
of fresh air and you might want to comment on that.
But our takeaway, mine and, I hope, yours was the same,
that he said the right things. He was very articulate and the
era of Paul Malong, hopefully, is over forever. He is under
house arrest.
So they need to change. Our meeting with Salva Kiir was
about almost 2 hours, would you say? And Ambassador McPhee, who
is doing a wonderful job there, has been pressing these issues
and we just added additional bipartisan support.
To your point, Ambassador Hall, about the United States of
America, we were at a warehouse where there was enough food to
feed 400,000 people--this was in Bentiu Camp in Unity State--
for how many months? A month? For 400,000 people, all courtesy
of us and that was great to see.
But we did meet with a member of our Embassy who, just as
you said, Mr. Ambassador, the thanks is long lasting.
He got into this work because 30 years ago he was in the
same situation, about 30 years ago, as a refugee and remembers
the generosity of the American people and now he's giving back
ever since to help others who are severely situated.
So question is more about the fees, we got to fight those.
We did raise it jointly, very aggressively, I thought and
hopefully, something comes out of it.
Ms. Bass. Unless you wanted to comment and then I will go
to Mr. Garrett.
Ambassador Hall. I don't have much to say because I think
you answered so many of the questions that I thought might come
to us and you answered in such a positive way.
I mean, we are very thankful to both of you for the way
that you supported the famine relief bill--the $1 billion--
almost $1 billion. I mean, that was tremendous and that is a
shot in the arm to the famine victims.
What the anti-hunger community is worried about--I mean,
this is their number-one worry is what the budget for 2018----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall. They are worried because, as you know,
they have--they have zeroed out many of the--not only the food
programs but they zeroed out the--almost the whole development
program under USAID and all the things that we have made such
progress in--cutting hunger in half, cutting poverty in half--
would just absolutely stop and reverse everything that's going
on.
We are very worried about that and it scares us because we
know all of the good work that you did with that $1 billion
would stop at the end of the year--at the end of this fiscal
year.
And so that scares us and that would absolutely cause all
these people, at the end of October to start--I mean, they
would die in alarming numbers because what the United States
does, we are the leader and what we do every other nation
follows us. So if we cut everybody else is going to cut and
that'll just be a disaster.
Ms. Bass. Well, I think the good news is is that when we
did have the hearing on the budget there really wasn't support.
I mean, bipartisan--Democrats and Republicans--all rejected the
cuts and so I think that's very helpful.
Now, on the other hand, I am a little concerned and I am
not sure how you feel about this, Mr. Smith. But we had
Tillerson, you know, at Foreign Affairs yesterday and I am just
a little concerned about whether or not that money has hit the
streets, when it's going to hit the streets and if it's held up
whether then it will be carried over into the next year and we
don't want to see this carried over.
We need additional funds. And so I really think that's
where you all come in because for us to know when exactly it
hits or if it's being held up we need for you guys to
communicate to us that the money has not been received.
It has not gotten there. But so I think we need to be on
the alert for that.
So I wanted to ask a few questions of each of you and
really appreciate you taking your time out for being here and
just also very much appreciate all of your work over the years.
So you mentioned the Global Food Security Act and, Mr.
Thurow, you wrote a blog a few years ago that said common sense
had long ago left the U.S. food aid system.
And so I wanted to know, given that we have taken a step
forward in the right direction, if you think there are further
modifications that you would recommend that Congress consider.
I was encouraged--I will tell you that when we passed--when
we were passing the bill I received a lot of push back from my
Democratic colleagues because they were concerned that if you
purchase food locally that there wouldn't be that message that
you spoke about--a gift from the American people.
So I was happy when I was in South Sudan I saw the
differences in the bags. So this is locally purchased. It says
a product of Uganda but it does say it's a gift of the American
people along with this is food that we actually shipped.
So we took a step in the right direction and how much
further--what more would you recommend we do and I'd like to
ask that of both Ambassador Hall and Mr. Thurow.
Mr. Thurow. Yes, thanks for that and, yes, I was trying to
think--I was talking with my colleagues about what have I
written in the past on this----
Ms. Bass. That was one.
Mr. Thurow [continuing]. Just to be consistent. No,
exactly. I was back and reading the first book and things that
come, basically, out of what we saw during the famine of
Ethiopia of 2003.
And I think it was kind of coming out of there where this
whole need for some kind of reform, of greater efficiency to
our U.S. food aid system was emerging because I remember having
discussions then and my colleague at the Wall Street Journal,
Scott Kilman, at the time and speaking with Andrew Natsios, who
was the USAID Administrator there, and he felt at that time,
you know, that he needed more flexibility to address that
famine on the ground.
The food wasn't getting there quick enough that he thought.
USAID had calculated that it might, through some kind of cash
component, if the food got there cheaper, was there quicker,
also provides an incentive to the local farmers and the markets
there that here's some purchasing action coming, that an
additional, I think it was back then 50,000 lives saved or so
could be achieved and so that is the goal and that is what one
is looking for.
I think continuing with the efforts that we've seen on kind
of adjusting and reforming the food aid to make it as efficient
as possible can in whatever kind of construct that it is but
that we want to feed as many people as possible and as quickly
as possible and as cheaply as possible.
And I think that the U.S. administration, Congress, the
people on the ground, to have as many options and as many tools
available to be able to achieve that I think is what really
needs to happen.
So I would say yes, continuing with the efforts to make it
more efficient, to save more lives and to have this flexibility
and this variety of options and tools there for people to
actually be able to deploy I think would be great and you can
kind of see the progress then that has been kind of
evolutionary since the 2003 famine in Ethiopia.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Ambassador Hall.
Ambassador Hall. If we can buy the food locally it's a good
idea to buy it locally because it's much less expensive and it
helps the farmers. It is a good deal.
Oftentimes, a lot of people say, oh, let's buy the food
locally. We can't buy the food locally sometimes.
Ms. Bass. Mm-hmm.
Ambassador Hall. I remember this problem we had when I was
Ambassador in Rome and we had this--we had this tremendous
drought in South Africa and all the ambassadors in Europe they
were pushing, oh, let's buy the food locally--let's buy the
food locally. We couldn't buy the food locally because that's
where the drought was.
Ms. Bass. Yes, but doesn't locally mean within the region?
I mean, it doesn't have to mean down the street.
Ambassador Hall. We couldn't buy it in the region. So we
had to ship----
Ms. Bass. Somewhere in Africa?
Ambassador Hall. We couldn't--the whole region of South
Africa didn't have enough food for us to buy. So we had to
bring food in from America, which was fine.
But the European ambassadors were up in arms because we
were bringing in GMO foods. And I, personally, support GMO
foods. There is nothing wrong with it. But that raised a whole
other problem.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall. And so you can't always buy----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall [continuing]. Local foods.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall. That's the first thing. So if we can't buy
local foods, that's great. Secondly, school feeding is really
great. If we could do school feeding, you get not only the boys
in there, you get the girls.
And when you do that, it's one less meal that the farmers
have to feed. If you do vaccinations--if you do vaccinations,
if you teach the mothers how to read and write, if you do micro
credit, if you clean water--you do those four or five things
you will change the country overnight.
Ms. Bass. Well, those are--those are things that I would
classify and maybe you would or maybe you wouldn't as helping
to build the resilience of communities.
I mean, it's one thing to address the famine. My concern is
is that we are going to have this big effort this year and 12
months from now, because the underlying problems haven't been
solved, we'll be right back.
We might not have a drought but, you know, the conflicts
will be carrying on. So were you describing resiliency--some
programs?
Ambassador Hall. I am describing the resiliency. We have to
feed them first.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall. You've got to save their lives. You must
answer the famine. If you don't do that, they will die and we
have to keep that up.
And what you have to be aware of is you got to be aware of
the bureaucracy--of the U.N. system and the bureaucracy of the
countries, whether it's the United States bureaucracy----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall [continuing]. Or it's the European
bureaucracy, because they'll kill you.
Ms. Bass. And----
Ambassador Hall. If you don't have that money in the system
and if you don't push that system, we'll wake up all of a
sudden and, you know, in January or February we'll say, what
the heck happened.
So it's incumbent now, not only on us, the anti-hunger
community--it's incumbent upon the Congress then to push that
money that you passed, that that is pushed out into the
system--that that money is used to buy the food whether it's
local or here----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Hall [continuing]. In the United States and get
out there to those countries where it's needed.
Ms. Bass. And my request to you all is that you help us
with that in terms of letting us know.
Ambassador Hall. We will do that but you also have to use
your power.
Ms. Bass. Absolutely.
Ambassador Hall. Because when you call--when a Congressman
or a Senator calls the bureaucracy and says, what the heck is
going on, they get excited.
Ms. Bass. Yes, but----
Ambassador Hall. They get nervous.
Ms. Bass [continuing]. I guess the point I was making is
for you to assist us in terms of when to make that call because
as we move on we won't necessarily follow the money trail.
You raised several issues that I wanted to--you mentioned
Nigeria dictates where we can go so that was of concern to me
because I am wondering does that mean that you can't get to
where you need to go, and I know that situation in South Sudan.
Now, one of the things, as Mr. Smith raised, when we were
there we were very, very strong on the fees because the fees
have been $10,000 and then it was lowered to $3,500 and I think
that was supposed to be okay. But it wasn't.
And so we pressed very hard that they not do that and so
then the question are they doing that? What happened?
You also mentioned funding directly to NGOs and so my
question is well, what happens now--where does the money go?
Are there intermediaries before it gets to your member
organizations? So hopefully you got all those.
Mr. Schopp. Okay. So thank you. In terms of the question on
Nigeria and the army telling us where to go, the first instance
is, of course, a security concern.
Ms. Bass. Yes.
Mr. Schopp. Boko Haram is, of course, not very friendly to
our activities and there is this desire to protect and not have
incidents happen as they are conducting their counterinsurgency
operations.
At the same time we do believe that they're trying to, hide
is maybe not the correct word, but to do some cleanup away from
the eyes of the international community.
And so the issues around access, the issue around the ways
that the counterinsurgency operations are conducted because
we've heard of a number of reports of human rights violations
as those were happening, I think, is of concern.
So that's about that. In terms of the fees, I think the
fear that we have is it's--thank you, really, for raising this
issue forcefully with the Government of South Sudan.
Sometimes the chain of command between the top and the
local representative or the representative of this minister or
this minister is not happening very well and therefore each
bureaucrat, if you will, either honestly----
Ms. Bass. Well, is that what that is or is that corruption?
Mr. Schopp. I wouldn't use the word corruption necessarily.
There is rent-seeking. There is rent-seeking at all levels of
the South Sudanese Government and so I wouldn't call it
corruption, that directly, but it's trying to get some
resources where they are and such a resource for a country, as
you know, those NGOs represent a source of resources.
Regarding direct funding to NGOs, I mean, it sometimes gets
lost within the big system response. I think there needs to be
a little bit more analysis on who is on the ground and who can
provide the assistance the best.
Ms. Bass. Well, isn't it an intermediary that funds your
member organizations or----
Mr. Schopp. I think there are really different models. Some
money comes through U.N. agencies, in which case then there is
a bureaucratic slowdown.
But at the same time, it allows for coordination and
harmonization. So we just have to make sure the money goes
quickly.
And in other cases, it's just not going sufficiently to
NGOs. Sometimes it's not really the case necessarily for the
U.S. Government but for other governments that have less means
to program their money.
They'll just sign a big check and it gets lost. So, really,
getting more analysis done on how can we reach the
beneficiaries the best way and who are the best organizations,
which requires a little bit more work.
Ms. Bass. You also mentioned removing obstacles. So is that
what you're describing?
Mr. Schopp. Well, the obstacles are more the impediments
around fees, around the visas. In Nigeria, there were a lot of
issues around visas. In Somalia, some access to airstrips and
things like that that are off limits.
I think for us money is the first priority. The second one
is access to the people and this is where security bureaucratic
impediments come and prevent us from responding as well as we
are ready to.
Ms. Bass. Well, thank you. I appreciate it.
One thing before I yield back my time is after we came back
last week we went up to--I went with Representative Lee and we
went to New York and visited a couple of the missions--the U.N.
missions--and I am concerned about the European response
because everybody seemed as though they understood and that
they were going to weigh in but at the level of which they were
going to contribute was of major concern--$7 million, $8
million, $9 million.
And so I also think we need to pay attention to that and I
believe there is a donor conference that's coming up soon, I
think in the next couple of weeks.
Ambassador Hall. Yes, that's a really good point.
Oftentimes they have these pledge conferences in New York and
oftentimes in Rome because the big humanitarian organizations
are really in Rome through the World Food Programme, FAO, and
those are the conferences where these countries really need to
be put on the spot because they give these flowing speeches and
then they like to blame the United States--you guys don't do
enough.
And like you say, United States will come up with $1
billion and they will say--and then they will give a wonderful
speech and they will say, well, we'll give $8 million or $9
million and it drives you crazy. And so we----
Ms. Bass. Who follows up when they----
Ambassador Hall. We pushed--we push them very, very hard
and we try to embarrass them to give a lot more money, and it
just--it is very frustrating sometimes.
And I think when you travel like you do, you and the
chairman, I think it's very, very important to really point
that out. To even write about it sometimes, and publicity and
stuff like that, that oftentimes a lot of the countries do a
lot of talking but they don't produce.
And I used to sit in those pledging conferences and it
would surprise you of the money--of the speeches that they
would give and the lack of money that would back it up.
Mr. Thurow. I was just going to say I think there is also a
shortsightedness, certainly, to their response and their
contributions, and then to kind of also hammer home, and I am
sure everybody does this and as a journalist writing about
these things why it is in their interest--in the Europeans'
interest to be involved in this.
As you were talking about, the number of refugees then that
have flooded into Europe because that's their first stop as
they're fleeing hunger, they're fleeing poverty, they're
fleeing conflict.
That is where they are ending up first and that a lot of
this could be preventative. They are more proactive in saying,
let's do what we can to resolve these issues so all these
people stay where they are because that's what those people
want to do as well.
They don't want to have to flee. And so that's where the
whole resiliency comes in. They have no option. What are they
going to do?
So they go, and that's their first stop, and so it's their
self-interest.
Mr. Schopp. Just to add one word, I think we need to ask
more of the Europeans but also of the global community because
in general the humanitarian needs, if you look at the global
picture, is growing, growing, growing, growing in terms of
dollars amounts and number of people that need to be assisted.
So we need to talk more to the Gulf countries, to talk more
to China, to talk more to nontraditional donors because at some
point it's not going to be possible for the U.S. or Europe to
continue carrying that load and it's part of our responsibility
to work with them.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Congresswoman Bass. Some
observations laced with questions.
There are entities who we certainly could appreciate seeing
more done by who will only export food aid when they export
ideology and I think that becomes problematic, and I think we
need to discourage this.
I commend all members of the panel. I am an interesting
thinker and what I've written in my flow chart is that food
equals stability, stability facilitates education, education
facilitates development and development facilitates peace.
We don't want to create a perpetual state of foreign aid
sustaining populations and nations. We want to create a
circumstance where nations can sustain themselves. To
paraphrase a book I once read parts of, teach a man to fish.
And so that's the goal.
The one point that I've heard made that turned the light
bulb on for me to get to that end, that stability, via food,
facilitating education which facilitates development--and the
stunting testimony, by the way, was compelling--which would
facilitate peace and then more stability was the school
feeding.
And so to the extent that that's a paradigm that we need to
learn more and foster I think which should be encouraged and I
also think that given the fact that ideology is optional but
food is necessary that your school feeding creates a paradigm
wherein young women might have access to opportunities and
thank you for pointing that out.
But by virtue of some of the events in some of the regions
of Africa that we are discussing I would welcome more input on
how we foster programs like that.
The other point that I want to make, and open the floor to
you all to speak to, is that you have this self-perpetuating
cycle that's not stability, education, development, and peace
but instead lawlessness, hopelessness, and then displacement.
And, ultimately, where there is helplessness, radicalization
occurs. Very rarely do you see a young woman or man who is
aspiring to be a doctor or a teacher commit an act of radical
violence.
It is only where hopelessness has manifested itself in a
community, which usually occurs where there is lawlessness, and
where a vacuum is filled by someone who's a strongman, usually,
who visits violence to control a community.
I guess what I am driving at is that we need to sell to
people the peace dividend of food, right? And so, again, I
would invite comment on that. But I think to the extent that we
can show that where that works they will have a hard time
selling our colleagues, and an easier time selling our
colleagues on the expenditure.
Where have we seen stability as a result of feeding, and
education, and development as a paradigm moving forward? It is
amazing for me, having visited with refugees in Europe, and my
insistence that Europe doesn't see the upside to the
investment.
It just blows my mind, and I've often argued that the one
thing that six--and then we'll talk about Syria. I will get--I
will jump out of Africa for a moment. The one thing that 6
million displaced people have in common is that they don't want
to be displaced.
So if you could help people where they are and create
opportunity where they are. But, again, it's not ultimately
about just sending food. It is about creating a circumstance
where, ultimately, they can lift themselves up and feed
themselves, which brings--I am sorry for the soliloquy but, my
gosh, they gave me the gavel, we are all in trouble--which
brings to mind Ethiopia, which is an amazing situation because
while we've seen economic development, particularly by
percentage, impressive on the world stage, I challenge the
folks in the audience today to pull out their cell phones and
Google Ethiopia population density and Ethiopia rainfall, and
then compare Ethiopia's 270 persons per square mile and then
multiply it by two because about half of Ethiopia is virtually
uninhabitable--to the United States' 91 or Russia's 22.
And so what we have now is a circumstance where if we don't
get education and we don't see continued growth on the pace
that Ethiopia is growing, which is improbable because they've
exploded, although the people at the bottom haven't gotten the
memo, it's unsustainable, right.
I mean, tell--you can tell me otherwise. So we have to get
that education component in and it becomes as ultimate chicken
and egg game.
So I would ask you all to help us speak to our colleagues
in a language they can understand and I look to the doctor and
say you're right, what appeals to a member of my party might
be, hey, we can stem global radicalization by virtue of
feeding, and what appeals to a member of another party might be
something else, but we are all working toward the same end,
which is peace and stability.
So maybe talking points on how to sell this. I would hate
to see what is a tiny percentage of the discretionary budget
axed, by virtue of people who I think are rightly fiscally
conservative, because they don't understand just how darn much
good this does.
So I guess I am asking for help with messaging and maybe
any guidance you all could give.
Ambassador Hall. Well, you make a lot of good points and
you ask a lot of good questions. I think the first issue I'd
like to talk about is school feeding, and school feeding is
really important because especially in these--in these
developing nations that are extremely poor, most of these kids,
they don't get proper nutrition at home and they're lucky if
they get one good meal a day.
We fortify the food oftentimes at the schools and they get
the vitamins and minerals that they need and these are really
well-fortified meals, and oftentimes what happens is is that
the fathers, you know, they have to keep their children home to
work in the fields but they can't really afford to feed them.
And so it's very, very difficult.
But when you tell the father and the mother that we will
feed them in schools, they will send them to schools. And we
give them enough food--enough fortified food in those schools
and they will send daughters which often, in a lot of
countries, they don't do.
But because we feed both of them, I mean, that is really
something that they go for. So it's--school feeding really,
really works and it--it is very----
Mr. Garrett. Where--go ahead. I am sorry. Where are we
doing this now? What countries are we----
Ambassador Hall. We are doing it in almost all of these
countries. Where we have a problem is is where we have civil
war it's very difficult to do it.
You know, we don't necessarily do it in countries where
there is civil war but we do it--we do it in, of course, all
the Feed the Future countries, which are 19 countries, most of
which are in Africa. So we do it in a lot of the countries and
it really works.
The second thing you ask about is that where there is
hunger, when people are hungry, especially a young man, you'll
do anything to eat, and you put a gun in somebody's hand and he
will use that gun.
He will figure out a way to get food. And, you know, when
you're hungry and you put a gun in somebody's hand, you got a
security problem. So feeding somebody and school feeding is
really a security problem.
When people are hungry, the chances of recruiting
terrorists are pretty good. It is pretty easy to recruit them.
It is a real security problem.
The third thing you asked about is that education and one
of the things that we have found out is that a very simple
thing of teaching mothers how to read and write is one of the
best things that we can do.
When you teach mothers how to read and write, the
population of the country goes down. Birth rate drops and the
malnutrition goes down and the gross national product goes up
in the country.
We found that through hearings when we had the Select
Committee on Hunger. That is an amazing statistic, because the
women, they not only get smart, they realize they don't have to
have as many children.
They start to understand what it is to boil water, what it
is about nutritious foods. They understand about breastfeeding
and they start to think, I know how to make a little bit of
money now.
I mean, we start to give them loans--small loans. They pay
it back with interest--micro credit--and all of a sudden they
start hiring a few people and the gross national product of the
country goes up.
And micro credit and education of the mothers is one of the
smartest things you can do. You start doing those three or four
things in a country and you will see the country improve by
leaps and bounds within 10 years.
Mr. Garrett. Yes, I am just thinking out loud. I really
appreciate your testimony and I really think I've learned a lot
today.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to look at U.S.
military expenditure by nation in Africa versus food
expenditure and--because, again, it's about ROI. I am a budget
hawk.
We have a problem as a nation with spending. But just
because we need to make cuts doesn't mean we need to cut
everything.
So I think the way to sell the right thing to so, which I
think the hunger relief that you're advocating for is on
multiple levels, because it's a humanitarian thing to do,
because it's a national security interest.
Because we want to see stability and prosperity so that we
can continue to thrive and prosper as a global marketplace.
But you've got to show the ROI to the reluctant, to the
skeptic, and say this money will save money and lives on the
front end and the back end. So----
Ambassador Hall. The other thing, too, is a lot of them are
eating the very food that our farmers have grown. That's not a
bad deal, either.
Mr. Thurow. Right. There is one more economic analysis on
the ROI points but then also the benefits of food aid of the
global health efforts--of these efforts on the 1,000 days. And
so that's what makes this point that, you know, and we all
agree all these things are the right thing to do and the moral
thing to do.
That's why we should do them. There are the security
aspects of it. There are the security reasons to do it. But
it's also just essentially the smart thing to do economically.
And in terms of talking points, Congressman, what you had
said kind of earlier at the outset even before the testimony
began, global health is American health. Global prosperity is
American prosperity. Global well-being is American well-being.
And so that's why what happens on the hunger front, on the
nutrition front, on the ending famine front in Africa is so
vital for here because none of these problems--the problems of
hunger and malnutrition there is no kind of sequestering that
or putting a wall around any of that because it seeps over time
and over space.
And the whole thing about the youth and it's just this huge
youth bulge that we see in Africa and other countries and in
places like India, they're looking for, and we are also then
looking for, from them, this demographic dividend that comes
from that.
But the hunger, the malnutrition, particularly in this
1,000 day period, if all these children that are there are
getting off to such a lousy start in life and that are
sentenced to this life sentence of underachievement and under
performance, basically by the time they're 2 or 3 years old
that demographic dividend becomes a demographic disaster not
only for those countries but for all of us.
Mr. Garrett. Mr. Schopp.
Mr. Schopp. I don't have much to add, just to agree that to
some extent all these cases be it hunger, be it radicalization,
all you want to call it, are the result of development failures
and of governance failures.
So if we address these issues there is a return on
investment that comes at the end of the day because you don't
need to invest in mitigating measures be they humanitarian or
others further down the line.
So I think we have to see a long-term and we have to have
humanitarian and development actors work closer together.
Mr. Garrett. Very quickly, how can the U.S. Government, in
rendering assistance, and I know that the budget for school
feeding is zeroed on paper--I hope we can change that--but how
can the U.S. Government in working with private entities
maximize output?
Who can give me some examples of what can be done or what
is being done to get the greatest, again, ROI, for lack of a
better term, with some of the entities like the ones with whom
you work? What can we do better? What's being done well?
Mr. Thurow. I was going to say, one example that I think
has been zeroed out is the McGovern-Dole feeding program. All
the things that Tony was talking about and the incentive to get
the children into school if the food is there--one, feeding
them but then also the education that comes from that.
And I've seen that program and then also school feeding in
the U.S. in terms of the number of countries where school
feeding is on the ground.
It is been in a number of countries and particularly in
Africa where I've seen that. You really do see the impact of
that in terms of the health of the children, the education of
the children, and then the well-being of the communities that
comes from that as well.
Ambassador Hall. The other thing, they have completely
zeroed out the whole development budget for USAID. I mean, how
can you--I mean, development, that's what we've been talking
about here for the past hour is development programs.
I mean, yes, we have got to help with the famine. You have
got to help people live. But if you don't have development
programs like school feeding, like teaching mothers how to read
and write, like micro credit, you can't help these people get
on their feet. And it's zeroed out. It is, like, zero. They
didn't leave anything in there. So yeah.
Mr. Garrett. I would offer Mr. Bera the floor for any
comments or questions he might have and I thank you gentlemen
for your testimony.
Mr. Bera. Great. Very quickly, since those bells going off
are votes getting called so we have got a few votes.
But I think this is pretty fascinating. I mean, if I think
about the crisis that we are about to face, we are not looking
at one famine.
We are looking at potentially four famines simultaneously
and as I talked about my childhood, watching some of these
horrific pictures, we've got the short-term challenge, right--
the relief of suffering and so forth.
But then I think we've got to look beyond that so we don't
have this cycle of repetition and look at some of the long-term
stability.
How do we create stable political structures in some of
these countries? How do we make those investments, Ambassador
Hall, that you were talking about in terms of school lunch
programs, in terms of educating mothers, continued investment
in maternal-child health, that continued investment in family
planning, which may not necessarily, as you already pointed
out, be the political divide that sometimes we get into here.
But family planning could be education, right, and
empowerment and as a way of reducing birth rates.
So I know we are running out of time here but would love to
follow up and have that conversation because really when you do
look at our foreign aid budget and where we make those
investments, we may not be making the right investments for
long-term stability, you know, to get the right return on those
investments.
So we will reach out and I would love to have a longer
conversation and also love to work with Mr. Garrett on thinking
about how we build some of those structures because, again, I
think--this is a bipartisan issue when you're thinking about
how you address and create long-term stability and
infrastructure.
That is not only in the interests of the countries, it's in
our interest as well. So thank you.
Ambassador Hall. I will just say real quickly you have
already started your long-term programs through one of the best
programs I've seen here in the last 5 years as Feed the Future.
You've started it. It is a tremendous investment in
agriculture because agriculture is 80 percent of all the
workers in these developing nations is in agriculture area, and
you've started it.
I mean, and that really is working. It is an investment in
research. It is an investment in seeds. It is an investment of
the right type of agriculture and it's really working and that
really is an investment in the future.
Mr. Garrett. Gentleman, I thank you and I thank those in
attendance--Dr. Bera. Unfortunately, they have called the
votes. We've got about 7 or 8 minutes on the clock, so we are
going to adjourn, and I thank you again.
[Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]