[Senate Hearing 117-646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







                                                        S. Hrg. 117-646

                      GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY CRISIS 
                         AND THE U.S. RESPONSE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING



                               BEFORE THE



                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE



                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS



                             SECOND SESSION



                               __________

                             JULY 20, 2022

                               __________



       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations









[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]










                  Available via http://www.govinfo.gov 
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
51-805 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023





















                  


                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

             ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman        
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      MITT ROMNEY, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
                                     BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
                 Damian Murphy, Staff Director        
        Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director        
                    John Dutton, Chief Clerk        



                              (ii)        

  



















                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator From New Jersey..............     1

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho....................     2

Thomas-Greenfield, Hon. Linda, U.S. Ambassador to the United 
  Nations, New York, NY..........................................     5
    Prepared Statement...........................................     6

Power, Hon. Samantha, Administrator, U.S. Agency for 
  International Development, Washington, DC......................     8
    Prepared Statement...........................................     9

Beasley, Hon. David, Executive Director, World Food Programme, 
  Rome, Italy....................................................    32
    Prepared Statement...........................................    34

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Responses of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez...........................    43

Responses of Ms. Samantha Power to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  Robert Menendez................................................    44

Responses of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to Questions 
  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch............................    51

Responses of Ms. Samantha Power to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  James E. Risch.................................................    52

Responses of Mr. David Beasley to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  James E. Risch.................................................    56

Responses of Ms. Samantha Power to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  John Barrasso..................................................    61

                                 (iii)

  

 
                      GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY CRISIS 
                         AND THE U.S. RESPONSE 

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert 
Menendez, chairman of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Menendez [presiding], Cardin, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Van Hollen, Risch, 
Romney, Portman, Young, Barrasso, and Hagerty.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

    The Chairman. This hearing will come to order. Let me thank 
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield and Administrator Power for 
appearing before our committee as we examine one of the most 
fundamental and far-reaching threats the world faces today, 
which is global food security.
    We must be crystal clear about what is at stake. Nearly 828 
million people are at grave risk of hunger and disease, with 
many at risk of outright starvation. While far more complex 
than a land war or terrorist attack, the global food security 
crisis represents the clearest threat to global peace and 
security we have seen in decades. Ruthless autocrats, militias, 
and terrorist organizations have always used food as a weapon 
of war, and Vladimir Putin is no different.
    Ukraine has long been considered a critical breadbasket of 
the world. Disrupting food shipments and promoting a 
disinformation campaign about Ukraine's role in the resulting 
food crisis have been a deliberate byproduct of Vladimir 
Putin's brutal invasion in February. Russian forces occupied 
farms. They destroyed tractors and combines. They blockaded 
ports and bombed rail lines. The war has decimated three 
seasons of Ukrainian grain production.
    We have to remember that the resulting food security 
process was not a byproduct of Russian aggression. Starvation 
is part of their strategy. In April, the Deputy of the Russian 
Security Council openly admitted food was the Kremlin's 
``silent but menacing'' weapon. Now Putin is amplifying the 
horrific effects of the war in Ukraine, accelerating global 
hunger as leverage for sanctions relief.
    Prior to Putin's invasion, 26 countries, many of them in 
the Middle East and across Africa, relied on Russia and Ukraine 
for wheat imports, but Putin just poured jet fuel on that fire. 
From climate change and natural disasters to supply chain 
bottlenecks and the COVID pandemic, this crisis had been 
building for some time.
    Over the last 2 years there has been an alarming 200 
percent rise in people who go to sleep hungry and desperate, 
unsure where their family's next meal will come from, who will 
leave their homes in search of food, who will do what they must 
to survive. If we do not collectively respond, the global 
hunger crisis will deepen conflicts and further destabilize 
fragile regions of the world that are already struggling.
    In the heart of Africa, an unprecedented three failed rainy 
seasons endangers the lives of 21 million people. Hundreds of 
thousands face starvation in Somalia alone. In Central America, 
the dry corridor spanning from Panama to southern Mexico 
threatens the livelihoods of millions and is one of the core 
drivers of forced migration.
    We are also not immune from these threats here in the 
United States. Russia's war in Ukraine is a key factor behind 
historic levels of price inflation for fuel and food in the 
United States. Most homes across America are feeling the 
squeeze, with low-income households hit the hardest. The United 
States has an absolutely critical role to play combatting this 
global crisis.
    Congress has taken action, in a bipartisan manner, passing 
the recent $5 billion Ukraine Emergency Supplemental Package, 
to get food aid and agricultural support to parts of the world 
impacted directly by Russia's reckless actions. We need to make 
sure the money we have appropriated is spent expeditiously and 
responsibly so that we can help those who need it the most, but 
we also need to recognize that this is a political crisis, and 
to solve it we will need a political solution, with American 
diplomacy leading the way.
    This hearing will examine what the United States must do to 
prevent the crisis from overwhelming the world, and I look 
forward to hearing more from our witnesses today on what 
actions the Biden administration is taking to combat the 
underlying drivers of food insecurity, how are you using the 
recent emergency supplemental funds provided by Congress, what 
do you need from Congress to achieve our national security and 
humanitarian goals. To get a better understanding of our 
diplomatic efforts, I want to hear more about the ways in which 
we are tackling this problem through close collaboration with 
our allies and friends who share our concerns.
    Finally, I hope you will talk about the ways we can 
continue to keep the pressure on Russia for their inhumane and 
criminal actions. We must do better to combat Russia's 
successful disinformation campaign, blaming Ukraine and anyone 
else for Putin's own starvation campaigns.
    With that I return to the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement. Senator Risch.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No nation on Earth 
has done more to reduce global hunger and stimulate 
agriculture-led economic growth than the United States of 
America. It was American grit and ingenuity that spurred a 
Green Revolution back in the 1950s and 1960s, which transformed 
global agriculture, reduced poverty, and ultimately saved 
billions of lives.
    Today, through Feed the Future, we are trying to amplify 
that progress by helping people increase yields, gain access to 
markets, and grow their way out of poverty so they can secure 
the food and nutrition their families need to survive and 
thrive.
    I am proud of the work America has done and the 
contributions my state have made to it. I also am proud of the 
work we have done to get emergency food aid to people in their 
hour of need. Here again, no nation on Earth has been more 
committed to helping avert starvation. Food security is 
national security. As we saw during the Arab Spring and in 
places like Sri Lanka today, hunger is a destabilizing force 
that brings people to the streets and sends leaders into exile.
    It is in our interest to respond, first by providing 
emergency assistance when and where it is needed most, then 
helping people transition away from dependence and towards 
self-reliance. It is in America's best interest.
    The Global Food Security Act provides a roadmap for this. I 
have joined forces with Senator Casey to reauthorize it this 
year and look forward to working with our colleagues to ensure 
it moves quickly, seamlessly, and unburdened by additional 
mandates.
    It would be impossible to talk about the state of global 
food security today without focusing on Russia's unprovoked war 
in Ukraine. Let us be clear. This is not a crisis. It is a 
brutal, unprovoked war that has taken a massive toll, not just 
on Ukraine and Europe, but on the entire world. In this war, 
Putin is using food as a weapon, with the ultimate goal of 
starving the world into submission.
    I recently returned from Ukraine where I saw bombed-out 
bridges, hospitals, and churches. I saw ambulances bringing 
Ukrainian soldiers and civilians to clinics, and train cars 
serving as surgical centers. I also saw evidence of deliberate 
campaign to permanently destroy and displace Ukraine's 
agricultural productivity in a campaign to bend the world to 
Putin's will by leveraging access to food for sanctions relief.
    The U.N., including the World Food Programme, must not be 
complicit in this campaign. They cannot continue to appease 
Russia in order to secure short-term, partial compliance with 
international humanitarian obligations. It is very 
disheartening when I hear Americans, or for that matter, anyone 
else, particularly those who operate in the U.N., suggesting 
that Ukraine has any--any--responsibility for this at all. This 
is all Putin's. It is all Russia's fault.
    Congress is doing its part. We have provided billions of 
dollars in assistance to stop the war and address its 
humanitarian impact across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and 
Latin America. Obviously, other donors also need to do more.
    In the meantime, we must do everything we can to stretch 
USAID dollars further. This includes removing U.S. cargo 
preference requirements on food aid that have outlived their 
purposes, drive up costs, and slow the delivery of lifesaving 
food up to 12 months. There are only three bulk carriers left 
in the U.S. fleet that carry food aid, none of which are 
militarily useful. To suggest that maintaining U.S. cargo 
preference for food aid is somehow vital to maintaining U.S. 
maritime security is inaccurate, at best.
    Last year alone, cargo preferences cost USAID an extra $80 
million in transportation costs. Imagine all of the starving 
men, women, and children we could have reached with an 
additional $80 million. Hungry people cannot eat transportation 
costs. It is time to end this brand of corporate welfare.
    I look forward to the testimony today and to working with 
my colleagues to find practical solutions to address the 
biggest global food security crisis of our time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
    Before I introduce our fantastic panel let me just say we 
have very young staffers with us today. Everybody is included, 
but we welcome the youngest staffers that Senator Murphy has 
brought to assist him today, and I understand one of them is 
his niece. Welcome to the committee.
    Senator Murphy. Some new blood.
    The Chairman. New blood. That has been Senator Murphy's 
feeling since he got here to the Senate, so welcome.
    It is my privilege to welcome United States Ambassador to 
the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, back to the 
committee. In her role, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield leads 
efforts to advance U.S. interests of the United Nations in 
pursuit of peace and security. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield is 
a veteran diplomat, having served our country for 35 years in 
the Foreign Service, including as the Assistant Secretary of 
State for African Affairs, during which time she worked in many 
of the countries most impacted by the global food crisis today. 
Thank you, Ambassador, for joining us, and I appreciate our 
discussion, including the need for lifting the housing cap so 
that we can attract the talent we need at the U.N. to meet the 
challenges of Russia and China.
    We are also joined by another formidable diplomat, USAID 
Administrator Samantha Power. In her role, Administrator Power 
oversees USAID's international development and humanitarian 
efforts around the globe. She has had a robust public service 
career, previously serving as the United States Ambassador to 
the U.N., as well as on the National Security Council, so we 
welcome you.
    Our second panel today, after this panel, will welcome the 
Executive Director of the World Food Programme, David Beasley, 
who will be briefing the committee today. Mr. Beasley has 
served in this role since 2017, leading the world's largest 
humanitarian organization in its critical efforts to combat 
hunger around the world.
    Previously, Mr. Beasley served as the governor of South 
Carolina, so we welcome you, Governor. Thank you for coming to 
the committee. It is a pleasure to have you with us.
    I want to emphasize in light of your affiliation with the 
United Nations that you are appearing voluntarily today before 
the committee, as a courtesy to the committee, and we 
appreciate that.
    With that we will begin with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. 
Your full statements will be included in the record. I would 
ask you to summarize them in around 5 minutes or so because, as 
you can see from attendance, there are many members who will 
want to engage in a conversation with you. Ambassador.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S. AMBASSADOR 
              TO THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, NY

    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Chairman Menendez, Ranking 
Member Risch, distinguished committee members, thank you so 
much for the opportunity to testify here today with 
Administrator Power.
    Now my mother was a cook, and I think she was the best cook 
ever, as I am sure most of you feel about your own moms. She 
shared her gift widely and not just with our family. She would 
cook for the entire community all at once. Even though we did 
not have much, we made regular mass meals for anyone who was 
hungry.
    My mother did this for a simple reason--she believed no one 
should ever have to go hungry. Over the course of my career, I 
have seen what happens to people and communities who have 
hunger thrust upon them. I have looked into the gaunt eyes of 
children who are, as the doctors say, wasting, their rib bones 
poking out, their parents helpless to save them, and I have 
seen the child die right in front of me from malnutrition. Once 
you see something like that you never forget it, and you keep 
it close to your heart.
    It is for that reason that when I first arrived at the U.N. 
in 2021 and assumed the presidency of the U.N. Security 
Council, I made our signature event that month focused on 
conflict-induced hunger, because we knew that the vast majority 
of widespread hunger is manmade, and hunger is caused often 
intentionally by conflict.
    Then came Russia's brutal, illegal, and unprovoked further 
invasion into Ukraine, and you combine that with the cocktail 
of COVID-19, climate change, high energy prices, and 
preexisting conflict, and the world's food crisis has become 
colossal.
    After all, Ukraine, as you noted, Senator, was the 
breadbasket for the developing world, and according to the 
World Bank, some countries in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, 
Central Asia typically got up to 75 percent of their wheat from 
Russia and Ukraine. Russia has systematically sabotaged and 
destroyed Ukraine's farmland, equipment, and infrastructure and 
grain stockpiles, and Russia's naval blockade in the Black Sea 
and the threat of further naval attacks are currently 
preventing Ukraine crops from being exported to their 
destinations. We hope, for that reason, that the recent 
Ukraine-Russia talks that are being facilitated by the U.N. in 
Istanbul with Turkey will yield results.
    In the meantime, we estimate that more than 20 million tons 
of grain are trapped in silos and ships at risk of rotting 
away. As long as Putin continues his war in Ukraine, millions 
and millions of people around the world will not know when or 
where they will get their next meal. Countries in the Middle 
East and Africa will feel these effects most acutely. To make 
matters worse, severe heat and other extreme weather events are 
ruining crops around the world. This is a five-alarm emergency, 
and I have never seen a food security crisis like this in my 
career. This is the kind of problem that no one nation can 
solve alone. It is the kind of problem that requires serious 
and sustained multilateral cooperation.
    Again, that is why in May, during our presidency, Secretary 
Blinken joined me in New York, and we hosted a series of days 
of action on food security, and we brought together our closest 
partners to craft a roadmap for global food security. One 
hundred countries have now signed on to a common picture of 
this crisis and a common agenda for addressing it.
    Since the ministerial, we have been working together with 
the U.N. and G7 and others to partner to get more donors around 
the world, but Russia claims falsely that sanctions posed by 
the U.S. and allies are to be blame for the global increase in 
food prices, but Russia knows full well, as you noted, that 
food and fertilizer are specifically excluded from U.N. 
sanctions.
    The good news is that we have the tools to stop hunger and 
alleviate suffering, and we have to use them and rally the 
world to do the same. In this vein, we are sincerely grateful 
to Congress for providing the funding that you have already 
appropriated to respond to this crisis. I know that 
Administrative Power will speak in more depth about our efforts 
on the ground, but I want you to know that together we will 
continue to rally the world to take on the global food security 
crisis through every multilateral channel that we have. Because 
as my mother believed, to her bones, no child should have to go 
to bed hungry, and that is what we are working together to do.
    Thank you, and I am honored to be here to take your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield 
follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield

    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished committee 
members: Thank you, so much, for the opportunity to testify here today.
    My mother was a cook--the best I've ever known. She shared her gift 
widely, and not just with our family. She'd cook for the whole town at 
once. Even though we didn't have much, we made regular mass meals for 
anyone who was hungry.
    My mother did this for a simple reason. She believed no one should 
ever have to go hungry.
    Over the course of my career, I have seen what happens to people 
and communities who have hunger thrust upon them. I have looked in the 
gaunt eyes of children who are, as the doctors say, wasting: their rib 
bones poking out, their parents helpless to save them. I have seen a 
child die, right in front of me, from malnutrition.
    Once you see something like that, you never forget it. And you keep 
it close to your heart.
    That was one reason why, when I first arrived at the UN and assumed 
the Presidency of the UN Security Council a few days later in March 
2021, I made our signature event that month focused on conflict-induced 
hunger.
    Because we knew that the vast majority of widespread hunger--in 
places like Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, or South 
Sudan--is man-made. Hunger is caused, often intentionally, by conflict.
    Then, this year, came Russia's brutal, illegal, and unprovoked 
further invasion into Ukraine. Combine that with a cocktail of COVID-
19, climate change, high energy prices, and pre-existing conflicts, and 
the world's food crisis has become colossal.
    After all, Ukraine was the breadbasket for the developing world. 
According to the World Bank, some countries in Europe, the Middle East, 
Africa, and Central Asia typically got up to 75 percent of their wheat 
from Russia and Ukraine.
    Russia has captured some of Ukraine's most productive farmland. 
They planted explosives throughout those fields. They stole and 
destroyed vital agricultural equipment and infrastructure. They bombed 
grain silos and are selling grain that we believe was stolen from 
Ukrainian stockpiles.
    And Russia's naval blockade in the Black Sea, and the threat of 
further naval attacks, are currently preventing Ukraine's crops from 
being exported to their destinations. We hope that the Ukraine-Russia 
talks, which re-started in Istanbul on July 13 with Turkey and the UN, 
will yield results.
    In the meantime, we estimate that more than 20 million tons of 
grain are trapped in silos and ships, at risk of rotting away.
    In essence, Russia is dumping out that breadbasket--and leaving 
only breadcrumbs for a hungry world.
    As long as Putin continues his war in Ukraine, millions and 
millions of people--most of whom live well beyond Ukraine's borders--
won't know when or where they'll get their next meal. Countries in the 
Middle East and Africa will feel those effects most acutely. For 
example, the impact of Putin's war is worsening the effects of the 
historic drought in the Horn of Africa where nearly 19 million people 
are in need of emergency food assistance. But all of us will suffer.
    To make matters worse, our food supplies are on the front lines of 
climate change. Severe heat and other extreme weather events are 
ruining crops around the world and are causing spikes in staple foods 
and fertilizer prices.
    This is a five-alarm emergency. I have never seen a food security 
crisis like this in my career.
    This is the kind of problem that no one nation can solve alone--the 
kind of problem that requires serious, sustained multilateral 
cooperation.
    That's why this past May, during the United States Presidency of 
the Security Council, Secretary Blinken joined me in New York. 
Together, we rallied countries, regional organizations, NGOs, 
philanthropy, and the private sector to take serious, concrete steps to 
bolster global food supplies and resilience.
    We hosted a series of Days of Action on Food Security, which 
featured a one two-punch: a Security Council meeting that put pressure 
on Russia, and a ministerial-level event--the ``Global Food Security 
Call to Action.''
    At that ministerial, we brought together our closest partners to 
craft a Roadmap for Global Food Security. Thirty-six attendees of the 
ministerial signed on the spot. Sixty-three other countries have joined 
since. That means we've now rallied 100 countries--a majority of UN 
member states--to a common picture of this crisis and a common agenda 
for addressing it.
    The Roadmap affirms our collective commitment to act with urgency, 
at scale, and in concert to respond to this crisis. It commits us all 
to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, building resilience for 
those in vulnerable situations, supporting social protection and safety 
nets, and strengthening our food systems. But this is just the first 
step.
    Since the ministerial, we have been working closely at the UN, with 
the G7, the G20, the EU and the AU, APEC, and other partners and donors 
around the world. As we work through these multilateral channels, we 
have also been rebutting Russian disinformation at every turn.
    Russia claims, falsely, that sanctions posed by the United States 
and our Allies are to blame for the global increase in food prices. But 
Russia knows full well that food and fertilizer are specifically 
excluded from U.S. sanctions. The Department of the Treasury has even 
issued two General Licenses to authorize agricultural and medical 
trade, as well as humanitarian activities.
    Russia is trying to spread this disinformation because they know 
just how easy it is to see the ripple effects of their horrific war. 
And sadly, our fear is that there could be more ripple effects to come.
    According to the World Food Program, this kind of global food 
shortage could cause mass migration unlike anything we've seen since 
World War II. And food insecurity is both a threat and a multiplier for 
violent conflict. It is not only caused by conflict--it can also spark 
new ones in the countries and communities where food is scarce. A 
vicious cycle.
    Fortunately, we have the tools and technology to combat hunger. 
Online platforms can connect farmers and equip them with the latest 
information about supply chains. Satellite imagery can improve our 
understanding of weather patterns and crop yields. High-quality seeds 
and agricultural inputs ensure farmers can produce enough food for 
everyone. The list goes on and on.
    We have the tools to stop hunger and alleviate suffering. We just 
have to use them--and rally the world to do the same. So we are doing 
exactly that.
    After all, the world takes its cues from the United States on 
humanitarian issues--which means your support, and the support of the 
entire Congress, sends an important signal to other donors to step up 
and pitch in. It helps reinforce our humanitarian values at places like 
the UN--and it gives us a leadership platform.
    I know Administrator Power will speak in more depth about our 
efforts on the ground. But I want you to know that together, we will 
continue to rally the world to take on the global food security 
crisis--through the Roadmap, through the UN, U.S. food assistance, and 
through every multilateral channel we have.
    Because, as my mother believed to her bones, no one should have to 
go hungry.
    Thank you. I am honored to be here and look forward to your 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Administrator Power.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAMANTHA POWER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 
      AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Power. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member 
Risch, and all the esteemed members of the committee. Thank you 
all for turning out today.
    After this hearing, I am going to be flying to the Horn of 
Africa, which is the epicenter of the unprecedented global food 
crisis that we face today. The crisis has many sources, as we 
know--record droughts and heatwaves that are destroying crops 
and livelihoods; economic shocks from COVID-19 that have 
shuttered markets, fed inflation, and erased the fiscal space 
that many countries had to deal with emergencies; and, of 
course, Vladimir Putin's vicious assault on Ukraine and his 
ongoing, devastating use of food as a weapon of war.
    Putin's blockade of Ukrainian ports and his forces' 
bombardment of farmland and storage facilities, holding nearly 
20 million tons of grain and maize hostage, has sent what were 
already record food prices even higher, and the Russian 
Federation and the People's Republic of China also restricted 
the export of fertilizer, actions that have led, in many 
countries, to a tripling of fertilizer prices, threatening not 
just today's harvests, but next year's as well.
    Since this crisis emerged, the United States, thanks in 
large part to the urgency and generosity shown by members of 
Congress on both sides of the aisle, is leading the world in a 
global response. Our fight against the global food security 
crisis has three main fronts: rapidly distributing emergency 
humanitarian aid, making sustained investments in agricultural 
productivity, and concerted diplomacy of the kind Ambassador 
Thomas-Greenfield has alluded to so that we marshal a global 
response to what is a global crisis.
    With regard to humanitarian aid, USAID is on track to 
program more than $11 billion by the end of this fiscal year, 
$3.5 billion more than last year, which was itself a record 
amount. $5.7 billion of this funding will be directed to the 
World Food Programme, and I know you will be hearing from 
Executive Director Beasley today.
    We know from decades of experience that hunger cannot be 
fought with food alone. In places where markets still function, 
we are distributing emergency cash assistance that can both 
feed people and boost local economies. We also know that in 
severe food crises more people die from disease than hunger, so 
our assistance will also equip mobile health and nutrition 
teams to rapidly expand access to vaccines and to treat the 
severely ill. In drought conditions, clean water becomes 
incredibly scarce and the threat of waterborne diseases like 
cholera grows, so we are also needing to invest in providing 
water and sanitation kits.
    We are also providing assistance to revive severely 
malnourished children, including $200 million, which I 
announced this week, to UNICEF, which will dramatically expand 
the production and distribution of so-called RUTF, ready-to-use 
therapeutic foods, shelf-stable products that can help 90 
percent of severely malnourished children survive where 90 
percent typically perish without treatment. That announcement 
that I made a couple of days ago was immediately matched by $50 
million from private donors, and we have set a goal of 
marshaling another $250 million from global sources in the next 
several months.
    These are just a few of the immediate responses we will 
mobilize, but as we know, crisis requires more than just short-
term answers. It requires sustained investments. As Putin 
attempts to dismantle one of the world's largest breadbaskets, 
it is imperative that we work to rebuild it. That is why 
yesterday I announced the launch of the Agri-Ukraine 
Initiative, $100 million that will provide seeds, fertilizer, 
financing, and equipment to Ukraine's farmers, will increase 
crop storage and export capacity in Ukraine, and spark the 
eventual reconstruction of the country's agricultural sector.
    Around the world, the $760 million that Congress has 
provided from the latest supplemental will allow us to give 
poor farmers greater access to drought-resistant seeds, apply 
precision fertilizer techniques that can both reduce waste and 
increase yields, and storage solutions that can prevent the 25 
to 30 percent of food that is lost or wasted.
    Ultimately, though, the U.S. cannot solve this crisis 
alone, which is why the work of Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield 
and Secretary Blinken is so vital. In 2016, the last time we 
saw significant drought in the Horn of Africa, wealthy 
countries significantly stepped up to prevent the outbreak of a 
famine. Today some of those same countries have spent just 8 
percent of what they did then, despite a much more significant 
and devastating drought. The People's Republic of China, to 
date, has only supplied $3 million to the World food Programme. 
We have supplied $3.9 billion to the World Food Programme.
    We need all countries to keep their food and agricultural 
markets open and avoid export bans on food and fertilizer, and 
we need relevant creditors to provide debt relief and 
restructuring to prevent broader economic and political 
collapse along the lines of that which Senator Risch spoke to.
    The United States Congress, reflecting the great decency of 
the American people, has helped mobilize an unprecedented 
response to an unprecedented crisis, but other governments, 
foundations, people in the private sector, and anyone else who 
can help must stand with us to meet this moment.
    With that I look forward to taking your questions. Thank 
you so much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Power follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Ms. Samantha Power

                              introduction
    Thank you Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee. I am grateful for the 
opportunity to discuss USAID's efforts to combat the impacts of food 
security and malnutrition around the world that are being exacerbated 
by Putin's unprovoked and unjustified war in Ukraine. Thanks to 
Congress's generous and bipartisan appropriation of additional 
resources in the Ukraine supplementals, President Biden was able to 
announce an additional $2.76 billion in U.S. commitments to address 
global food insecurity at the most recent G7 Leaders' Summit in 
Germany. This announcement augments the $2.8 billion the U.S. has 
already spent since Russia further invaded Ukraine in February, 
demonstrating U.S. leadership in confronting this crisis.
    Before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the food 
security situation for hundreds of millions of people around the globe 
was already extremely fragile. Seven-hundred sixty-eight million people 
were chronically hungry, and 193 million people were facing crisis 
levels of acute food insecurity. USAID teams around the globe have been 
responding to dramatically increased needs for well over a year, 
gathering information, engaging in humanitarian diplomacy, reorienting 
staff, programs and priorities to move expeditiously and at a scale 
that the Agency has never done before. This includes use of 
extraordinary tools, including the drawdown of the entirety of the Bill 
Emerson Humanitarian Trust. Today, the combined effects of Russia's war 
in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, multiseason droughts, and other 
climate-related impacts are pushing the world into an unprecedented 
global food crisis. USAID is scaling up programs to save lives, stave 
off starvation, and meet the moment.
                  russia's further invasion of ukraine
    President Putin's inhumane aggression against a sovereign neighbor 
has inflicted terror on the people of Ukraine, destroyed schools and 
hospitals, and triggered the largest refugee crisis in Europe since 
World War II. Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure, 
particularly in the Donbas region, has left thousands of residents 
without access to basic services such as potable water, electricity or 
gas supplies. As a result, the UN World Food Program (WFP) estimates 
that one-third of Ukrainian households is food insecure which is liable 
to worsen throughout Ukraine during the harsh winter season, beginning 
in October.
    To date, USAID has provided more than $780 million in humanitarian 
assistance inside Ukraine, including $302 million to WFP to provide 
Ukrainians with food distributions and cash transfers. However, WFP and 
other USAID partners are only able to reliably provide relief to those 
in government-controlled areas. They are increasingly cut off from 
populations in parts of eastern Ukraine controlled by Russian forces, 
where humanitarian conditions deteriorate more and more each day. The 
U.S. continues to call on the Russian Government to allow safe passage 
for civilians fleeing areas besieged by Russian forces and to allow the 
delivery of humanitarian supplies to people who desperately need them.
                      global food security impacts
    Together, Russia and Ukraine produced roughly 30 percent of the 
world's wheat exports. In many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Putin's 
war has made a bad situation worse. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and 
the Caucuses are particularly reliant on Ukrainian wheat exports, and 
according to the Global Hunger Index, every second to third piece of 
bread in the Middle East was produced from Ukrainian wheat before the 
war. With supply-chain disruptions, rising food, fertilizer and fuel 
prices, estimates suggest that up to 40 million additional people could 
be pushed into poverty and food insecurity over the coming year. This 
comes on the heels of protracted conflict--particularly in the Sahel 
and Horn of Africa--restricting domestic production and cutting off 
supply lines, as well as the shortages brought on by the COVID-19 
pandemic.
    President Putin's forces are blocking Black Sea ports, leaving as 
many as 50 million tons of global food supplies trapped in temporary 
silos or on ships, thus preventing them from entering the global 
market. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of fertilizer, and 
Putin's export ban has contributed to a fourfold increase in global 
fertilizer prices compared to a year ago. While President Putin falsely 
claims that the global food crisis is a result of Western sanctions; 
however, it is his use of food as a weapon of war that has strangled 
food and agriculture production and driven up prices for food and 
fertilizer everywhere from Indiana to Indonesia.
              usaid's leadership in the global food crisis
    USAID recognizes that this crisis is global in nature and will 
require a long-term response. Our teams are working as quickly and 
responsibly as possible to scale-up immediate humanitarian assistance 
to countries in crisis while also helping countries to develop their 
agricultural sectors to be self-sufficient. USAID's response is 
centered along four lines of effort.
    First, we are using data analysis to project the potential impacts 
of the crisis in countries with existing humanitarian emergencies to 
prevent even further deterioration in conditions. The impacts of the 
global food crisis extend beyond just the amount of food communities 
can eat. They affect people's health and nutrition and change the types 
of risks to violence that women and girls face.
    Second, we are scaling up emergency food assistance in countries 
that have high levels of food insecurity, are vulnerable to price 
shocks, and are reliant on Russian or Ukrainian food imports. Since 
Russia's further invasion of Ukraine in February, the U.S. has provided 
$2.8 billion to scale up emergency food security programming in 
countries impacted by the food crisis. In the coming weeks, USAID will 
have programmed another $2 billion in Ukraine supplemental funding for 
humanitarian needs, with a focus on emergency food assistance and 
related investments in the hardest hit places like Yemen, the Horn of 
Africa, the Sahel, Haiti, and Democratic Republic of Congo.
    Third, we are using Feed the Future investments to reduce 
countries' dependence on fertilizer imports and provide more support to 
smallholder farmers, through drought tolerant seeds and improved 
storage for crops, to bolster farm productivity and minimize crop 
losses. At the G7 Leaders' Summit, President Biden announced the 
expansion of Feed the Future to eight new target countries: the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, 
Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia. USAID is investing $760 
million from Ukraine supplemental funding to bolster Feed the Future 
programs and combat the acute effects of high food, fuel, and 
fertilizer prices.
    Fourth, we are partnering with other donors to increase funding to 
prevent a global food security crisis. It is important that this 
assistance be additive in nature, so that donors do not reduce funding 
from other crises to support this one. We are working with partners, 
allies, and the UN to engage emerging donors, such as Gulf countries 
and private foundations, to fill critical gaps. Securing greater 
support from Gulf donors was a priority for President Biden during his 
trip to the region. Earlier this week, I announced an additional $200 
million contribution to UNICEF to support treatment of severe wasting 
in the most food insecure countries. USAID is leveraging this 
contribution to get other private donors, such as the Eleanor Crook 
Foundation and the Children's Investment Fund, to announce significant 
contributions of their own. Together we have called upon the donor 
community to join us in doubling our donations by September.
                           world food program
    WFP is one of USAID's most important partners in the response to 
global food insecurity. It is the world's largest humanitarian 
organization focused on hunger and food security, and has the scale and 
capacity to deliver emergency food assistance and the ability to work 
with communities to improve nutrition and build resilience worldwide. 
The United States is consistently the largest donor to WFP by a 
considerable margin and plans to program $5.5 billion through the 
organization in FY 2022, representing a 50 percent increase compared to 
the previous fiscal year. USAID enjoys a strong relationship with WFP 
and maintains constant communication with them at both headquarters and 
in the field to achieve our shared objective of saving lives in 
emergencies and using food assistance to build a pathway to peace, 
stability and prosperity around the globe.
    At the same time, the response to the global food security crisis 
requires a multisectoral effort. USAID is using supplemental resources 
to fund other UN agencies and NGOs who have the expertise to provide 
comprehensive programs on nutrition, protection, health, and water, 
sanitation, and hygiene assistance.
                             horn of africa
    While the entire globe will continue to face the impacts of 
President Putin's actions, the most immediate needs are present in the 
Horn of Africa. The region is experiencing one of its worst droughts in 
four decades that has the potential to lead to famine. As many as 20 
million people are at risk of starvation by the end of this year. The 
prolonged drought is also having dire nutritional impacts on children, 
putting them at a severe risk of malnutrition.
    In April, the Biden-Harris administration made the extraordinary 
decision to fully draw down on the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust 
(BEHT), providing an additional $244 million to procure and transport 
U.S. commodities to bolster existing emergency food operations in 
Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia.
    Ahead of my trip to the Horn of Africa this week, I announced 
nearly $1.3 billion in additional funding for the region, bringing 
USAID's contributions to the regional drought response to more than 
$1.6 billion in FY 2022. This funding supports our partners, including 
WFP, UNICEF and non-governmental organizations, to deliver emergency 
food, nutrition, protection, health, and water, sanitation and hygiene 
assistance. For example, in Ethiopia, this funding will support urgent 
food assistance for more than 4 million people in drought-affected 
regions. In Somalia, this funding will provide life-saving emergency 
food assistance to over 2 million people each month.
    USAID's long-term investments in the Horn of Africa are 
supplementing our emergency assistance in the region. In Ethiopia, 
USAID is supporting local agribusinesses to increase productivity to 
offset reliance on imports, expanding financing of fertilizer, as well 
as investments to increase availability and lower costs, and improving 
access to irrigation and agricultural inputs to diversify and expand 
crop and fodder production. Through Feed the Future, we are partnering 
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the International Fertilizer 
Development Center and other partners, to develop a low-cost approach 
for rapidly developing more effective fertilizer recommendations. When 
piloted in Ethiopia, farmers were able to reduce fertilizer wastage by 
up 80 percent and increase crop yields by up to 200 percent over a 3-
year period. We are working to replicate these successes across the 
region.
                               conclusion
    Due to the overlapping crises of climate shocks, coupled with the 
COVID-19 pandemic, and the ripple effects of the war in Ukraine, 
millions more across the world are at risk of being driven into 
starvation unless rapid action is taken. Thanks to the bipartisan 
support of Congress, USAID is investing billions of dollars to ensure 
families can feed their children, while ramping up our own domestic 
food and fertilizer production, protect the poorest households around 
the world by scaling up social safety nets, and unleash American 
technical expertise to spur the long-term agricultural productivity 
that essential to combatting hunger. I thank the Committee for its 
continuous support of our work, and I look forward to discussing with 
you in more detail.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. We will start a round of 
5 minutes. Let me start off with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. 
Ambassador, as has been pointed out in the testimony, and as I 
said in my opening statement, there is 20 million tons of grain 
and vegetable oil and other essential food exports trapped in 
Ukrainian port silos and warehouses. It is ultimately a 
political crisis that requires an urgent solution. Can you give 
us an update on the negotiations occurring at the U.N. between 
the U.N., Russia, Ukraine, and Turkey, aimed a resuming Black 
Sea grain exports from Ukraine?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Yes, Senator, and we have 
been keeping up with those negotiations very closely. First and 
foremost, as all of you have noted, this is an issue that 
Russia could resolve immediately by stopping the war, and they 
have not, and they have caused this crisis. As we look at what 
the U.N. is doing, we support their diplomatic efforts to find 
the solution to get that 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain 
moved into the marketplace.
    Those discussions, as I heard from the Secretary-General 
late last week, his assessment is that they are going well. We 
are hopeful that they continue to go well, and we will look 
forward to the results of the discussions and really press the 
Russians to honor any commitments that they make during those 
discussions. We, in the meantime, continue to try to find other 
ways around getting the wheat out until that agreement is 
actually signed.
    The Chairman. Well, I do not understand that. I see that 
Putin went to Iran, met with Raisi and Erdogan. I do not know 
that that is the venue that you are going to solve a global 
food crisis problem. It seems to me that you would solve it at 
the United Nations. If there is a real will, this can happen 
really relatively immediately.
    What about the Chinese? I heard the number from you, 
Administrator. That is pretty shocking--$3 million versus 3-
point-what?
    Ms. Power. Five-point-seven billion dollars committed to 
WFP, $3.9 billion already obligated.
    The Chairman. Three-point-nine billion dollars of the 
United States delivered for food insecurity, $3 million from 
China. What role is China playing in trying to urge its friend, 
Putin, to unlock the potential? Do you see any action on their 
behalf at the U.N.?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I certainly have not. The 
Chinese very closely align with the Russians. They are 
supporting the Russian efforts in Ukraine. We have continued to 
press the Chinese to step away from what we see as a really bad 
relationship that they have established with the Russians in 
terms of supporting their activities in Ukraine, and it goes 
against what the Chinese themselves have indicated is a 
priority, and that is protection of the charter and the 
sovereignty of borders.
    The Chairman. Well, it seems to me we have to collectively 
do a better job of highlighting, both here at home and across 
the world, about what both Russia and China are doing in this 
regard. I mean, the Russian messaging and disinformation about 
the causes and solutions to food insecurity in Africa and the 
Middle East, are pretty pervasive, and we do not counter that 
sufficiently at our own peril. I hope the Administration will 
be engaged in more proactively engaging that part of the 
challenge as well. I think it is incredibly important.
    Administrator Power, Congress recently approved more than 
$40 billion in emergency funding for Ukraine, which included 
billions to tackle the secondary impacts of the war on global 
food insecurity. It was an effort to give the ability to the 
Administration to act swiftly and boldly in the early stages of 
the crisis, understanding that time is of the essence.
    Recognizing that the unprecedented levels of needs from the 
global food crisis will grow next year, what funding gaps does 
USAID anticipate facing? Do you anticipate funding shortfalls, 
and what is our strategic plan for next year to address the 
ongoing crisis?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, if I may just 
pick up on the China exchange that you had with Ambassador 
Thomas-Greenfield, just to note it is not only not giving to 
these public international organizations at scale, remotely 
commensurate to the crisis at hand. I would note, actually, the 
last time China gave $34 million for a crisis, but a much 
lesser crisis than this.
    Another issue is the amount of debt that these countries 
that are so vulnerable right now have incurred principally, in 
many cases, bilaterally to China. The amount of money--I was 
just in Zambia and Malawi--that these countries spent on 
infrastructure that sadly does not currently exist or on very 
high interest rates that are still now basically impeding the 
ability of these governments to borrow and to put in place the 
kind of social safety nets that are needed right now, it is 
horrific. Greater energy in that space, as well from Beijing 
would make a huge difference for countries really finding 
themselves on the brink.
    With regard to your question, just to say that, again, we 
have moved very swiftly to take advantage of the incredible 
generosity that the people up here have shown and the American 
people have shown, above all, we are proceeding in a manner 
that takes, right now, advantage of preexisting awards. In a 
sense, with an organization like the WFP, we are plussing up 
their preexisting rewards rather than having to start from 
scratch and do all the pre-award surveys and things that guard 
against fraud, waste, and abuse. We are moving aggressively 
again through public international organizations.
    We would like to shift, over time, to more local 
organizations, particularly in Ukraine, as those are the agents 
who have been able to move very nimbly on the ground, often 
into very, very hard-to-reach, hard-to-access areas. I think we 
want to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time because 
the big U.N. agencies, of course, are the only organizations 
that can really provide food and cash at scale.
    I think that seeing Europe, which has responded so 
heroically to Ukrainian needs, meet some of the appeals in 
places like the Horn of Africa, where right now we are 
responsible for 86 percent of the WFP appeal with the $1.3 
billion I announced earlier this week for Kenya, Somalia, and 
Ethiopia. That is not tenable. It absolutely has to be the case 
that our friends step up to deal with needs in sub-Saharan 
Africa, as well. We also think, out of the President's trip to 
the Gulf, that there is a lot more room there, not only to 
support funding needs in Yemen, which is in a better place 
because there is a truce, but still an abysmal place because of 
the acute food needs. There are a whole host of donors that 
really need to do far more.
    If I could just make one last point, this is something also 
the Russian disinformation machine takes advantage of, some 
notion that donors are more interested in giving to Ukraine 
than to starving people in sub-Saharan Africa, not, of course, 
making mention of the fact that the Russian Federation itself 
gives almost nothing to meet food needs in sub-Saharan Africa 
or anyplace else. In fact, just creates food needs with its 
brutality and use of food as a weapon of war, but to be able to 
show, again, that the democracies of the world show up for 
vulnerable people in need while the authoritarians create those 
needs in the first place, I think is very important.
    The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that. Before I turn it to 
Senator Risch, let me just say from my view, China--this is not 
benign neglect on their behalf. This is helping Russia's tactic 
at the end of the day of using food as a weapon of war. China 
is responsible as well as Russia for allowing Russia to use 
food as a weapon of war, or the denial of food as a weapon of 
war.
    Hunger leads to insecurity, which leads to people doing 
what they need to do in order to survive, and whether that be 
the mass movement of people to find a place where they can be 
fed or to turn to entities and organizations that will take 
their hunger and their anger and use it in violent ways, this 
is a real challenge to the organized civil society in terms of 
the repercussions that flow, from the first instance, from a 
humanitarian disaster to all the other elements.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, and I would certainly like to 
associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman in that last 
exchange. Ambassador Greenfield, that is a good segue into what 
I wanted to talk with you about and that is the discussion we 
have had here today shows the tremendous disconnect between 
America and the other democracies in the world and the 
autocracies and their seeming ambivalence, at best, to people 
starving all over the world and refusing to do anything about 
it.
    When that happens, you sit here and you wonder, what is 
this United Nations for anyway? I mean, the United Nations, as 
the Chairman has pointed out, is a place where these things 
should be resolved, and we just had reference to the fact that 
there are these negotiations going on that we all know about. 
It was done in Iran with Turkey and Russia. Where is the United 
Nations on this? It seems that they are just absent on it. I am 
not saying this is your fault by any stretch. The organization 
itself, a lot of us have had reservations for a long time 
about--they spend a lot of money, but what gets done?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you for that question, 
and I understand your frustration, Senator. I will say that the 
United Nations has been proactively engaged in these 
negotiations that have taken place in Istanbul, and they were 
responsible for bringing the parties together, for bringing the 
Ukrainians, the Russians, and the Turks together. The Iranians 
were never involved in any of these discussions. What we see 
happening now in Iran is very much separate from the engagement 
that the United Nations was responsible for putting together.
    I will also say that in New York we are able to galvanize 
countries from all over the world. We brought 141 countries to 
the table to condemn Russia's actions. I can tell you that the 
Russians were making every effort to intimidate and press those 
countries away from supporting this General Assembly 
resolution. Their disinformation campaign is extraordinarily 
effective, which is why we have to ramp up our efforts to 
engage with these countries and get the information out that 
will counter the Russian narrative.
    I have had a series of what I have referred to as listening 
tours with various regions, with Africa, with Latin America, 
with the ASEAN countries, with the Middle East to put on the 
table the facts of what is happening on the ground and making 
sure that they understand that Russia is responsible for what 
is happening. It is not Ukraine's fault. It is not sanctions. 
It is their brutal war against Ukraine.
    Senator Risch. Well, I appreciate that, and you did good 
work getting the number of people to condemn. What amazes me, 
sitting here as an outsider and looking at it, that there were 
even a handful of people that would get behind the Russians. 
That absolutely amazes me. It is all well and good that that 
vote was as lopsided as it was, but then what? The United 
Nations is supposed to exist to resolve this stuff, and when 
you have a vote that lopsided, we know what is right, we know 
what is wrong, but nothing has happened. Certainly NATO is a 
strong force. NATO has responded and come together and is 
stronger than it has ever been, but the U.N., again, just seems 
to be absent on the thing. Talk is wonderful, but doing 
something on the ground is so much more important, and it is 
not happening.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Again, looking at the fact 
that the U.N. has been responsible for feeding more than 10 
million people, with our support and with your generosity as 
well as that from the rest of the world, but I commend the 
World Food Programme and others who have really taken a 
proactive approach to responding to the humanitarian crisis. We 
could not do that without the United Nations, but I am not here 
to defend every action. We know that the organization has its 
flaws, and that is why I sit every day in New York and make 
every effort to work with other countries to reform the 
organization.
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. 
Administrator Power, I think that those statistics that you 
rolled out about what we are doing and what China is doing is 
something that really is not out there in the general media. I 
think all of us ought to be pressing that. I think that, better 
than anything, demonstrates the cavalier, nonchalant, careless 
attitude that China and the other people that are complicit 
with Russia in this have.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cardin.
    Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 
both of our witnesses for their extraordinary leadership at the 
United Nations and USAID.
    First, I just want to underscore the point that the United 
States and the Congress has been responsive to the food 
insecurity issues. We have provided substantial amount of 
funding, as you have pointed out. We do not see the 
commensurate response by our allies internationally, and I 
would first underscore the point that we need to develop a 
unified strategy to get the type of help internationally to 
deal with these issues that have been provided by the United 
States.
    I say that because both of you have underscored the point 
that Russia has weaponized food. We should not be surprised. We 
know their asymmetric arsenal that they have used before. They 
have used energy as a coercive form to try to get countries to 
do certain things. They have used misinformation. They have 
funded extreme groups. They do all these things in order to 
advance their cause. We should not be surprised that they would 
weaponize food.
    I guess my question to both of you is how are we developing 
a war-type strategy to counter Russia's use of food as a 
weapon? I recognize that the United Nations plays a critical 
role. The World Food Programme plays a critical role within the 
United Nations. USAID plays a direct role also. We have non-
governmental partners that help us. I am proud of the Catholic 
Relief Services, which is headquartered in Maryland, the role 
that they play.
    Can you tell me how you are developing a strategy to 
recognize this is not just a traditional problem of food 
insecurity, which is an area we have to deal with, but we have 
to be mindful that we are working in a war environment with 
Russia using this as a tactic. How do we organize our allies 
around the world to respond in a way that is commensurate with 
the problem Russia is creating?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Let me start, just to say 
that we really have worked hard to mobilize a broad coalition 
of allies and countries using diplomacy. It started in New York 
with Secretary Blinken calling his first ministerial to bring 
the world together in May, where he laid out, very, very 
clearly, the Russian objective and the false narrative that the 
Russians have been pushing forward. One hundred countries then 
signed on to the roadmap that we put together.
    We extended that diplomacy in the G7, in the G20, and, as 
well as during the President's recent visit to the Middle East. 
Samantha, as you heard, is going out to Africa tonight. I am 
leaving in about 10 days to do the same thing, to engage with 
these countries, help them to come to grips with the 
disinformation campaign that the Russians have initiated. I 
think they are not being fooled, and then we are galvanizing 
more donors to make contributions.
    Senator Cardin. Let me interrupt for a moment because I am 
pleased that you are visiting the sites that need attention and 
need to understand the causes and need to know the tools that 
are available to help. My concern is that we have our so-called 
allied countries that are part of our alliance in our support 
for Ukraine. I do not necessarily see them recognizing the same 
degree that food is being used as a weapon of war.
    My concern is do we have a strategy to engage our 
supportive countries to be more participatory in dealing with 
the challenges that we have and recognizing this a Putin 
strategy and therefore, as we provide weapons to defend 
Ukraine, as we provide direct support, we also need to be 
providing help in regard to the problems Russia is creating 
with food insecurity.
    Ms. Power. Could I give a few examples, maybe, Linda? 
First, again, I think we are all in violent agreement that the 
response needs to be more multilateralized, that those who are 
lagging need to step up. It is something that Ambassador 
Thomas-Greenfield is working every day in New York, that 
Secretary Blinken is working around the world.
    I will say, Senator, of the European countries, again, they 
have opened their doors to the refugees. That is not without 
cost. European Commission President von der Leyen has just also 
announced more than $6 billion toward reconstruction. They are 
also thinking ahead.
    If I could answer your question in a slightly different 
way, but in parallel to Linda's comments, I think one of the 
answers to your questions comes down to the word 
``resilience.'' What we are doing, what we, USAID, on the 
ground, thanks to the infusion of resources from you, but also 
our preexisting programs which were heading in this direction 
anyway, is building Ukraine's capacity not to be dependent, for 
example, on everything from the Russian export market to 
Russia's actions in the Black Sea. We are now working to ensure 
that they have the barges to use the rivers, that they are able 
to modernize their rail lines so those can connect with Europe. 
This is not to say that we anticipate their being a Black Sea 
crisis every year for the rest of time. This war has to end. 
Putin has to end it, but it does mean that diversification is 
really important.
    In Africa it is the same issue. Linda knows well from all 
of her time there, the dependence that so many countries have, 
for example, on Russian fertilizer. It is the number one 
fertilizer exporter in the world, and that is not a reliable 
source of fertilizer. We are seeking to diversify and also to 
ensure that there is in-Africa production of fertilizer as well 
as food sovereignty in countries that are too import dependent.
    Senator Cardin. Make Black Sea security part of our 
strategy.
    The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow 
up a little bit on Senator Cardin's questions about the U.N. 
and what more can be done and whether there is any appetite at 
the U.N. to take on Putin and to basically take the grain out 
of Ukraine, assuming that the Ukrainians agree, and get it out 
to the rest of the world. I think we are not only losing the 
battle in terms of feeding people who need it, but we are also 
losing the information war, because what Putin is doing is 
convincing people all over the world that we are the reason 
that millions are food insecure.
    What can we do to take a more robust approach to how we 
deal with Vladimir Putin at the U.N., and is there any 
willingness on the part of the Secretary-General or our allies 
there to really make him more of an issue here?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you, and I think we 
have, the U.N. has, the numbers have taken a very proactive 
approach to condemning Putin, to calling Putting out, to 
isolating Russia in New York. We kicked them off of the Human 
Rights Council. They have tried to regain a seat on ECOSOC. 
They have not been able to win that vote. We have succeeded in 
convincing enough countries to vote against them. We are 
succeeding in exposing their behavior and condemning their 
actions in the Ukraine.
    I would say that we can do more. I certainly hear your 
frustrations. It is the same frustration I feel every day when 
I have to put so much effort into engaging with countries to 
help them to understand how important it is that we not allow 
Russia to get away with what they are doing in Ukraine. That 
effort is a daily effort on the part of me and my staff in New 
York, but also across the entire Administration, from the 
President to the Secretary as well as others like the 
Administrator, who are engaging with these countries, to ensure 
that they understand that we are all fighting the same fight 
and they have to be part of it.
    Senator Shaheen. Senator Cardin also talked about the 
importance of the Black Sea. Senator Romney and I just 
introduced legislation to require the Administration to develop 
an interagency strategy around the Black Sea. It was pointed 
out to me by one of the representatives of one of our allies 
that we would have been better off had we had U.S. and other 
allied ships in the Black Sea region when Putin invaded 
Ukraine, that it would have been harder for him to so totally 
control what is happening in the Black Sea.
    Can you both speak to why that would be important and how 
you see that kind of a strategy helping us as we look at the 
future and ensure that we are not in this situation again in 
another 5 or 10 years?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. We share your goals in terms 
of making sure that the Black Sea remains open, and I know that 
the Department of State and the Administration is looking 
forward to engaging with you on the legislation and how we 
might move forward to pursue those goals, but I do agree with 
you that we absolutely have to have a strategy and be more 
proactive in ensuring that this does not happen again in the 
future.
    Ms. Power. Maybe just if I can build on this point about 
resilience, I mean, one of the things that the Ukrainians have 
been doing, in addition to planting, wearing flak jackets, and 
having demining equipment so that they can have a harvest also 
for next season, is they have been hustling in a whole bunch of 
ingenious ways to try to get the food that is trapped out 
through other means while the negotiations that the U.N. is 
undertaking and some of the other options that are being 
considered are pursued.
    Just the stats on this, Senator, I think are pretty 
staggering. Two hundred thousand metric tons of trapped produce 
and crops moved in March, 600,000, they found ways through 
road, rail, barges, rivers, Danube, port in Romania, up to the 
Baltics, et cetera, 200,000 in March, 600,000 metric tons in 
April, 1.1 million metric tons in May, and then just around 2 
million metric tons in June. Now we are talking about 5 million 
that we are trying to chip away at here, and as others have 
indicated, every metric ton or fraction of a metric ton that 
does not reach its desired end state is driving up prices and 
potentially contributing to the hunger crisis that we face.
    We are very focused, with the European Union, who have been 
doing a huge amount to create these so-called solidarity lanes, 
to ease the customs flow, the border checkpoints, to secure 
insurance both for what moves in the ways that they are able to 
move, but also critically the insurance that is going to be 
needed once the demining has occurred, if some deal has been 
struck or if the Ukrainians decide to move, and the private 
sector decide to move the trapped grains in other means.
    There is a lot of infrastructure investments that we are 
making now, collectively, to deal with this crisis that are 
going to put Ukraine in such a stronger position to be 
integrated into the European Union as they pursue that path 
toward accession.
    Then the only other thing I would add is that I know that 
there is some consideration of changing the law to allow U.S. 
soldiers to train Ukrainian forces in demining, and certainly 
it would seem given the amount of demining that is going to be 
needed to get the Black Sea up and running again that that kind 
of adjustment to the law would be warranted.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you both very much for all of 
your efforts, and Governor Beasley, thank you as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
both the Ambassador and the Administrator for the work that you 
are doing. Is Russia trying to starve the world? I mean, are 
they intent on causing pain in Egypt and Lebanon and throughout 
North Africa and the Middle East? I mean, is this part of their 
intent or are they simply intending to starve Ukraine and 
willing to ignore the fact that what they are doing in starving 
Ukraine is also starving the world? Do you have a sense of what 
their intent is, what they are thinking?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I cannot speak for what is 
going on in Putin's mind, but I think at the start of this they 
thought they were going to have a quick war, bring Ukraine to 
their knees in 2 weeks, and have them waving the white flag and 
that would be the end of it. That failed. They are continuing 
this effort to starve the people of Ukraine and in the process 
starve the rest of the world, and they do not care, which is 
why it is so important that we have gotten the support, 
bipartisan support, from this Congress to provide for people in 
the rest of the world.
    What the Russians are now doing is blaming us, that our 
sanctions are responsible for what is happening in the rest of 
the world, when, in fact, there are no sanctions on their 
agricultural products, there are no sanctions on their 
fertilizer. They can move their agricultural products. They can 
move their wheat if they wanted to do it, but they would prefer 
to blame the rest of the world, thinking that that will get 
them more support from the world. I think they failed.
    Senator Romney. Ambassador, why is it they are so effective 
at spreading lies and we are so terribly ineffective at telling 
the truth and having the world understand what is going on? I 
would think the leaders of Egypt and Lebanon and other places 
that have seen astronomic increases in prices would be yelling 
about what Russia is doing? I do not see that. Why are we so 
incapable of making sure the world understands Russia's 
malevolence, the impact they are having on the world, and 
creating, if you will, global pressure not just from the 
nations of the West, but global pressure on Russia? Why are we 
so ineffective?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I would not say we are 
ineffective. I think we certainly have to ramp up our efforts, 
but this is something that we all work on every single day to 
counter Russia's disinformation. We do it in the United Nations 
and in meetings and we do it in our travels around the world. I 
think countries are hearing it. They are hearing it, but they 
are also dealing with other issues. They are dealing with not 
only Russia's disinformation, they are dealing with Russia's 
intimidation. We know that when we have to vote in the U.N. 
that the Russians actually sent written correspondence to 
countries to say if you vote against us, this will affect our 
long-term relationship.
    These countries are dealing with these other efforts, but I 
think, again, to have 141 countries condemn Russia, they are 
resisting that pressure and they do understand that Russia is 
responsible for this war. Now that does not mean Russia does 
not have its friends, the four or five countries that voted 
with them, including China. The friends are always there for 
them, but they are few and far between.
    Senator Romney. Administrator Power, what other nations are 
stepping in to make sure that the food crisis being created by 
Russia and its blockade, if you will, on Ukraine is in some 
respects getting some relief? Is India stepping up to the 
extent they should? Are other parts of the world making the 
kinds of efforts they should? Are we, as a nation, stepping in, 
we and Canada and others that have bountiful agricultural 
resources?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and if I may just pick up on 
your exchange with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, I would just 
note that the Belt and Road Initiative and China's investments 
throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, 
the Pacific have gotten a lot of attention. I do not think that 
the RT penetration and the Russian disinformation media machine 
have received the same attention nor, I think, would we say 
that we are resourcing our information efforts as a country, as 
we did during the Cold War, for example, or not even close to 
how they resource them. That is not the only answer. Again, we 
are blasting our message out as many places as we can, and I 
think probably the only reason Putin is in those negotiations 
with the U.N. in Turkey right now is the number of African 
countries that privately, not publicly in the way that we do, 
have either paid trips to Moscow to appeal for those grains to 
be released so the prices go down or that wheat arrives, and I 
think that pressure has brought him to the table. Whether it 
will be enough to bring him to actually allow the grains to 
go----
    Senator Romney. I just want to say I fully agree with you 
that we are not paying the kind of attention or devoting the 
kind of resources to communicating the truth to the world, as 
Russia is spending to communicate----
    Ms. Power. To lie.
    Senator Romney. --lies.
    Ms. Power. I agree completely. To your question, just on 
sort of division of labor and so forth, I would say you 
mentioned India specifically, which has not come up yet at the 
hearing. India has been very responsive to the complete 
economic collapse in Sri Lanka, extending grants and mainly 
loans to a government that, of course, fell, but now a new 
government that is in great economic peril. That is a country 
that has defaulted on its debt payments for the first time in 
its history, and it is probably just the first of at least 
several, and maybe many governments that are likely to fall by 
virtue of these higher prices, particularly fuel prices, as we 
head into winter.
    With regard to some of what we have been talking about, I 
did want to call out and commend some of the very discrete 
efforts on actually dealing with the trapping of Ukrainian 
grains. Japan has chipped in $23 million to help the Ukrainians 
buy storage bags. The European Commission has provided direct 
cash grants to farmers, around $53 million. The U.K., which has 
dramatically cut, unfortunately, its foreign assistance budget 
at the worst possible time, but has contributed $12 million to 
help rebuild the railways that are being attacked, which helps 
get the food out.
    These kinds of modest efforts, but as I mentioned, I think 
before you got here, if you look at the response, for example, 
to the potential famine in the Horn of Africa, other countries, 
our friends, who stepped up the last time there was a very 
severe drought, are right now, many of them, at about 8 percent 
of what they funded before. Now some of that is because they 
are funding so generously inside Ukraine and, of course, to 
Ukrainians who are coming into Europe, but this burden, also 
this privilege of helping people in their hour of need, is 
being borne very disproportionately by the United States right 
now.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
and the Ranking Member of this committee for holding a full 
committee hearing on this remarkable, grave, global crisis in 
food security, and the attendance here and your engagement as 
senior administration representatives is important.
    I thought it was striking at the outset, Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield, when you said you have never seen a food crisis 
like this in your career, and I expect that Administrator Power 
and Mr. Beasley would both agree with you. We first met in 
Liberia. You have been to tough places. You know what food 
crisis looks like. It is striking to me that at exactly this 
moment, when we have a bitter cocktail coming together of a 
conflict and COVID and climate that the United States is 
stepping up in a massive way. Each of the descriptions that 
Administrator Power just gave of this ally, this ally, this 
ally, was billions from the United States, millions from this 
ally and partner.
    One of the things I am most concerned about is the lack of 
engagement and presence by the PRC, yes, by our Gulf partners, 
absolutely, and the ways in which our European partners and 
allies are providing, yes, support for refugees, but modest 
support for the development, the urgent food security and 
development needs of sub-Saharan Africa.
    Administrator Power, thank you for outlining in your speech 
at CSIS the actions we need to take in response to this food 
security emergency, and I am encouraged by the plan for a $1.3 
billion surge for the Horn of Africa, where you are about to 
travel, as well as the $200 million in ready-to-use therapeutic 
foods which are used for children in starvation. I would be 
interested in hearing concisely where you see funding gaps and 
what more we can do to mobilize the donor community, both 
through the U.N. and through USAID? I will also be asking Mr. 
Beasley about his particular brand of effective and forceful 
personal engagement with those who still sit on the sidelines.
    Ms. Power. Thank you. Well, let me just say that I think 
President Biden took advantage of his trip to the Middle East 
to engage the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris. I think there 
is a lot of room for growth in terms of those contributions, 
and particularly in fulfilling pledges that have been made 
publicly, but not yet delivered upon. Money is fungible for an 
organization like the World Food Programme, and so if, for 
example, Gulf countries were to concentrate their resources, 
for example, on Yemen, that would free up resources for other 
countries to be able to use in the Horn of Africa or in South 
Sudan, and so forth.
    So, too, it has to be said again that European commitments 
and contributions inside Ukraine are very important, and it is 
very important that the U.N. appeals for inside Ukraine be met 
with the same kind of urgency and the same kind of resources as 
the needs of refugees that passed into Europe have been given.
    Senator Coons. A number of us are eager to work with you in 
coordination on pressing our closest allies and partners to 
meet their commitments and to be a part of this global moment. 
I am struck, Ambassador, by the anger, frankly, the breadth and 
depth of anger in the developing world at what many of our 
longstanding partners, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, see 
as an abandonment of their public health and humanitarian and 
hunger needs in the face of what has been year after year after 
year of drought.
    I would be interested in your thoughts on both what we can 
most do to help with opening up the Black Sea ports--I met with 
the Secretary-General recently. I am encouraged the U.N. is at 
the table--and I frankly think we should focus on this like it 
is the Berlin Airlift, that it could be an opportunity to show 
the U.N.'s engagement and relevance in a critical moment. I am 
also wondering where you see the U.N. going. We are behind in 
our commitments. We are billions of dollars behind in our dues 
obligations, our commitments to the U.N., although we are 
billions ahead in our contributions and support to UNICEF and 
UNHCR and World Food Programme. How does it hurt our standing 
at the U.N. when we are billions behind in our commitments?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you so much for that 
question, Senator, because that is really the crux of the 
challenge that I face in New York every single day as we are 
put in a position of having to compete with our adversaries on 
being able to influence the U.N. action, putting staff who are 
capable in the United Nations. We are reminded publicly, and 
attempted to shame, but we do not feel shame, that we have such 
a large debt, such large arrears in the United Nations. We 
really do have to address that issue if we are going to be able 
to compete.
    Senator Coons. Does that create an opening for countries 
like China and Russia to influence the U.N. system despite our 
significant leadership in our contributions?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Every gap that we leave is an 
opening for the Chinese. They flow into every open space that 
we leave. That means staffing in the U.N., it means funding for 
junior professional officers. These are young people like we 
have around in this room who we would like to see working at 
the United Nations. The way they get in is through a 
professional program that is funded by their government. The 
Chinese have more than 400, if not more, of those young people 
inside the United Nations. We cannot compete.
    Senator Coons. As we work on the SFOP's appropriations bill 
this year, we will keep both of those things in mind. I am 
mindful I am out of time and many of my colleagues have gone 
over.
    I will just conclude by saying, if I can, Administrator 
Power, I am interested in hearing from you about our investment 
in food storage to help the Ukrainians, but frankly, also 
globally, and in programming your launching around food waste. 
We do not have any extra food to waste in this world. Then 
last, I want to continue engaging with you, Ambassador, on the 
SDRs, on the IMF, and the ways in which international financial 
institutions can help stabilize some of the countries we are 
most concerned about. If the Chinese keep piling on the debt 
and we do not fund the Development Finance Corporation as our 
alternative that is more transparent and more sustainable, we 
will continue to go in the wrong direction in the developing 
world.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I am mindful that the Chair has 
been very lenient in this process because a good amount of the 
time has been taken over by the witnesses in response, but we 
have a vote at 11:30. There are members who have the desire to 
see the Ukrainian First Lady speak, which I think is happening 
about now. I would just remind everybody to try, and with 
respect to their fellow colleagues, try to meet the succinct 
questions with succinct answers.
    Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Your point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you for that preface and thanks to our witnesses for 
being here.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield has articulated this is the 
worst food crisis that she has seen in her long career. I have 
been talking about this since March, the concerns that we have 
about a global food crisis. Administrator Power, you have 
articulated a number of activities that are underway that you 
are pursing to try to address the crisis as it exists.
    It seems to me that we should be doing everything in our 
power to address this global food crisis. When I talk with 
farmers in my home state of Tennessee, they are very clear 
about what is happening to them there. I think about American 
agribusiness. It is a great industry. We can be a great 
exporter and relieve a lot of the pain that is being felt 
around the world, but what is happening here, at home? Diesel 
prices are through the roof. Farmers are having a very tough 
time making ends meet economically. Fertilizer prices, we have 
talked about, are through the roof. Energy is a major input 
into fertilizer manufacturing.
    My view, and my question to you is, should we not be doing 
everything that we can, including getting back into the oil and 
gas business and stopping the war on American energy so that we 
can bring those prices down and we can make the economics work 
better here in America to solve the world's crises?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and let me just say that 
especially given our last exchange at a prior hearing on 
fertilizer, just seeing firsthand the good that our farmer-to-
farmer program has done and all the training that we have 
provided, that the fertilizer and other sort of seed inputs 
that the United States has provided, drawing on research in 
states represented by many of you, this is mission critical on 
the ground, and we will not be able to feed the world's people 
unless we get fertilizer into people's hands. I am going to get 
to your question, but just being----
    Senator Hagerty. No, I agree with you fully, but it seems 
to me that we should be doing everything in our power right 
now, given the size of the crisis that has been articulated.
    Ms. Power. Yes. Well, I think what you are seeing----
    Senator Hagerty. We should do everything we can to bring 
prices down----
    Ms. Power. I understand.
    Senator Hagerty. --and the war on the oil and gas industry 
is taking prices the exact wrong direction. I am interested to 
hear you----
    Ms. Power. I understand.
    Senator Hagerty. --do you believe that we should get back 
into the oil and gas business, bring these costs down, and make 
farmers more productive here?
    Ms. Power. What I believe is that we are seeing--well, not 
only what I believe--what I see is that a number of countries 
that have large fertilizer production capacity are trying to 
expand that capacity. It is challenging because of the energy 
prices, but more supply is going to mean lower prices. We are 
already seeing that in the wheat space as prices have come down 
just a little bit over the last few weeks.
    You are seeing countries where we have missions and that 
have been making transition to renewables having to pause some 
of the work that they were doing. For example, I met yesterday 
with the Moldovan Prime Minister, who I think will see some of 
you. They have a big reforestation agenda, but because Putin 
has turned off the gas they are needing now to cut down much 
more timber than they had intended to this year.
    You are certainly seeing tradeoffs around the world being 
expressed.
    Senator Hagerty. I think you have chosen a good term, 
``tradeoffs,'' and the tradeoffs that are happening here in 
America are basically putting Putin in power, giving him a lot 
more leverage, because he is now the source of oil and gas, 
when we were a net energy exporter just 2 years ago. I see the 
war on oil and gas making us weaker as a nation, making us less 
capable of supporting our allies. I would again implore every 
one of the policymakers in this Administration to look at this 
and the tradeoffs that we are making, and take seriously into 
account that the transition that has been forced upon America 
is costing us in many, many ways, whether it be the food crisis 
that we could be alleviating, whether it be our national 
security, whether it be emboldening and empowering and funding 
Putin. All of these concerns are very real.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the witnesses, fine public servants. There is a phrase in the 
Ukrainian language, ``Holodomor'' that was created in the 
1930s. It is a combination of two words, one meaning hunger and 
one meaning plague. In the current Ukrainian dictionary this is 
the definition of the phrase: ``Artificial hunger organized on 
a vast scale by a criminal regime against a country's 
population.'' That is from a 2004 dictionary.
    The phrase comes, as you both know, from the forced famine 
that was visited upon Ukrainians and others by Stalin in 1932 
and 1933. We are in the 90th anniversary of that catastrophe. 
The English language does not have a word for that because we 
have never lived under that, and I think the Irish language may 
have a word for that because Irish have lived under it. We have 
not lived under it, but there is a word for it, and this 
Congress has recognized the Holodomor, and many other nations 
have as a forced genocide using hunger as an artificial weapon.
    Vladimir Putin has aims to be a great Russian leader. He 
probably thinks of himself in the Peter the Great category, but 
the real analogy is Stalin, and in this instance he is probably 
surpassing Stalin because the death toll from the hunger that 
he is forcing on Ukrainians is not just felt within Ukraine. 
The estimates of the Holodomor in the 1930s, probably 
conservative estimates, about 3 million Ukrainians and folks in 
other Russian republics as well died, but the effects of it 
were not felt so broadly on the globe.
    We have seen this before. We have seen it before and we 
have to be vigorous about it. I want to switch gears in a 
second, but many of my colleagues have kind of focused on the 
disinformation side of Russia. One of you indicated that while 
they are engaging in disinformation you do not think the world 
is being fooled, but they are saying some things that make me 
wonder if they are being fooled.
    On June 3, the African Union Chair and Senegalese President 
Macky Sall had a meeting with Vladimir Putin and said, ``The 
crisis and sanctions create serious problems for weak 
economies,'' seeming to put the problem on the sanctions and 
the crisis as if it is kind of a natural phenomenon.
    I am glad you are both going to be in Africa. I hope you 
can get particularly Africa nations that are suffering the 
most, or more than many parts of the world, I hope you can get 
those nations to just speak the truth. It is one thing to speak 
the truth to power, but how about speaking the truth to evil. 
It would seem like you would be willing to speak the truth to 
evil. I understand, Administrator Power, when they are 
dependent on Russia for fertilizer, et cetera, et cetera, that 
it is easy for me to ask that, but when leaders in regions of 
the world who are so suffering because of this deflect blame I 
have got to believe it is an intentional deflection and not a 
naive deflection, and I hope you will challenge them on that.
    The title of the hearing is ``Global Food Security 
Crisis,'' and we have really focused on the effect of the 
Ukrainian illegal war on the world. I want to give you a chance 
just to talk about, in a minute and 40 seconds, what is the 
U.S. doing to deal with the climate realities of the global 
food security crisis? One of our Democratic colleagues, Senator 
Tester, whose family has farmed in Montana for four 
generations, and he has farmed the land for 44 years, told us 
yesterday in a luncheon that he was normally bringing in about 
28,000 bushels in a harvest every year and last year it was 
1,600, and it is likely to be that this year.
    What is the U.S. doing, USAID, you mentioned resilience, 
what are we doing at the U.N. to try to deal with the climate 
emergency component of a long-term global food insecurity 
challenge?
    Ms. Power. I can start briefly and just say I had an 
exchange earlier, with Senator Cardin, where I stressed the 
word ``resilience,'' and our Feed the Future program, for 
years, even though not branded as a climate program, has been 
about getting to farmers and trying to get at scale to farmers 
drought-resistant seeds that have been developed in labs in 
this country or all around the world that have been funded by 
USAID since the last walloping food crisis at scale occurred in 
2007, 2008, and Feed the Future was created by you all and by 
President Obama thereafter.
    That is part of the answer. It is also just a sad fact that 
you see embedded in the growing emergency needs and the growing 
Bureau of Humanitarian Affairs budget, thanks to you all, but 
it is exponential. It is not only because of conflict, although 
it does not help that there are 35 conflicts on the continent 
of Africa, but it is for circumstances like what we are 
experiencing right now in the Horn of Africa, which is, for the 
first time in history, the fourth straight dry rainy season, 
and we are expecting, the meteorologists are expecting a fifth. 
The fourth never happened before in history, and they are 
already looking ahead and expecting low rainfall for the fifth, 
that is approaching.
    The PREPARE initiative that President Biden has announced, 
the more, again, that we can resource--developing countries are 
angry. One of the reasons that President Sall even, I think, 
was receptive in some fashion, at least to make the statement 
that you described, is the countries are now clamoring for 
losses and damages, and we are trying to do adaptation 
programming that helps them withstand floods, droughts, through 
emergency assistance, but also to things that allow them to 
continue to grow their agricultural sectors against the odds.
    Senator Kaine. There is much I want to talk about in this 
space, but I am over time. I will yield back. Thanks.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is 
really hard in one hearing to categorize all the ways in which 
the Russians are using starvation as a deliberate tactic, not 
just in Ukraine, but all over the world. Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield, I wanted to sneak in two questions, one for you and 
one for Administrator Power.
    To you I wanted to talk about the crisis in Syria. Today, 
WFP estimates you have got about 12 million people who are food 
insecure, starving. That is an increase from last year--it is 
hard to believe--but it is getting worse inside Syria, not 
better. Yet, during the last several years we, of course, have 
gone from four crossings to bring humanitarian aid down to only 
one crossing. There is only one reason for that, and that is 
Russia's decision to try to use starvation as a tool to benefit 
Bashar al-Assad.
    You were able to win a 6-month extension of the one 
crossing, but that is all that Russia will agree to. Just tell 
us very briefly what the consequences are, going from four 
crossings to one crossing and now having only a handful of 
months' certainty that you will even have that available for 
humanitarian relief getting into Syria.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Senator, thank you for that 
question. I was in the region earlier in the year and I saw the 
desperation not just among the Syrians, but the desperation of 
the humanitarian workers who will see the impact of this 
directly, in January, when this border crossing closes in the 
middle of winter. What we expect will start to happen is more 
people will start to move. People will not sit and allow 
themselves and their children to starve to death. We will have 
to possibly prepare for more migrations of people across the 
border and support to those people where they are sitting.
    We worked desperately to get this border crossing extended 
for a year. The Russians were obstructionist, as they always 
have been. We spoke to the NGOs who said, yes, 12 months is the 
minimum we need, but 6 months is better than nothing, and that 
is why we came away with the 6 months that you just spoke 
about, but we are still working in the Security Council to try 
to get that extended at the end of the 6-month period and get 
more border crossings open, because the situation, the 
humanitarian situation, is increasing, not decreasing.
    Senator Murphy. Well, we appreciate your herculean work 
trying to keep that crossing open. Tell us how we can continue 
to help.
    Administrator Power, I wanted to ask you to drill down a 
little bit more on the commitments that we need from our Gulf 
allies. I am very glad to see that in coordination with the 
President's visit the Saudi's announced that they would be 
depositing $2 billion into Yemen's central bank. That is really 
important because the food crisis is exacerbated by the broader 
economic crisis inside Yemen, and that funding will help to 
free up some capital and resources for Yemeni families and 
public employees to buy food.
    Every single year the Saudis, and the Emiratis in 
particular, make these big, public pledges as to how much they 
are going to support food assistance and humanitarian aid in 
Yemen, and then every single year it is like pulling teeth to 
get both of these supposed allies to deliver on those pledges. 
The Saudis have pledged $300 million for food, aid, and 
humanitarian relief inside Yemen so far this year, but so far 
they have delivered about $85 million. The Emiratis have 
delivered $23 million. I mean, the Emiratis sneeze $23 million 
every morning when they wake up, and yet we cannot get more 
than $23 million to support humanitarian relief.
    How critical is it for the Gulf countries that are 
participants in the war inside Yemen to be active partners in 
delivering aid to what continues to be the world's worst 
humanitarian disaster? We are doing the most, but it seems that 
the participants in the war need to be at least meeting our 
commitment.
    Ms. Power. Thank you. Yes, Senator, I cannot put it better 
than you have put it, but would only start by saying the truce 
needs to be preserved, because the only thing worse than the 
food conditions pending right now in Yemen--and David Beasley 
can speak to this--imminently is that food crisis plus the 
resumption of the war. That is, I think, why the diplomacy that 
President Biden did on his trip to the Gulf around the Yemen 
war and extending the truce is so, so very important.
    I would add that Qatar, in the past, has made fairly 
important contributions to previous crises in Somalia. One of 
the things that I will do in the wake of my trip to the Horn 
here in the coming days is engage with them. We have a 
conversation underway, but I think that is an area for growth 
as well.
    I would say again the Saudis have provided some capital and 
liquidity, I think, to the Egyptians to help shoulder this 
crisis, but just as I indicated in my opening, we have got to 
pursue emergency aid at the same time we make these longer-term 
investments. It really is not enough just to provide loans, 
even though that is an incredibly important piece of the 
puzzle. Organizations like the World Food Programme and other 
international NGOs and other U.N. agencies need big money just 
to keep people alive so that we can then, again, look at the 
kind of political reforms and economic reforms and growing the 
economy and growing the agricultural sector that we know, in 
the long term, is the only way that we are not going to avoid 
coming back and having hearings like this every season.
    Senator Murphy. Lastly, the ceasefire is so important. I am 
glad the Administration made that a priority, but the ceasefire 
has to be a mechanism to a political dialogue that eventually 
gets a return of the Yemeni Government to the Yemeni people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Just for the members' awareness, I 
am going to call Senator Young and Senator Van Hollen, and then 
I am going to call Governor Beasley who has a hard stop at 12 
o'clock. We invited him here and I also want to hear from one 
of the largest entities to provide food relief to the world.
    Senator Young.
    Senator Young. Administrator Power, good to see you. Last 
week, USAID announced that it was distributing $4 billion to 
Ukraine for additional direct budgetary support. That covers, 
as I understand it, only 3 weeks of the government's current 
deficit. Today the government, it is reported, is further 
considering declaring default on its international debt 
obligations. I know this is a concern of yours. It is certainly 
a concern of mine.
    In your view, is the Government of Ukraine's financial 
situation sustainable if the war continues for months or even 
years?
    Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and first thank you for the 
resources to be able to be in a position to provide direct 
budget support. We have provided three tranches of that support 
so far, with another very large tranche on the way.
    I met with Madam Zelenska yesterday. This was issue number 
one on her mind, as the latest person to engage us on the 
fiscal crisis that they face. It is a very, very difficult 
situation and it is why there is such urgency around putting 
sufficient, out of my lane, but military pressure on the 
Russian Federation so that negotiations can go further than 
they have up to this point. It is why the conversation we were 
just having about other donors, particularly questions of 
whether the Europeans can come forward with comparable direct 
budget support alongside all the other contributions they are 
making in other sectors----
    Senator Young. That is key, is it not?
    Ms. Power. It is key. Then questions around the World Bank 
and the IMF and others, and whether other actors can be brought 
to the scene. I mean, you have allocated $8.5 billion in direct 
budget support. If we do that all at once, that is not going to 
bode well for a matter of weeks or months from now.
    Senator Young. How does European support collectively 
compare to American support right now?
    Ms. Power. In the area of direct budget support 
specifically?
    Senator Young. Yes.
    Ms. Power. My understanding--but I would want to revert--is 
that the European Commission has either provided or committed 
$500 million in direct budget support, but again, that is on 
top of also sheltering, no questions asked, 6 million refugees 
with all the social service, education, health, and so forth, 
and all the other emergency humanitarian assistance, which is a 
very different order, that they provide to international 
organizations along with us.
    Senator Young. Okay. Well, it sounds like the 
Administration owes us a little more on that, what you see as 
we head into the future in terms of whether or not Ukraine's 
financial situation is sustainable, so that I can approach my 
constituents and say, ``Listen, this is going to be a long 
haul. It is going to be very expensive.'' These are equities 
that we will have to weigh.
    Ms. Power. That is very fair.
    Senator Young. Because I can tell you, back home in 
Indiana, our hearts go out to the Ukrainians, and there is a 
certain understanding of the economic implications, but people 
are also weary. They are weary after Iraq and Afghanistan. They 
understand the economy is precarious right now. This is the 
sentiment from the heartland, and our policy needs to be 
connected to those individuals. Otherwise, we are going to lose 
support and make impulsive decisions.
    I look forward to working with you on that. I do not feel 
like we have really fully answered the question, and I do not 
feel like you have evaded the question, but I do not feel like 
we have fully answered it. Let's continue this conversation in 
a very serious way with the Europeans as well. All right?
    Does USAID and the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, in 
particular, have the staffing and capacity to manage the 
supplemental funding that it has received, Administrator?
    Ms. Power. I think we would not have been able to obligate 
over $11 billion for Fiscal Year 2022, which is 40 percent more 
than last year, which broke a record last year, if we could not 
manage. That said, when I first came up to this committee and 
to our appropriators, I made a fervent appeal to address staff 
depletion, particularly among contracting officers. We are 
surging contracting officers to be able to manage the flow of 
these big awards, but also smaller awards, if we want more 
local organizations.
    Senator Young. Thank you. I am going to lob a question to 
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield because I do want to get to this, 
at least get the question on the record, and it pertains to the 
Black Sea ability to deliver food. I know that was asked 
earlier.
    I want to know if there are additional options to help get 
food into and out of Ukraine. Okay? If you can say yes, there 
are----
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. There are additional options 
that are being pursued. They will never be big enough to deal 
with the quantity of food. There is 20 million tons sitting to 
be moved out of the Black Sea. We have been able to move about 
2.5 million tons through land and rail crossings, and we are 
trying to expand that as Administrator Power mentioned earlier, 
and contributing to the European Union effort to do that, to 
fix the rails, but it cannot account for the amount of food 
that will be required to move outside of Ukraine.
    Senator Young. Okay. We will follow up. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
both of you for your service. Governor Beasley, it is great to 
see you as well.
    Just to pick up on that final point of my colleague, 
Senator Young, I think the testimony we have received in a 
number of hearings, including Appropriations Committee, has 
been exactly as you said, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, which 
is that we are trying to be creative in getting some of that 
grain out, but the reality is when you have got 20 million 
tons, we have got to get it ultimately out through the Black 
Sea.
    I just want to echo what my colleagues have said and what 
you all agree with, which is we need to do a much better job of 
letting the world know that Russia is using food as a weapon of 
war. It is actually doing a double-edged sword here because 
they are withholding grain, corn, and wheat from Ukraine, but 
as I understand it, Russia is expecting a bumper wheat crop of 
over 40 million tons themselves. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, 
those shipments are going out through the Black Sea, are they 
not?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Russian agricultural products 
are not being blocked. They are not shipping them out as 
rapidly as they could, for a number of reasons of their own 
making, but it is not because of sanctions. We are working on 
the Black Sea option to help get Ukrainian food out. The 
Russians could be moving their food, and that is a message that 
I think we need to be really highlighting much more loudly.
    Senator Van Hollen. Right. I think that, again, they are 
raising pressure on food supplies and prices by blocking the 
Ukrainian grain. They also have this storage of grain, which 
they are then using to pressure countries.
    Senator Kaine, I heard, referenced the statement by the 
President of Senegal after he met with Putin, sort of buying 
into the sanctions narrative. Are you seeing, at the U.N., 
Russia's effective use of this false narrative in terms of 
getting countries to vote their way or abstain?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I am absolutely seeing the 
Russians use their false narrative to pressure countries. They 
have not succeeded, however, in getting those countries, in 
large numbers, to vote with them. In the Security Council vote 
that we had recently on Syria, 13 countries supported the 
resolution, Russia vetoed, China abstained. In the General 
Assembly we get large numbers of votes, but Russia is using 
pressure tactics. More than 17 African countries abstained for 
fear of Russian intimidation tactics against them.
    We have to be conscious of that. These countries are 
desperate. They are afraid, but I think they also understand 
what is happening, and we just, again, have to work with them 
to address those issues. I have had a conversation with 
President Macky Sall. I am having listening sessions with the 
Africans to hear their concerns, but also to address their 
concerns.
    Senator Van Hollen. Well, I appreciate it. I know that you 
are working hard to make sure the truth gets out at the U.N. 
and make sure that people vote not based on misinformation, but 
based on principle.
    Let me very briefly, because I do have a question for 
Administrator Power, in terms of these discussions that are 
ongoing with the U.N., Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine, there have 
been some reports that are heralding a possible breakthrough. 
What is your current assessment of the prospects of those?
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I am hopeful, and as I heard 
Administrator Power say, hope does not always get us what we 
need. We are very supportive of the process because this is a 
process that will allow 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain to 
get out to the market. We are encouraging the U.N. in these 
efforts, but we will also be watching the Russians and hold 
them accountable for any agreement that they should make with 
the U.N. We thought we might even hear that an announcement 
would happen today. So far, it has not happened.
    Senator Van Hollen. All right. Administrator Power, thank 
you for all your efforts in getting the emergency funds, 
including the food assistance, out the door. I know it is a big 
task. The World Food Programme is obviously a trusted partner, 
and I guess we will hear later about their capacity to absorb 
more. How do you think about the distribution between the World 
Food Programme versus other trusted NGO partners? Senator 
Cardin mentioned the Catholic Relief Services that has got its 
home in Baltimore. How do you think about that in terms of the 
goal, which is to get food where it is needed, as quickly as 
possible?
    Ms. Power. Is the question specifically in Ukraine or 
globally as well?
    Senator Van Hollen. Globally, but focusing primarily on 
what is happening as a result of what has happened in the 
Ukraine conflict.
    Ms. Power. Okay. Thank you. I would just note, per your 
exchange with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, that in addition to 
having a bumper crop, Russia is also stealing Ukrainian grain. 
It is not just blockading. It is actually stealing and selling 
grain that Ukrainian farmers planted and harvested. More than 
$100 million worth, at least, which is outrageous in every 
respect.
    The Chairman. If you could, Administrator, succinctly 
answer this question because I need to get to Governor Beasley.
    Ms. Power. Indeed. Let me say that we are already funding 
46 local partners in Ukraine. I think that is very important, 
over time, and I think David Beasley agrees. We have had a lot 
of conversations about that, to transition to the Ukrainian Red 
Cross, other local organizations that can carry this work on 
when the international community, hopefully, will be able to 
leave at some point.
    We cannot just focus only on food. Obviously the World 
Health Organization, given the disruption of health facilities 
is very important. International NGOs like CRS, Mercy Corps, 
IRC, and others are critical partners on the ground.
    I think what is unique about the World Food Programme is 
their ability to scale speedily. I know there were frustrations 
at the beginning because they were not operating in Ukraine 
when the war started, but if you look at--and David will speak 
to this--just the amount of reach that WFP has and the ability 
to get cash and food to people quickly, there is nothing quite 
like it, but over time we will need to round out and make sure 
that all other sectors are covered and that we have something 
sustainable.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. With the thanks of the committee 
to both of you for both your work and your testimony here 
today. You are now excused. We look forward to continuing to 
engage you.
    Governor Beasley, come on up. Your full statement will be 
included in the record, without objection. I know you have a 
hard stop at 12. Hopefully there is a little flexibility, but 
having heard members' questions and the testimony that has 
taken place, any insights you can give us as the largest 
provider, as an entity, would be very helpful. The floor is 
yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID BEASLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORLD 
                  FOOD PROGRAMME, ROME, ITALY

    Mr. Beasley. Senator, thank you. I know we are pressed for 
time so let me dispense with any statement and just talk really 
very directly about the situation. I think everyone is gravely 
concerned.
    When I took this role 5 years ago, over 5 years ago, there 
were only 80 million people, as we would say, marching to 
starvation. That is different than chronic hunger. You were 
citing that number at the beginning, of 800-and-some-odd 
million people. That acute hunger went from 80 to 135 million 
right before COVID, driven by man-made conflict along with 
climate shocks. COVID comes along and creates economic 
devastation in nations all around the world, particularly the 
poorest of the poor. That number then went from 135 million to 
276 million people. You see, over time, the situation is 
getting more fragile, particularly in the poorest of the poor 
countries.
    Well then comes Ethiopia, then Afghanistan, and when you 
think it cannot get worse, the breadbasket of the world, a 
nation that produces enough food to feed 400 million people 
[Ukraine], is taken out of the global food market. The 
devastation is real. It is going to be long sustaining. It is 
also going to be immediate, as we are already seeing pricing in 
commodity markets spiking and skyrocketing.
    The number of 276 million has now jumped to 345 million 
people that do not know where their next meal is coming from. 
Unprecedented numbers, but the even more concerning number, 
Senator, is within that are 50 million people knocking on 
famine's door in 45 countries. If you want to know which 45 
countries very well could be destabilized, in addition to 
famine and mass migration, those are the 45 countries to start 
with immediately.
    Now, when we compound the fact that grains cannot get out 
of Ukraine, coupled with the droughts, the heat that we are 
facing, along with fertilizer pricing, fuel costs, and food 
costs, you begin to see we have got two looming problems ahead. 
First is going to be a food pricing problem over the next 6-12 
months among the poorest of the poor, and even Americans are 
feeling the pressure, as we know, but number two, I am very 
concerned next year that we may have, on top of that, a food 
availability problem, and that is going to be a crisis beyond 
anything we have seen in our lifetime.
    In 2007 and 2008, when inflation in food pricing hit then, 
we had 48 nations which saw civil unrest, riots, and protests. 
The situation today is much, much worse, and we already are 
beginning to see destabilization take place in many countries. 
In Sri Lanka, we saw what happened in Mali, put that back 
together, Chad, Burkina Faso. We are seeing protests and riots 
in Kenya, Pakistan, Peru, Indonesia, and I could go on and on.
    Senator, what the United States has done in stepping up is 
absolutely extraordinary. I know the Republicans and Democrats 
seem to be fighting on about everything else, but by God, the 
American people can be proud of the United States Senate, the 
United States House, the Republicans and Democrats coming 
together on food security around the world. It has absolutely 
set the stage for the rest of the world to follow.
    Unfortunately, the rest of the world is not stepping up 
like it should. As we heard, China has only given us $3 
million. The Gulf states, with unprecedented oil pricing, which 
is compounding the food crisis, should be stepping up in ways 
beyond anything we have seen before. I think Samantha, 
Administrator Power, mentioned the fact that at least if they 
could contribute to the humanitarian crisis in their own 
neighborhood, like Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Afghanistan 
it would take immense pressure off of the traditional 
international donors that are struggling right now.
    I can get into the details of that as we need. I know we 
are short on time. There is a lot more I would like to say, but 
let me stop it right there, Senator, and answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Beasley follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Mr. David Beasley

    This brief is being provided on a voluntary basis and should not be 
understood to be a waiver, express or implied, of the privileges and 
immunities of the United Nations and its officials under the 1946 
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
                              introduction
    Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Risch, members of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for convening this hearing on 
the current global food crisis and the urgent need to address the 
growing threat of starvation around the world.
    I want to thank the United States Congress and this Committee for 
the unstinting bipartisan support shown to the United Nations World 
Food Programme (WFP). The United States is WFP's most generous and 
longstanding partner. Last year, the United States provided a record 
$3.86 billion in financial support to WFP.
    I commend the Biden administration for its approval of the recent 
supplemental funding package which includes $5 billion to address the 
destructive impact the conflict is having on global food security, and 
we appreciate the chorus of support from lawmakers on Capitol Hill 
which made that possible. I would also like to thank the United States 
Agency for International Development (USAID) for its excellent 
cooperation and partnership, especially in this time of exceptional 
need.
    WFP is particularly grateful for the initial tranche of 
supplemental funds that USAID has advised we will receive from these 
new resources. Knowing these funds are coming has already helped us 
resume support for millions of the most vulnerable in nations across 
the globe.
    The United States has responded swiftly and generously to the 
looming humanitarian disaster that threatens famine and starvation on a 
worldwide scale. It is vital that others in the donor community now 
bring forward similar support and play their part to stop this crisis 
from spinning out of control.
    Today, I will outline the state of global hunger in the context of 
the war in Ukraine, provide you with an update on WFP resourcing and 
the impact U.S. supplemental funds are having, and share our latest 
analysis of how the hunger crisis may develop should humanitarian 
responders like WFP not receive the scale of resources required from 
donors to contain its effects.
                         state of global hunger
    Progress toward achieving Zero Hunger, the second of the 17 
Sustainable Development Goals, had stalled even before the COVID-19 
pandemic produced economic turmoil and eroded food security, with 
increased conflict and climate change the principal obstacles. In early 
2022, on the eve of the war in Ukraine, acute food security in the 82 
countries where WFP operates had risen to 276 million people. These are 
people in need of urgent food, nutrition, and livelihoods assistance. 
This number was a record high, and more than double the 135 million 
people living with acute hunger before the COVID-19 pandemic.
    WFP's latest analysis reveals that this number has now risen to 345 
million as a direct result of the Ukraine crisis and its damaging 
impact on global food commodity prices and availability, with the bulk 
of the increase being seen across sub-Saharan Africa.
    Among the 345 million, there are 50 million people living in 45 
countries in even graver danger. They presently face severe hunger 
emergencies (IPC/CH Phase 4)--just one step from falling into famine. 
This number has almost doubled from 27 million over the past 2 years, 
an alarming situation. To put the severity of these numbers into 
context, people in IPC 4 are in a state of ``emergency conditions'' 
where they are acutely hungry and are liquidating their final assets to 
do whatever they can to get food. They are exceptionally fragile, and 
many die from the impact of their hunger. Thirty percent of their 
children are wasting and many are now permanently stunted, undermining 
their ability to ever achieve their potential. This is not just a 
critical moment of hunger; it is a generational impact that will have 
consequences for decades to come.
    And finally, there are 882,000 people languishing in IPC 5, a 
catastrophic condition of hunger which is the highest number on record 
since the 2011 famine in Somalia. Some 401,000 of these people are in 
Tigray in Ethiopia; 213,000 are in Somalia; 161,000 in Yemen; 87,000 
are in South Sudan; and 20,000 are in Afghanistan. While famine has not 
officially been declared in these places because the technical 
thresholds have not yet been verified, the people living in them are 
experiencing the same horrific conditions. The very real risk that 
famines will be declared in 2022 is an admission of failure at a time 
when the world has enough resources, food and money to reach them.
    While all of this is very bad news, the situation will deteriorate 
further in the months ahead unless the international community 
mobilizes the resources required to mount a comprehensive humanitarian 
response.
                           the ukraine crisis
    We cannot adequately speak to the current global hunger crisis 
without addressing the conflict in Ukraine and the ripple effects it 
has produced across the globe.
    Last year, Ukraine grew enough food to feed 400 million people, but 
the profound disruption to centers of population, food production and 
supply chains caused by the war mean that the food grown in the country 
is no longer able to sustain a significant proportion of its own 
people. Ukraine has gone from being a global breadbasket to being on 
the breadlines. About 35 percent of the remaining population inside 
Ukraine have resorted to missing meals, restricting adult consumption 
to feed children or borrowing food. WFP is currently targeting 4.7 
million people inside Ukraine with food or cash assistance.
    Even greater concerns lie beyond Ukraine's borders. Global food 
markets have been plunged into turmoil, with soaring prices, export 
bans and shortages of basic foodstuffs spreading rapidly. Nations 
across Africa, the Middle East, Asia and even Latin America are feeling 
the heat from this conflict.
    An estimated 20 million tons of wheat, barley, maize and vegetable 
oil produced by Ukrainian farmers are trapped in ports, silos and 
warehouses--threatened by the destruction of the infrastructure to get 
them to market and the blockade of ports in the Odesa area of southern 
Ukraine.
    We urgently need a political solution to reopen these ports so the 
food being produced in the country can flow freely onto global markets 
once again. If they are not reopened, Ukrainian farmers will have 
nowhere to store the next harvest in July and August. The result will 
be mountains of grain going to waste while WFP and the world struggle 
to deal with an already catastrophic global hunger crisis. WFP urges 
all parties involved to allow this food to get out of Ukraine to where 
it is desperately needed so we can avert the looming threat of famine.
    In recent years Ukraine and Russia became major engines for feeding 
the world, serving as critical suppliers to global markets for wheat, 
maize and other food commodities, as well as energy and fertilizer. 
This conflict has rocked global food and energy markets as exports from 
Ukraine have been halted by this war. Steep rises are occurring in 
international prices for basic staples--notably wheat, maize and 
vegetable oil--creating a food price environment that resembles the 
2008 and 2011 crises.
    Food prices have risen by at least 15 percent in 53 countries over 
the past year, rendering essential purchases unaffordable for many. 
This includes four countries--Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Sudan--
which have seen three-digit rates of food inflation. Given heavy 
reliance on world commodity markets by numerous countries, prices are 
rising even in places that do not source their wheat or maize directly 
from Ukraine or Russia. So in truth, instead of exporting food to help 
feed entire countries, the conflict means that Ukraine is now being 
forced to export hunger.
    In the case of a prolonged conflict, we should expect the 
destruction of the commodities currently trapped in storage, worsening 
declines in Ukraine's upcoming grain harvests and severe limits on its 
capacity to supply global markets. Countries that rely heavily on grain 
imports from the Black Sea, like Egypt, Lebanon and Yemen, will be 
greatly affected.
    The threat to global food security is being exacerbated by the 
upheaval in worldwide fuel and fertilizer markets, as shortages and 
price spikes sharply reduce access to these vital inputs for farmers on 
every continent. Some 25 countries--ranging from Honduras and Guatemala 
to Mozambique and Sierra Leone--depend on Russia for 30 percent or more 
of their fertilizers. Meanwhile, fertilizer prices have risen by a 
staggering 231 percent over the past 2 years. Without urgent action, 
global food production and crop yields will be slashed. This raises the 
frightening possibility that in addition to today's food pricing 
crisis, the world will also face a genuine crisis of food availability 
over the next 12-24 months--and with it, the specter of multiple 
famines.
    Let me be crystal clear: Conflict in Ukraine is quickly 
transforming a series of already terrible hunger crises into a global 
food crisis that the world simply cannot afford. A crisis of this scale 
will destabilize many parts of Africa, the Middle East, Central and 
South America and Central Asia.
         resourcing and early impact of u.s. supplemental funds
    This unprecedented crisis leaves WFP in the position of serving the 
greatest number of people in its 60+ year history. In the face of 
COVID-19, multiple conflicts and climate-related crises, we aim this 
year to assist 152 million people. This is after reaching a record-
breaking 128 million beneficiaries in 2021.
    Unfortunately, we are doing this in a time of dramatically 
insufficient resources. WFP's assistance this year will cost 
approximately $23 billion. To say that our needs outstrip our funds 
would be a significant understatement--today WFP faces a funding gap of 
over 50 percent, even after the generous supplemental funds provided by 
the United States. While WFP has historically faced funding shortfalls, 
they have not been as great as this in the past or surfaced in such a 
complicated environment. As other UN agency and government budgets are 
similarly under strain, many responders are forced to cut assistance at 
the same time. This makes cuts in WFP's assistance much more painful 
for recipients than in prior years.
    The Ukraine conflict has further added to the funding gap by 
increasing WFP's operational costs and constraining its response at a 
time when it is needed the most. While other exporters of staple food 
commodities should--at least partially--be able to make up for the 
shortfall in supplies from the Black Sea region, these commodities are 
higher priced and moving them comes with significantly greater 
operational costs; shipping costs are now 4 times what they were in 
2019. WFP's operational costs are now $71 million more per month than 
they were just 2 years ago, an increase of 44 percent. This is enough 
to feed 3.8 million people for one month.
    Because of these increased costs, we have had to cut rations to our 
beneficiaries. In recent months we have had to reduce rations to 8 
million individuals in Yemen who are already in IPC 3 and 4. We are 
being forced to make the terrible decision to literally take food from 
hungry children to give it to starving children. This is also true for 
many of our beneficiaries in Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, 
Chad, Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Mali, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, 
Syria, and sadly the list goes on.
    This is why the generous supplemental funding provided by the 
United States comes at such a critical juncture. Already, working 
together with USAID, WFP is using these resources to have a tangible 
and positive impact on reducing the damaging impacts of these ration 
cuts.

   In Yemen, WFP received $114 million and has been able to 
        provide increased rations from 50 to 75 percent to 4.7 million 
        people for up to 4 months.

   In Afghanistan, WFP received $190 million and has been able 
        to provide partial rations for 5 million people from August-
        October and to begin prepositioning commodities in areas that 
        will be isolated during the winter months.

   In South Sudan, WFP received $101 million and has been able 
        to assist 2.4 million people with 50-70 percent rations for the 
        remainder of the year.

   In Ethiopia, WFP received $262 million and has been able to 
        expand programming in northern Ethiopia to 3.4 million 
        beneficiaries and an additional 2.4 million in other parts of 
        the country.

   In Somalia, WFP received $106 million and has been able to 
        assist 4.1 million people with full rations through October. In 
        addition, WFP will be able to scale up its nutrition program 
        for 444,000 children and mothers through October.

   In the Sahel, U.S. supplemental funding has allowed WFP to 
        scale up from 5.6 million people to 8.2 million people. In 
        Niger, specifically, we were able to increase to full rations 
        from 65 percent rations. And in Chad, beneficiaries are 
        receiving cash assistance as early as this week.

   In Haiti, the U.S. supplemental will allow WFP to increase 
        its cash assistance to 150,000 people, providing critical 
        support against rising food prices.

    Notwithstanding these significant gains supported with U.S. 
supplemental funding, it is clear that the United States alone cannot 
fully meet the needs in all crisis countries. Other donors, 
governments, the private sector, billionaires, etc., must all step up 
now to do their part to meet these unprecedented needs.
    Of the 68 countries for which WFP requested supplemental funding 
from USAID, only 31 received support. Critical funding gaps remain that 
must be filled urgently by the broader donor community if we are to 
avoid a further deterioration of food security and stability in many 
countries. A few examples include:

   In Sudan there is a $263 million funding gap for the balance 
        of the calendar year that is limiting the assistance that needs 
        to be provided to 6.24 million beneficiaries.

   In Afghanistan, WFP's shortfall for the next 6 months is 
        $926 million.

   In Yemen, beneficiaries are only receiving 50 percent 
        rations and the rations will be cut off completely in January 
        if new funding is not received.

   In Somalia, WFP expects a $132 million shortfall beginning 
        in October that will force the reduction in both relief and 
        nutrition assistance.

   In west Africa, more than $594 million is needed for crisis 
        response activities through the end of the calendar year.

   In Central America, WFP projects as many as 3.2 million 
        people may migrate due to severe food insecurity.
                   implications for global stability
    We have long known that war produces hunger; that has been true of 
every major conflict in human history and the world is seeing this 
dynamic unfold in real time in Ukraine today. But we have also observed 
that hunger itself can produce conflict and instability, creating a 
vicious cycle of deepening hunger fueling increasing conflict. This is 
what we should be afraid of today--the further weaponization of food.
    One of the most predictable ways that food insecurity can produce 
instability is through unexpected, rapid spikes in food prices or a 
lack of access to food. As prices of grains, oils and other basic 
commodities suddenly spike in countries around the world it is 
important that we realize the risks this portends. Recent history 
serves to warn us.
    In 2007-08, a rapid increase in prices for major food staples 
produced social unrest in at least 40 developing and middle-income 
countries, and regime change in at least one. We saw food-related 
instability strike again in 2011 with a second wave of price spikes 
linked to the Arab Spring in the Middle East, which created social 
upheaval in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and especially Syria.
    The links between food insecurity and instability often produce 
spikes in migration. Food insecurity in Middle Eastern countries during 
the Arab Spring led to an increase in refugee flows and asylum seeking 
in Europe. WFP's own research into the causes of migration, based on 
data from 88 countries, found that a 1 percent increase in food 
insecurity fueled a 2 percent increase in migration. More recent 
surveys across Central America have produced similar results--a 1 
percent increase in hunger leads to a 2 percent increase in migration.
    The bottom line is that people do not stand idly by when they 
cannot feed themselves or their families. Already in recent weeks, we 
have seen social unrest triggered by food price spikes in Pakistan, 
Indonesia, and notably Sri Lanka. This is likely just the beginning: 
the conditions for food-related instability today are far greater and 
the risks of social upheaval are much higher than they were a decade 
ago.
    First, in 2008, the world was more stable than it is today. Several 
major conflicts have erupted since that time. The civil war in Ethiopia 
began in 2020, the Yemeni civil war in 2014, the Syrian civil war in 
2011; while the conflict in Northeast Nigeria began in 2009 and in 
Central Sahel in 2017. Furthermore, we are experiencing exceptional, 
persistent droughts across the Horn of Africa, central Asia and the Dry 
Corridor, which have already created millions of additional migrants. 
The combination of conflict and drought has created fragility in 
multiple regions impacting hundreds of millions of people.
    Second, the world has still not fully recovered from the ripple-
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving it ill-equipped to cope with 
yet another crisis. In low- and middle-income countries especially, 
incomes are still depressed from COVID-19, labor markets are struggling 
to recover, and debt is at record levels. With rising interest rates, 
the costs of credit further limit the options for governments to 
respond to these difficulties.
    Third, city dwellers are facing increasing obstacles to accessing 
affordable food due to reductions in incomes and closures of informal 
markets, combined with price surges due to COVID-19 containment 
measures. While hunger has long been associated with rural areas, 
COVID-19 has created a growing class of hungry people: city dwellers in 
low- and middle-income countries. This matters as food price riots 
occur overwhelmingly amongst urban populations, particularly in 
relation to food products of cultural significance, and among countries 
with a strong reliance on agricultural imports. For example, Egypt, the 
most populous country in the Middle East and Ukraine's top wheat 
customer, will struggle to maintain existing subsidies on bread--a 
staple of the Egyptian diet--in the face of rising global wheat prices.
    The combined effects of these factors, exacerbated by the war in 
Ukraine, have created a perfect storm that threatens to unleash an 
unprecedented global wave of food insecurity and instability.
                               conclusion
    A swift resolution to the crisis in Ukraine appears unlikely. 
Therefore, its global repercussions for food security and stability 
will become progressively more dangerous in the months ahead. As 
humanitarian needs soar our ability to respond is diminishing due to 
the lack of funds. While global food supply chains are stressed, there 
are enough resources available in the world to feed everyone; the issue 
is one of cost and allocation.
    The costs of humanitarian inaction are tremendous, especially for 
people in need, who in the worst cases pay with their lives. Failing to 
mobilize sufficient and timely funds for humanitarian assistance will 
not spare national budgets, it will only delay how and where they are 
spent.
    The United States has shown global leadership with its allocation 
of $5 billion to address the impact of the food security crisis sparked 
by the war in Ukraine. WFP is grateful for the initial monies 
allocated, and I sincerely hope that further tranches of funding will 
be forthcoming for our most urgent and underfunded operations.
    But this crisis is very far from over and much more needs to be 
done--especially by our friends and partners in the donor community. If 
a decisive, coordinated response is not mounted--and soon--we will see 
mass starvation, migration and destabilization on an unprecedented 
scale, at a far greater cost. A massive influx of refugees to Western 
countries could soon become a reality. As soon as they arrive, the host 
governments will start paying the price--literally--for not having 
acted earlier. Germany's recent experience of absorbing Syrian refugees 
in the aftermath of the civil war is a case in point. It costs less 
than 50 cents to feed someone for a day in Syria. It costs almost $70 a 
day in Germany to provide a refugee with the humanitarian support they 
require.
    The U.S. has shown leadership again and we must bring pressure to 
bear on all other potential donors around the world. Modern famines are 
man-made--but this also means the international community has the 
ability to avoid them. As starvation tightens its grip on dozens of 
nations, we must not allow the war in Ukraine to overwhelm millions of 
families already trapped in a deadly struggle against hunger. They are 
relying on us for survival, and we must not let them down.

    The Chairman. Thank you. That is a very succinct, but 
nonetheless powerful impact.
    Let me ask you, you say food availability. Are you 
suggesting that there will not be enough food production in 
order to meet the demand?
    Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir. Let me get into the weeds of that 
just a little bit. In Africa, where there are 1.4 billion 
people, the fertilizer crisis, along with the droughts and all 
of the fuel costs and other issues, led the African Development 
Bank to project, just recently, that you could see a 20 percent 
reduction--which I think could be very low--in food production 
across Africa. WFP supports about 69, 70 million people in 
Africa. When you look at the African agricultural community, 70 
percent of the people in Africa are fed by 33 million 
smallholder farms. If those 33 million smallholder farms do not 
get the fertilizer they need, you can only imagine what might 
happen. That is 980 million people that depend on the food from 
smallholder farms and the fertilizer to reach them. We are 
working on these issues as we speak.
    Imagine we are only reaching 65 million. You can begin to 
do the numbers and realize we have got a catastrophe looming 
before us. This is why these grains from Russia and Ukraine 
need to be moving quickly, and we are working on that as well. 
I hope we have a solution on the Odessa ports in the next 
couple of days.
    Now let me add, on top of this, I just left India 
yesterday, meeting with the Indian leadership, and India had 
anticipated substantial opportunities to work with us on 
providing grain, but you cannot believe what the heat has done 
in India just in the past couple of months. It literally has 
devastated their wheat production. We now have that on hold 
because, obviously, they have got to feed Indians first. We 
understand that, but this heat is also impacting farmers in the 
United States. It is impacting the Horn of Africa, Western 
Africa, Eastern Africa, and places around the world. We very 
well could have an availability of food problem next year, 
Senator.
    Now, while I was sitting here I just got a text from the 
president of Niger. He said they are actually getting more rain 
right now in the Sahel than they were anticipating. I do hope 
that that will relieve some of the pressure, particularly in 
Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, and Mauritania.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this. In South Sudan, 8.3 
million people are experiencing severe food insecurity, 
including 2 million children under the age of 5 facing acute 
malnutrition. There have been a number of announcements by the 
World Food Programme about where they have had to cut rations 
in places like South Sudan. How does the World Food Programme 
make decisions about which countries to fund and at what 
levels? Does World Food Programme ever cut rations in one 
response to increase them in another?
    Mr. Beasley. Senator, the way our system works, we work 
with the donor nations who direct, generally speaking, which 
countries receive funds and the prioritization. Unfortunately, 
because of the lack of funds that we were faced with in the 
last few months, we have been having to take food from the 
hungry children to give to starving children, which is a 
situation that none of us like to be in.
    Fortunately, because the United States Senate and the U.S. 
House stepped up with unprecedented funding that is going to 
alleviate some of the pressure, allowing us to move the ration 
supply back up for people, whether it is in South Sudan or 
wherever the case may be, but we work closely with USAID. For 
example, we requested, in this particular package of 
supplemental appropriations of about $5 billion, about $2.6, 
$2.8 billion to begin immediate movement. We have received, as 
of today, I think about $1.4 billion. Out of the 68 countries 
we have requested funds for, that $1.4 billion will go to 31 
countries. That still leaves 37 countries that we have not 
received additional supplementation appropriations for.
    Now what we are trying to do is work with Germany, the EU, 
and other donor nations--I was just in Japan and Korea, trying 
to convince their parliament to step up with more money to fill 
in those gaps. Obviously, we would like to see the United 
States do as much as possible, but where there are gaps, as I 
am talking with Germany, the European Union, member states, and 
other donor nations that have great alliance, particularly with 
the United States to fill those gaps.
    The Chairman. Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. I know you have got a hard stop and we have 
got a vote too, and I want to give a shot to Senator Coons.
    Let me just say this. David, you are a great spokesman for 
America and for these kinds of things. I would urge you, in the 
strongest possible terms, to not only talk about these issues--
they are huge issues. The world you live in, I do not know how 
you do it, how you get up every morning and deal with this, but 
I think when you speak, every time you speak, you really ought 
to underscore one of the major problems here, and that is 
Russia.
    This is their fault. It is no fault of the Ukraine or any 
other country. Russia made this decision by itself, and that 
decision is going to cause the starvation of millions of people 
on this planet. It is not right, it is not fair, and humanity 
ought to recognize this atrocity for what it is. I hope you 
will underscore that every time you speak about this.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Beasley. Senator, if you go back in the record, it was 
a few weeks after the initial invasion at the end of February 
that I went on record and actually went to Odessa. I have been 
in Ukraine multiple times, but I went to the Odessa port and 
met with the military officials as well as the leaders in that 
particular area, making it very clear that these ports have to 
open for the world. This is not just a Ukrainian matter.
    Obviously, as you understand the economy of Ukraine, 40 to 
50 percent of their economy is based on exports. You can 
imagine when you have the port shut down, what that is going to 
do inside Ukraine, not to mention what it is going to do 
outside of Ukraine. Fifty percent of the grain WFP buy around 
the world comes from inside Ukraine. Our operational cost now 
is over $70 million more per month because of what we are 
facing in this world crisis because of what Russia did.
    I began tweeting, actually, and messaging about Putin 
personally. I said, look, Mr. Putin. Regardless of your views 
on Ukraine, if you do not open up these ports, it is a 
declaration of war against food security. If you want to bring 
famine to the rest of the world, keep that port shut. 
Otherwise, open up the port. Have some degree of heart for the 
rest of the world.
    I met with Minister Lavrov last week and talked quite 
extensively about this matter. I said, look, it is not 
complicated. Let's get these ports open. Let's get those 
supplies moving.
    We are out there messaging and we will continue to do so. I 
sort of have a rule of thumb, that is one of the advantages of 
not wanting a job in the United Nations. You can say what you 
think, what you believe, and let the chips fall where they may, 
Senator.
    Senator Risch. Well, I appreciate that, and again, I think 
you have succinctly said what Putin knows, and that is he has 
closed the Odessa ports and those ports in the Black Sea----
    Mr. Beasley. Clear and simple.
    Senator Risch. --knowingly, willfully, intentionally, with 
malice aforethought, with a black and abandoned heart, and with 
the full intention of murdering people by starvation. It is 
awful.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 
David, it is so great to be with you. You have been a fierce, 
faithful, effective leader of the World Food Programme. I know 
it is the men and women around the world in whose name you 
accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, but I think it is important to 
emphasize that the whole world community recognizes the urgent 
need for the World Food Programme. I know that you have carried 
a message personally to world leaders to demand that others 
deliver the support that the United States does for the World 
Food Programme, and to call out, as the Chair and Ranking were 
just engaging with you on, the aggression by Russia that has 
shut the Black Sea ports of Ukraine and that threaten 
starvation to millions of others.
    I am going to make a point you do not need to respond to, 
but I think it worth making.
    When I led a delegation to Rome and we had the opportunity 
to meet with the head of the FAO, who just happens to be a PRC 
Chinese national, and we met with you and your team, and I 
pressed the head of the FAO on Russia's responsibility for this 
food crisis because of its aggression in Ukraine, we cannot get 
a similarly clear and forceful answer. I can think of no more 
stark example of the consequences of our failing to pay our 
arrears at the U.N. and then creating an opening for PRC 
leadership on different multilateral agencies and entities of 
the United Nations.
    Let me ask something that I think you should answer which 
is the operational challenges and the costs. The Ranking Member 
reference cargo preference in his opening. I am concerned about 
skyrocketing costs operationally because of what Russia is 
doing in Ukraine. What are you seeing around the world? How can 
we help you with the increasing costs you are seeing, and how 
have your cash-based interventions helped in some way 
circumvent the operating costs of delivering millions of tons 
of food around the world?
    Mr. Beasley. I think the greater flexibility we can get 
from the United States Government, will help, in my opinion, 
sway European nations and other nations to give us greater 
flexibility in how we can use our funds, the different 
modalities.
    When I arrived in this role, Senator Corker used to really 
hit me hard about cash-based transfers, and at first I was not 
quite so sure, but once I realized the mechanisms and the 
systems we had in place, and seeing the support that we did 
have from the Democrats and Republicans in the United States 
Congress, we have actually moved our cash-based system, 
Senator, up to now over $2 billion. Like in places in Ukraine 
where there is some degree of market operating, if we can bring 
in cash it actually helps local economies.
    One of the things that we are doing with cash-based 
transfers is helping stimulate local economies in Africa, as 
opposed to just bringing food in from the outside. That helps 
smallholder farmers, and it particularly helps women, because 
we actually empower women to take more responsibility in the 
villages, in the communities, and particularly in countries 
where women are oppressed.
    Senator Coons. Let me just make sure I am being specific. 
You do not actually deliver cash. You use essentially credit 
card, EBTs----
    Mr. Beasley. We do multiple things----
    Senator Coons. --for transparency and accountability. I 
have visited the Bidibidi refugee camp in northwestern Uganda, 
exactly that kind of a setting. The surrounding community, 
women are now bringing food for sale to folks who are refugees. 
They welcome refugees because they are a source of revenue and 
income for the local farmers, and it does not crash the local 
agricultural economy.
    I have also visited, in South Sudan, a refugee camp where 
World Food Programme was air-dropping food into a place where 
there was no other food available. There was no other way to 
keep starving people alive.
    Last, if I could target you back to, what do you see in 
terms of the increased costs of delivering food, and what can 
we do to help be most relevant and helpful in that?
    Mr. Beasley. The increased cost of delivering food is now 
almost $74 million more, Senator, per month. Our expense is now 
over $850 million this year, and I actually think it is going 
to get even higher. I do not see things curbing. We are having 
four times the cost of shipping, because you can imagine 
shipping costs, fuel costs, fertilizer costs, all these 
different factors are quite unprecedented.
    We would need $850-$900 million, additional dollars, just 
to stay even. Like last year we reached 130 million people. 
This year we plan to reach 152 million. Then the question is, 
how much is it going to cost in buying food? As, Senator 
Menendez, you were alluding to earlier, we had to cut rations 
because of lack of money. The amount of money it is now costing 
to acquire the same amount of food is going up so high we are 
having to cut rations from 100 percent to 75 percent to 50 
percent. For example, in Yemen we have actually cut--now we are 
going to scale back up because of your appropriation, but we 
have still got gaps. Thirteen million people, for example, that 
we feed in Yemen, 5 million we had already cut down 50 percent, 
and those were the 5 million at IPC Level 4, which is knocking 
on famine's door, 8 million at IPC Level 3 we had cut down to 
33 percent of the rations they need. We hope to begin to scale 
that up, but this is where the Gulf states need to step up.
    This increasing cost is forcing us to decrease the rations 
per child, per person, and as I said, in some places we are 
actually taking food from a hungry child to give to a starving 
child. That is why the United States leadership is saving lives 
and is going to help stabilize countries around the world, but 
we have got to get more countries to step up in ways like the 
United States has.
    Senator Coons. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Two quick takeaways. I am 
concerned about your statements about food availability. That 
is an incredibly compounding factor.
    Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Secondly, the statement of the 40-some-odd 
countries that could easily transition into collapsed nations. 
Not only is hunger a human tragedy, but it is also the breeding 
grounds for mass migration, which causes conflict, and, at the 
same time, to avail those who seek for purposes like terrorist 
actors, to avail themselves of recruiting those who, in fact, 
are facing hunger. If that is my way of solving my family's 
problem, I am afraid that there are those who will take it. The 
world needs to step up, in its own interest as well as a 
humanitarian response.
    With the thanks of the Committee for your testimony. We got 
you close to your drop-dead time, but we very much thank you 
for your and your colleagues' work.
    The record of this hearing will remain open until the close 
of business tomorrow, Thursday, July 21. Please ensure 
questions for the record are offered by that time. This hearing 
is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


     Responses of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. Ethiopia: For more than a year, the Ethiopian 
Government's cruel blockade of Tigray has deprived millions of 
Ethiopian citizen's access to fuel, food, medicine, and life-saving 
humanitarian assistance.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, in which regions or countries are you 
observing food availability and price spikes feeding rising social 
instability?

    Answer. Problems of food availability and price spikes have been 
affecting the entire world, especially least-developed countries. About 
60 percent of the world's food insecure people live in countries with 
active conflict, which is both cause and effect of food insecurity. 
Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen are amongst the 
direst of cases. The World Food Program lists food emergencies in 21 
countries (in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, and the Middle 
East). Globally, up to 40 million people could be pushed into poverty 
and food insecurity by Russia's war in Ukraine, and 75-95 million more 
could be pushed into extreme poverty by the combined effects of the 
pandemic, droughts, other climate crises, and inflation.

    Question. Have the effects of Russia's invasion on global food 
security provided China with new openings to further expand its 
influence in the Middle East and Africa? If so, what steps is the 
Administration taking to ensure that we have accurate assessments of 
any such developments?

    Answer. The PRC propagates Russia's false narrative blaming Western 
sanctions for worsening global food insecurity since Russia invaded 
Ukraine. In doing so, the PRC continues its efforts to drive a wedge 
between partners in the Middle East and Africa and the United States.
    The United States and our allies and partners publicly and 
privately amplify our collective efforts to combat food insecurity, and 
to counter Russian disinformation in International Organizations. We 
also remind foreign leaders and the world that we do not sanction 
Russian food or fertilizer exports and that the best way to improve 
global food security is for Russia to end its war.
    As the world's leading humanitarian donor, the United States saves 
and uplifts human lives globally.

    Question. Syria: Once again in Syria, the past is prologue for 
Russia's reckless brutality. Russia has hijacked U.N. processes to hold 
millions of desperate Syrians hostage in pursuit of its narrow self-
interest as it now threatens to starve the Middle East and Africa in 
pursuit of its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield, when Russia vetoed a 12-month extension of the U.N. cross-
border mandate for Syria you said, ``We will take a hard look at our 
aid posture in Syria and do everything in our power to help those in 
need.''
    What will this ``hard look'' entail? Will it include standing up 
cross-border assistance mechanisms that are independent of the U.N.'s 
cross-border mandate?

    Answer. The 6-month duration of the U.N. Security Council 
reauthorization of the cross-border humanitarian assistance delivery 
mechanism for Syria, forced upon the Council by Russia, needlessly 
complicates the U.N.'s planning, compromises supply chains, and 
increases costs. It also creates uncertainty around whether Russia will 
block further authorizations in the future. We will use all available 
means to advocate for and support the continuation of cross-border 
humanitarian assistance to the people of northwest Syria.

    Question. Assuming Russia vetoes the cross-border mandate, we have 
less than 6 months to stand up alternative mechanisms. What challenges 
do you see in this regard, aside from the time constraints? What steps 
can be taken to mitigate those challenges?

    Answer. Nothing can replicate the scale or scope of the U.N. cross-
border mechanism. If Russia blocks re-authorization of the mechanism in 
January 2023, the amount of humanitarian assistance reaching people in 
need in northwest Syria will decrease dramatically. Cognizant of 
previous Russian veto threats, we have been preparing for this 
possibility and will work with partners to demonstrate the value of the 
cross-border mechanism and lack of viable alternatives. This includes 
encouraging U.N. and NGO partners to pre-position supplies and expand 
alternative delivery approaches.

    Question. Ethiopia: For more than a year, the Ethiopian 
Government's cruel blockade of Tigray has deprived millions of 
Ethiopian citizen's access to fuel, food, medicine, and life-saving 
humanitarian assistance.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, what has the United States done to 
stop the Ethiopian Government from using assistance as a weapon of war 
in northern Ethiopia?

    Answer. The United States has engaged at all levels--both in 
Washington and in Addis Ababa--with the Government of Ethiopia to press 
for unhindered humanitarian access to northern Ethiopia. The United 
States was a committed and energetic partner to the African Union-led 
process that resulted in the November 2, 2022 cessation of hostilities 
agreement. Since the signing of that agreement, humanitarian operations 
have scaled up across the post-conflict areas, reaching most 
populations in need.

    Question. What steps have been taken to hold accountable Ethiopian 
authorities who are responsible for depriving the people of Tigray 
access to food, medicine, life-saving humanitarian supplies, and access 
to the outside world for what now amounts to more than a year?

    Answer. The United States has used a variety of tools to impose 
costs on the Ethiopian Government and individual actors responsible for 
obstructing humanitarian access, including the suspension of trade 
benefits under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) on January 
1, 2022. One of the five benchmarks that USTR has specified for 
Ethiopia to regain AGOA eligibility is to ``remove barriers to 
humanitarian operations, including by allowing the unimpeded import of 
fuel, medicine, food and other forms of humanitarian assistance'' and 
to ``restore basic electricity and telecommunication services.'' 
Likewise, we have imposed visa sanctions on specific individuals deemed 
to be responsible and will continue to do so as more evidence emerges.

    Question. Afghanistan: Afghanistan continues to face one of the 
worst humanitarian crises in the world. The combined shocks of severe 
drought, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Taliban's forcible takeover and 
mismanagement of its government has left 23 million people facing 
severe food insecurity.
    Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, what is the U.N. doing to address the 
food security crisis in Afghanistan? How are we working with the U.N. 
and other donor governments to ensure that international aid gets to 
the places and people that need it?

    Answer. As of May 2022, 18.9 million people in Afghanistan were 
acutely food insecure. The United States supports the U.N.'s 
humanitarian interventions in Afghanistan, including from the World 
Food Program (WFP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). We 
are the largest contributor to both organizations and stay tightly 
coordinated with the U.N. and other donors.
    In 2021, WFP provided life-saving emergency aid to 15 million 
people in Afghanistan as well as millions of Afghan refugees. Iran and 
Pakistan currently host the majority of Afghans at 4.5 million and 3.7 
million, respectively. Since the Taliban's takeover, FAO has 
concentrated on providing data, specialized seeds, livestock 
interventions, and vegetables, with a focus on women-headed households.
                                 ______
                                 

             Responses of Ms. Samantha Power to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez

    Question. We know that the unprecedented level of needs from the 
global food crisis will grow next year.
    Administrator Power, given the rising level of need, what funding 
gaps does USAID anticipate facing? Do you expect funding shortfalls?

    Answer. While generous supplemental resources allow USAID to meet 
the moment, we need to consider the out-year trajectory of the 
humanitarian and development accounts. USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian 
Assistance (BHA) anticipates obligating more than $11.5 billion in 
humanitarian resources in FY 2022, and $10 billion in FY 2023. USAID/
BHA will program the balance of its supplemental International Disaster 
Assistance resources in early FY 2023 to sustain our emergency food 
security response through the end of the calendar year. Due to the 
anticipated carryover and expected appropriation levels for FY 2023, 
USAID projects a significant decrease in the resources available to 
support our humanitarian programming in comparison to this year.
    The amount of unmet global humanitarian need in 2022 is greater 
than the entire global humanitarian appeal was in 2019, and additional 
support from all humanitarian donors will be necessary to avoid funding 
shortfalls in the future. Meanwhile, USAID anticipates greater needs to 
sustain current Feed the Future agriculture-food security investments 
and to continue the substantial progress being made in achieving long-
term food security gains, especially in areas with high levels of 
chronic extreme poverty and malnutrition.
    Nevertheless, USAID is anticipating an increase in overall 
populations falling into food insecurity and malnutrition due to the 
current crisis. The FY 2022 and 2023 request included requests for 
$1.05 billion and $1.06 billion for agriculture and food security 
programs respectively, $40-$45 million more than what was appropriated 
in FY 2021 and FY 2022. Regarding the ongoing global crisis, USAID is 
continuing to program FY 2022 Ukraine Supplemental funds as quickly as 
feasible to address the needs precipitated by the current situation.

    Question. What is USAID's strategic plan for next year to address 
the ongoing crisis?

    Answer. Our approach to combating this global food security crisis 
centers on actions to address the multiple causes of the crisis: 
climate extremes, COVID-19, and protracted conflicts, including the 
effects of Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. USAID is providing 
record amounts of immediate emergency assistance to the food insecure 
and the severely malnourished, in order to save lives and alleviate 
suffering--assistance that will continue throughout FY 2023. We are 
rallying countries, international organizations, and the private sector 
to mobilize resources to lessen the burden on poor countries, and avoid 
export restrictions on food that exacerbate global prices and the 
crisis overall. USAID is also investing in global agriculture and food 
systems that will help farmers boost their harvests, provide people 
with more affordable, safe and nutritious food, and help food insecure 
regions to be more resilient to future shocks.

    Question. An effective response to the global food crisis requires 
a coordinated effort from across USAID.
    How are the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) and the Bureau 
for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) working together to strengthen 
humanitarian, development, and peace-building coordination as required 
in the FY 2022-2026 Global Food Security Strategy?

    Answer. The FY 2022-2026 Global Food Security Strategy emphasizes 
strengthening humanitarian-development-peace coherence (known as HDP 
coherence) to promote complementary collaboration, coordination, and 
collective outcomes among humanitarian assistance, development 
assistance, and peacebuilding activities. The same concepts are also 
strongly emphasized in USAID's forthcoming Humanitarian Action and 
Resilience Policies. RFS, BHA, and the Bureau for Conflict Prevention 
and Stabilization (CPS) are working together at a number of different 
levels of planning and programming. For example, all three Bureaus have 
helped Missions develop integrated Country Development and Cooperation 
Strategies (CDCS) that include specific objectives on HDP coherence at 
the field level to respond to complex crises across different types of 
programming. Additionally, all Bureaus recently collaborated on the 
Programming Considerations for Humanitarian-Development-Peace 
Coherence: A Note for USAID's Implementing Partners (https://
www.resiliencelinks.org/building-resilience/reports/programming-
considerations-hdp-coherence) document, which represents USAID's best, 
most current thinking on HDP coherence and is based on extensive 
consultations with USAID staff and partners.
    In the specific context of the global food crisis, RFS and BHA have 
coordinated closely on key aspects of USAID's response. BHA and RFS 
have: conducted joint data analysis that has informed program planning; 
co-developed program plans in countries that have both humanitarian and 
longer-term development needs related to the global food security 
crisis; and closely coordinated on all interagency strategies, and 
communications materials, including guidance to field Missions--being 
careful to underscore the importance of the consistent coordination 
between humanitarian and development actors.

    Question. What regular coordination mechanisms are in place to 
ensure that at the mission level and in DC, both bureaus are speaking 
with each other and working together to layer and sequence programs 
across the food assistance and security spectrum? How often and closely 
do BHA and RFS coordinate on the selection of priority countries?

    Answer. There are various coordination mechanisms to ensure RFS and 
BHA are working together to layer and sequence programs both at the 
Mission level and in Washington. At the Mission level, USAID has found 
that formal coordination roles and structures can be effective at 
ensuring adequate cross-communication, coordination, and collaboration. 
For example, a dedicated USAID advisor or coordinator, such as the 
Resilience Coordinator position that has been established in USAID's 
resilience focus countries, can support partners and operate across the 
HDP nexus and sectoral programming. These roles build trust in 
coordination, creating a virtuous cycle. At the country and regional 
Mission level, USAID also invests in senior level decision-making 
bodies, such as the Strategic Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) 
model in Ethiopia. SAGE meets regularly to share information about 
possible shocks and emergencies and advises if and how humanitarian, 
development, and peacebuilding programs should adapt in response to 
shocks. In Washington, BHA and RFS co-lead the Resilience Technical 
Working Group (RTWG), with active participation from CPS and other 
bureaus, which meets monthly to support Mission-led efforts to bridge 
humanitarian and development programs through a collaborative and 
multi-sector approach. Through the RTWG and the Resilience Leadership 
Council described below, BHA and RFS coordinate on the selection of 
priority countries.

    Question. How are BHA and RFS working together outside of the 
context of Resilience Food Security Activities?

    Answer. BHA and RFS regularly coordinate on issues related to 
strengthening coordination and cohesion across the HDP nexus, including 
bilateral engagement by BHA and RFS policy and technical experts on 
shared priorities. BHA and RFS staff also participate in a relief-
development coherence (RDC) interagency working group, which has 
representation from BHA, RFS, USAID's Bureau for Policy, Planning, and 
Learning (PPL), and other USAID bureaus, along with the Department of 
State, to promote coherence and complementarity across humanitarian and 
development assistance for populations of concern. BHA also coordinates 
with RFS to lead USAID's participation in the Risk-Informed Early 
Action Partnership (REAP), which brings together the humanitarian, 
development, climate, and meteorological communities to increase 
investment in climate adaptation, early warning systems, and disaster 
risk reduction. In addition, RFS and BHA co-chair the Resilience 
Leadership Council (RLC), which was established in 2014 and is charged 
with the oversight of USAID support and investments made to build 
resilience to recurrent and protracted crises. Recently the RLC has 
been discussing emerging impacts and resulting needs from the Ukraine 
crisis directly with affected Missions in USAID's Resilience Focus 
Countries. The purpose of the RLC is to provide cross-bureau 
coordination at senior levels (AA and DAA) for multi-sector topic 
areas, such as HDP coherence, that require significant human and 
financial resources in more than one Washington operating unit. Lastly, 
RFS, BHA, and USAID's Bureau for Global Health (GH) also have an 
established approach to coordination around nutrition funding and 
programming. For example, in 2019, the Agency established the Nutrition 
Leadership Council (NLC). The NLC builds upon long-standing 
coordination and collaboration across GH, RFS, and BHA. The NLC 
elevates nutrition and strengthens nutrition results across USAID's 
multi-sectoral programming by optimizing and aligning resources, 
budget, technical leadership, policy guidance, programmatic oversight, 
and external engagement. Under the auspices of the NLC, RFS, BHA, and 
GH drove the Agency's Nutrition Priority Country selection process and 
implementation to ensure greater alignment and coordination of RFS, 
BHA, and GH nutrition resources and programming.

    Question. Congress has begun work on the 2023 Farm Bill.
    What reforms or additional authorities is USAID seeking in the 2023 
Farm Bill to ensure international food assistance programs are able to 
respond quickly to the needs on the ground with the most appropriate 
form of assistance?
    What additional flexibilities may be needed to improve USAID's 
response given the various compounding factors worsening the global 
food crisis?

    Answer. The reauthorization of the Food for Peace Act as part of 
the Farm Bill, at this time of global crisis, provides an unparalleled 
opportunity for Congress and USAID to work together to ensure the U.S. 
Government has the best tools at its disposal to meet the humanitarian 
challenges of the day. Given the scale of global food insecurity and 
the dynamic nature of its causes, it is imperative for USAID to fully 
optimize its food assistance programs and be able to employ the best 
food assistance modalities to respond to each context. During this 
reauthorization process, USAID will pursue technical legislative fixes 
to the Food for Peace Act to reduce administrative burden for new, 
small, or local partners; allow USAID to support increasingly expensive 
emergency response operations and quality non-emergency program design 
with Food for Peace Title II funds; streamline the award-making 
process; and improve flexibility between humanitarian funding streams 
to ensure that the most appropriate funding tool is used for every 
crisis. USAID looks forward to collaborating with relevant Committees, 
including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, during the 
reauthorization process.

    Question. In addition to emergency aid to meet immediate food 
security needs, it is also critical that the United States invest in 
resilience building, in order to help communities around the globe 
become better able to withstand future shocks and stresses that may 
impact their food security.
    How much of the Ukraine supplemental funding went specifically to 
resilience building?

    Answer. The Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
2022 (P.L. 117-128) (AUSAA) provides $760 million in Economic Support 
Funds (ESF) to support global food security. USAID will manage $655 
million of this funding, in support of the following lines of effort:

  1)  Cushioning macroeconomic shock and impact on poor people;

  2)  Mitigating the global fertilizer shortage; and

  3)  Increasing investment in agriculture capacity and resilience.

    USAID estimates that approximately $150 million of USAID-managed 
AUSAA funding will support resilience activities under the lines of 
effort described above. These targeted, rapidly implemented, and 
system-strengthening elements preserve development gains, maintain the 
ability of smallholder farmers to produce, buffer key market and 
agricultural systems from long term damage while at the same time, 
supporting smallholder farmer resilience. Resilience activities are 
also strengthening the ability of households, communities and systems 
to better manage future shocks and stresses.
    Since the onset of this global crisis, USAID has underscored the 
critical importance of close coordination between humanitarian and 
development efforts of this response. While the most immediate, life-
threatening needs are humanitarian in nature and must be addressed with 
emergency assistance urgently, USAID is maximizing opportunities 
through its efforts to mitigate impacts and support recovery in ways 
that help people both weather this crisis and sustain their wellbeing. 
While USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) leads on the 
emergency response and Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) 
leads on the short-, mid-, and long-term activities to mitigate the 
impacts of the crisis, these bureaus coordinate closely with each 
other. In addition, these bureaus coordinate with field missions and 
regional bureaus to ensure activities are appropriately tailored to 
specific country contexts.
    BHA prioritized an initial $2.2 billion in International Disaster 
Assistance (IDA) resources made available through the Ukraine 
supplemental to provide life-saving assistance in response to the 
global food security crisis. This influx of resources is supporting the 
scale up of response activities, and providing space for humanitarian 
and development partners to design resilience activities that BHA will 
support through both supplemental and core funding in FY 2023.

    Question. Can you speak about how the USG/USAID is working to 
connect emergency and long-term food assistance programming, and ensure 
that they are working together in a complementary fashion to meet 
global food security needs?

    Answer. In the context of the global food security crisis, USAID 
has worked closely with interagency partners as well as the National 
Security Council (NSC) to coordinate response efforts and messaging. 
Since the invasion began, the NSC has led regular interagency meetings 
to discuss U.S. Government (USG) efforts to address the food, fuel, and 
fertilizer price spikes. This process has resulted in the USG's Near-
Term Plan to Address Global Food Security in Response to Russia's War 
in Ukraine, aligned USG messaging at high-level multilateral 
engagements, and implementation of the AUSAA. Additionally, USAID has 
worked closely with Feed the Future (FTF) interagency partners to pivot 
existing long-term food security and nutrition programs to respond to 
the food security crisis and to expand the number of FTF target 
countries.
    RFS and BHA have coordinated closely on key aspects of USAID's 
response. BHA and RFS have: conducted joint data analysis that has 
informed program planning; co-developed program plans in countries that 
have both humanitarian and longer-term development needs related to the 
global food security crisis; and closely coordinated on all interagency 
strategies, and communications materials, including guidance to field 
Missions--being careful to underscore the importance of the consistent 
coordination between humanitarian and development actors.
    More specifically, BHA has been closely coordinating with RFS to 
define a shared set of indicators that would allow the Agency to assess 
the location and severity of emergency and long-term food security 
needs globally. Using data from the International Food Policy Research 
Institute (IFPRI) and the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS 
NET), BHA and RFS use vulnerability and exposure as their two primary 
indicators to understand which countries would be most severely 
impacted by the crisis. Vulnerability was defined as underlying 
poverty, hunger, and malnutrition along RFS and BHA have also worked 
together closely on country risk analyses and a series of synthesis 
reports for USG officials which document available information on the 
impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global food security.
    For countries receiving both IDA and food security funding under 
the AUSAA, it is important for Mission Feed the Future (FTF) teams to 
coordinate closely with Mission and Regional Humanitarian Assistance 
Offices, as well as colleagues from BHA and the Bureau for Conflict 
Prevention and Stabilization (CPS) in Washington and in the field.
    Close coordination between BHA and RFS, and consultation with CPS, 
is important for the success of both efforts, especially within the 
conflict-affected and fragile environment that characterizes the focus 
countries in this effort. To this end, all three Bureaus worked 
together to create guidance for Missions receiving EG.3 Ag ESF 
supplemental funds, emphasizing the importance of collaboration at the 
Mission level and noting how funding could be used in a complementary 
manner. BHA assistance is aimed at saving lives and alleviating human 
suffering. It funds activities that target the most vulnerable 
populations in need of lifesaving assistance.
    One of the most important aspects of USAID's response to this 
crisis is the significant expansion of FTF countries, which represents 
a major investment in resilience and food security programs across the 
globe. FTF is delivering on President Biden's commitment by expanding 
its global footprint in new countries and building more sustainable, 
equitable and resilient food systems in an effort to end poverty, 
hunger and malnutrition. In May, the USAID Administrator approved the 
following additional FTF Target Countries: Democratic Republic of the 
Congo (DRC), Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, 
and Zambia.
    In addition, RFS and BHA co-chair the Resilience Leadership Council 
(RLC), which was established in 2014 and is charged with the oversight 
of USAID support and investments made to build resilience to recurrent 
and protracted crises. Recently, the RLC has been discussing emerging 
impacts and resulting needs from the Ukraine crisis directly with 
affected Missions in USAID's Resilience Focus Countries.
    Currently, USAID has 15 Resilience Focus Countries: Burkina Faso, 
DRC, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, 
Nigeria, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. These 
countries were selected because they have areas of recurrent crises 
that result in large-scale, repeat humanitarian emergencies. All are 
FTF target or aligned countries and receive support from RFS. FTF funds 
are an essential element of USAID's, long-term, multi-sectoral 
investments to strengthen resilience in these areas of recurrent 
crises.

    Question. We know that WFP is one of USAID's most important 
partners in responding to global food insecurity, but an effective 
response requires engagement by multiple actors.
    How is USAID using funds from the supplemental to support other 
U.N. agencies and NGOs who have the expertise to provide comprehensive 
programs in key response areas such as nutrition, protection, and 
health?

    Answer. USAID is taking a decisively multi-sectoral approach in its 
response to the global food security crisis. When communities face 
crisis levels of acute food insecurity, it not only impacts the amount 
of food they can eat, but it affects the health of their families, the 
nutrition status of their children, and it changes the types of 
protection risks that women and girls face in their communities. In 
order to address these compounding needs, USAID provides a 
comprehensive package of assistance when responding to severe food 
security crises in addition to food assistance: treatment for acute 
malnutrition, health services, clean water, safe shelter, and 
protection programs that aim to prevent and respond to gender based 
violence. USAID is working both with U.N. agencies that have the 
capacity to scale quickly and with NGOs to design essential multi-
sectoral programming. USAID has now already programmed more than $2.1 
billion from the second Ukraine supplemental, across 32 countries and 
through over 115 awards, in just 2 months since the bill was enacted.
    The global food security crisis is having a visible and 
catastrophic impact on children. Specifically, rates of wasting in 
children are reaching unprecedented levels around the globe, and costs 
are increasing for the vital commodities necessary for treatment. To 
respond to these trends, USAID is scaling up its ongoing support to its 
partners the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the UN World 
Food Program (WFP) for the treatment of both severe and moderate 
wasting in priority countries.
    In July, USAID announced an unprecedented $200 million global award 
to UNICEF to respond to extraordinary levels of severe malnutrition in 
children. This funding includes support for the procurement and 
delivery of Ready-to-use Therapeutic Food, the lifesaving product 
needed for treatment in the countries experiencing the most severe 
levels of food insecurity. USAID is also leveraging this commitment to 
increase resources from other philanthropic donors. Following USAID's 
announcement, several partner philanthropies announced a commitment of 
another $50 million to address wasting globally. At the same time, the 
Administrator issued a call to action to additional donors to raise 
$250 million by September.
    Data demonstrates that women and girls are disproportionately 
impacted by food insecurity--they account for 60 percent of the 193 
million people who are food insecure worldwide. There is a direct 
correlation between food insecurity and increasing cases of protection 
violations, as women and children are disproportionately affected and 
most at risk of being impacted by negative coping strategies. USAID 
considers protection services an integral and life-saving part of the 
food security response, including gender-based violence (GBV) 
prevention and response, child protection, and psychosocial support.
    A key aspect of this response is addressing the gendered impacts of 
food insecurity by ensuring that GBV programming is prioritized from 
the outset of the response. USAID and the Department of State's Bureau 
of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) made a commitment in 2013 
with the Safe from the Start initiative to ensure that GBV is central 
to our efforts, as part of immediate and life-saving activities and 
during all humanitarian interventions, including famine and drought 
response. In addition to our lifesaving protection sector programming, 
USAID also has systems and protocols in place to ensure programming 
across all sectors is designed and delivered safely, to protect 
beneficiaries from sexual exploitation and abuse.

    Question. Administrator Power, food security was a large focus of 
President Biden's recent trip to the Middle East. I welcome the 
Administration's recent partnership with India, Israel, and the UAE 
through the newly created I2U2 Group to combat growing food insecurity 
in the Middle East and beyond.
    Administrator Power, given the rising level of need, what funding 
gaps does USAID anticipate facing? Do you expect funding shortfalls?

    Answer. While generous supplemental resources allow USAID to meet 
the moment, we need to consider the out-year trajectory of the 
humanitarian and development accounts. USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian 
Assistance (BHA) anticipates obligating more than $11.5 billion in 
humanitarian resources in FY 2022, and $10 billion in FY 2023. USAID/
BHA will program the balance of its supplemental International Disaster 
Assistance resources in early FY 2023 to sustain our emergency food 
security response through the end of the calendar year. Due to the 
anticipated carryover and expected appropriation levels for FY 2023, 
USAID projects a significant decrease in the resources available to 
support our humanitarian programming in comparison to this year. The 
amount of unmet global humanitarian need in 2022 is greater than the 
entire global humanitarian appeal was in 2019, and additional support 
from all humanitarian donors will be necessary to avoid funding 
shortfalls in the future. Meanwhile, USAID anticipates greater needs to 
sustain current Feed the Future agriculture-food security investments 
and to continue the substantial progress being made in achieving long-
term food security gains, especially in areas with high levels of 
chronic extreme poverty and malnutrition. Nevertheless, USAID's Bureau 
for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) is anticipating an increase in 
overall populations falling into food insecurity and malnutrition due 
to the current crisis. The FY 2022 and 2023 Request included requests 
for $1.05 billion and $1.06 billion for agriculture and food security 
programs respectively, $40-$45 million more than what was appropriated 
in FY 2021 and FY 2022. Regarding the ongoing global crisis, USAID is 
continuing to program FY 2022 Ukraine supplemental funds as quickly as 
feasible to address the needs precipitated by the current situation.

    Question. What is USAID's strategic plan for next year to address 
the ongoing crisis?

    Answer. Our approach to combating this global food security crisis 
centers on actions to address the multiple causes of the crisis: 
climate extremes, COVID-19, and protracted conflicts, including the 
effects of Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine. USAID is providing 
record amounts of immediate emergency assistance to the food insecure 
and the severely malnourished, in order to save lives and alleviate 
suffering--assistance that will continue throughout FY 2023. We are 
rallying countries, international organizations, and the private sector 
to mobilize resources to lessen the burden on poor countries, and avoid 
export restrictions on food that exacerbate global prices and the 
crisis overall. USAID is also investing in global agriculture and food 
systems that will help farmers boost their harvests, provide people 
with more affordable, safe and nutritious food, and help food insecure 
regions to be more resilient to future shocks.

    Question. I'm extremely concerned about the devastating impact the 
global food crisis is having in Sri Lanka and the resulting political 
fallout.
    What lines of support is the Administration considering to 
alleviate the immediate-term fuel and food shortages in the country?

    Answer. USAID shares your concern about the worsening food security 
situation in Sri Lanka, particularly the agricultural situation and the 
decreasing purchasing power of Sri Lanka's most vulnerable due to the 
economic crisis. In June, USAID provided approximately $32 million to 
support Sri Lankans affected by the crisis, split in several categories 
detailed here.
    On June 16, USAID provided $6 million in emergency assistance from 
the Complex Crises Fund (CCF). Of that total, $4.85 million will go 
toward providing technical assistance to Sri Lanka to implement 
economic and financial reforms designed to stabilize the economy, and 
support the implementation of an anticipated IMF Extended Fund Facility 
(EFF). The remainder of the funding, approximately $1.15 million, will 
be provided to USAID Social Cohesion and Reconciliation activity 
(SCORE) to support small-scale agricultural productivity and 
microenterprises in communities that traditionally experience high 
poverty rates and are especially impacted by the crisis.
    On June 21, USAID provided $5.9 million in humanitarian assistance 
to provide emergency cash assistance and critical support for 
livelihoods and agriculture for approximately 125,000 people. With this 
funding, two of USAID's NGO partners will implement programs to address 
needs that have been created and exacerbated by this complex emergency, 
while building the resilience of vulnerable communities by supporting 
disaster risk reduction and agriculture.
    On June 28, USAID provided $20 million to strengthen food security 
in Sri Lanka. This includes $7 million for agricultural inputs and a 
school feeding program that will benefit more than 1 million Sri Lankan 
children; another $7 million to support the nutrition of more than 
110,000 pregnant and lactating women with food vouchers; and $6 million 
in cash assistance and agriculture support--including the procurement 
and provision of fertilizer--to benefit nearly 30,000 farmers and 
increase food production in vulnerable Sri Lankan communities.
    Fuel access remains a critical challenge, including for 
humanitarian relief organizations. While greater availability of fuel 
countrywide would support humanitarian operations in Sri Lanka, USAID's 
humanitarian partners are still able to operate on the ground and 
provide assistance.

    Question. Has the Administration determined yet whether the 
situation in Sri Lanka should result in a disaster declaration? What 
additional activities can the Administration undertake once a 
declaration is issued?

    Answer. Following reports of rising humanitarian needs, including 
increasing food insecurity, USAID deployed a Humanitarian Advisor to 
Sri Lanka in mid-July to assess humanitarian conditions, coordinate 
with relief organizations and the Embassy, and determine next steps. 
The requirements for a Declaration of Humanitarian Need/Disaster 
Declaration (DHN/DD) are that: 1) there are significant unmet 
humanitarian needs in a country; 2) U.S. Government assistance will 
save lives or reduce human suffering; 3) the host country requests or 
will accept aid; and 4) responding to the disaster will fulfill both 
U.S. Government and humanitarian objectives. As of July 20, the U.S. 
Mission in Sri Lanka had not certified that the situation in Sri Lanka 
had met these criteria; however, if a DHN/DD is issued to provide 
additional humanitarian assistance, USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian 
Assistance (BHA) will work together with the Mission and other 
stakeholders to determine the best response option, which could include 
additional funding for humanitarian programs or technical assistance.
                                 ______
                                 

     Responses of Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. Food as a Weapon: Putin has used food as a weapon by 
deliberately destroying agricultural goods and infrastructure, 
manipulating markets, blocking access by humanitarians, and ultimately 
starving innocent civilians to death in an attempt to advance his 
political and military objectives. The Hague Convention explicitly 
prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
    Should Putin be held accountable for his war crimes under the Hague 
Convention?

    Answer. As Secretary Blinken has said, anyone and everyone 
responsible for war crimes committed in Ukraine should be held to 
account. There is a chain of command when it comes to any military, 
including Russia's. Assessing individual criminal liability is the 
responsibility of courts. In international criminal law, superiors may 
be responsible for crimes committed under their command. Criminal law 
tools could be used by a court that's able to exercise jurisdiction in 
this particular case. All of Russia's forces--from soldiers on the 
ground to generals giving orders to senior political and military 
leadership--must abide by their international humanitarian law 
obligations. There are doctrines under international law and many 
domestic laws that are able to reach up the chain of command.
    President Putin and his government must be held to account for 
their actions and systematic abuses. For this reason, we are supporting 
Ukrainian and international efforts to collect, document, and preserve 
evidence of atrocities. At the recent G7 meeting, members spoke with 
one voice condemning Vladimir Putin's illegal war and noted, 
``Indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians are war crimes. Russian 
President Putin and others responsible will be held accountable.'' We 
and our partners are committed to holding perpetrators of war crimes 
and other atrocities accountable.

    Question. Please describe the specific actions you have taken at 
the U.N. to encourage member states to condemn Putin's war crimes and 
increase support for the Ukrainian people.

    Answer. I have been proud to work in lockstep coordination with 
Ukraine, Allies, and partners to advance efforts across the U.N. system 
to expose and condemn Russia's actions and call on the international 
community to address the suffering caused by Russia's full-scale 
invasion. After Russia vetoed our U.N. Security Council (UNSC) 
resolution on Ukraine, we immediately called for an Emergency Special 
Session of the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA), which resulted in 141 
countries voting to condemn Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine on 
March 2. In early April, after I announced our support for suspending 
Russia's rights of membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), 
the UNGA successfully passed the Ukraine-led resolution to do just 
that. The HRC adopted a resolution establishing a Commission of Inquiry 
(COI) into violations and abuses of human rights and violations of 
international humanitarian law in the context of Russia's aggression 
against Ukraine. Furthermore, the United States was part of the Core 
Group for the UNGA resolution on the humanitarian consequences of 
Russia's aggression and has tirelessly used its position on the UNSC to 
call out Russia and mobilize support for Ukraine.

    Question. What efforts have you taken at the U.N. to counter 
Russian messaging and misinformation on the causes of the current food 
insecurity crisis?

    Answer. The United States has seized multiple recent opportunities 
at the U.N. to counter Russia's false narrative that sanctions imposed 
by the United States and our allies are to blame for the global 
increase in food prices.
    Global food security was a key priority of the U.S. Presidency of 
the U.N. Security Council in May, during which Secretary Blinken hosted 
over 40 countries for a Global Food Security Call to Action 
Ministerial. Senior U.S. officials, including U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture Tom Vilsack, U.S. Special Envoy for Global Food Security 
Cary Fowler, and Ambassador Jim O'Brien, Head of the Office of 
Sanctions Coordination, also continue to engage actively at the U.N., 
in capitals, and in the press to make clear that--contrary to Russia's 
claims--U.S. sanctions do not target Russian agricultural or fertilizer 
exports. Our non-food sanctions will remain in place until Putin stops 
his brutal war of aggression against Ukraine.

    Question. Humanitarian Corridors: As negotiations to reopen 
humanitarian corridors to Ukraine continue, including in relation to 
the Black Sea ports, do you commit to ensuring that Putin's efforts to 
leverage access to food for sanctions relief are unsuccessful?

    Answer. I confirm that Russia will receive no sanctions relief from 
the United States in exchange for cooperation under the U.N.-led 
initiative to enable the safe export of grain from Ukraine. We will 
hold Russia accountable for its commitments under this agreement. Our 
outreach is making clear to the world that Russia's war on Ukraine, and 
Russia's self-imposed export quotas and restrictions, are what is 
keeping food and fertilizer from reaching the world's hungry.

    Question. Please describe your efforts to secure additional 
humanitarian corridors.

    Answer. The United States actively coordinates with partners to 
support the safe transit of civilians out of conflict areas, and the 
movement of humanitarian actors and supplies to areas in need. This 
includes the humanitarian notification system facilitated by U.N. OCHA, 
which notifies parties to the conflict of humanitarian missions into a 
conflict area.
    The United States supports the EU's initiative to expand overland 
export routes for Ukrainian agricultural products, as well as re-
establishing maritime grain exports, which began on August 1. Despite 
attacks on Odesa, we understand signatories of the July 22 arrangement 
continue to open Ukraine's Black Sea ports. The United States will hold 
Russia accountable for its commitments, and we will continue to work 
with international organizations and partners to secure additional 
humanitarian corridors.
                                 ______
                                 

             Responses of Ms. Samantha Power to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. The President's budget proposal to reduce food aid at a 
time when needs are the highest in recorded history was accompanied by 
a vague reference to reforming the Food for Peace program. Food for 
Peace has served as America's flagship food aid program since 1964, but 
its success is hampered by arcane shipping requirements that 
unnecessarily drive up costs and slow deliveries.
    Specifically, what reforms do you intend to propose to make the 
Food for Peace program more efficient and effective?
    Should those reforms include a change to U.S. cargo preference 
requirements, which have outlived their useful purpose? If not, why 
not?
    Do you commit to working with your authoring committees, the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to 
socialize, negotiate, and enact urgently needed food aid reforms?

    Answer. The reauthorization of the Farm Bill, at this time of 
global crisis, provides an unparalleled opportunity for Congress and 
USAID to work together to ensure the U.S. Government has the best tools 
at its disposal to meet the humanitarian challenges of the day. Given 
the scale of global food insecurity and the dynamic nature of its 
causes, it is imperative for USAID to fully optimize its food 
assistance programs and be able to employ the best food assistance 
modalities to respond to each context. During this reauthorization 
process, USAID will pursue technical legislative changes to the Food 
for Peace Act that will reduce administrative burden for new, small, or 
local partners; allow USAID to support increasingly expensive emergency 
response operations and quality non-emergency program design with Food 
for Peace Title II funds; streamline the award- making process; and 
improve flexibility between humanitarian funding streams to ensure that 
the most appropriate funding tool is used for every crisis.
    Given record levels of global humanitarian need, USAID is 
supportive of all efforts to increase the speed and reduce the cost of 
providing life-saving assistance. While USAID is committed to 
compliance with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including the 
Cargo Preference Act (CPA), CPA requirements do increase the cost of 
life-saving emergency food assistance. For example, USAID pays 
approximately 25 percent more per metric ton (MT) to ship commodities 
on U.S.-flag vessels than foreign-flag vessels. To date in FY 2022, the 
average ocean rate per MT was $182 for U.S.-flag vessels and $147 for 
foreign-flag vessels. This is a significant cost differential, 
especially for a scaled humanitarian operation working to keep pace 
with unprecedented levels of global hunger. Additionally, in Fiscal 
Year 2021, USAID shipped 1.7 million MTs of food assistance overseas, 
with more than 75 percent shipped on bulk vessels. However, USAID does 
not always receive offers from U.S.-flag vessels, in large part due to 
a lack of available ships that can meet the requirements of USAID's 
solicitations. There are currently only three eligible bulk vessels 
operating under the U.S. flag, and of the 1.7 million MTs of 
commodities that USAID solicited for in FY 2021, 42 percent did not 
receive a single U.S. flag offer. In these instances, USAID selects the 
best foreign flag bid to meet the needs of any given solicitation.
    Yes, I commit to working with the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and other 
stakeholders, to socialize, negotiate, and enact urgently needed food 
aid reforms.

    Question. The U.S. signed the Lugano Declaration along with other 
governments in July 2022 to help Ukraine's reconstruction.
    What is USAID's plan to partner with Ukraine to rebuild its 
agriculture sector and strengthen food security in the long-term?

    Answer. Agriculture has been and still is the backbone of Ukraine's 
economy, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the country's GDP (once up 
and downstream sectors are accounted for) and more than 40 percent of 
total export revenues. The blockade of Ukraine's Black Sea ports, 
coupled with Russia's deliberate targeting of farms, grain storage 
facilities and machinery, has crippled Ukraine's farming and export 
economy--not only debilitating Ukraine's economy, but also worsening 
global food insecurity. In response to Russia's brutal invasion and 
reflecting the U.S. national interest in ensuring that Ukraine remains 
a sovereign, independent, and democratic state able to withstand 
Russia's aggression, USAID established the $100 million Agriculture 
Resilience Initiative (AGRI) to respond to the decimation of Ukraine's 
agriculture sector, including the impacts to agricultural exports and 
help stabilize the global impacts to food security. USAID also seeks to 
raise an additional $150 million for the Initiative from fellow donors 
and the private sector with an overall target of $250 million.
    AGRI-Ukraine was specifically designed to be flexible, fluid, and 
locally-led in a way that accounts for the rapidly evolving challenges 
facing Ukrainian farmers. We work with a range of agriculture 
associations, the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food and the Ministry 
of Infrastructure, and the farmers themselves to assess and respond to 
their needs, in addition to coordination with the private sector and 
other interagency and international partners. In responding to 
Ukraine's immediate agricultural export crisis, AGRI-Ukraine will act 
as a foundational building block for the preservation and 
reconstruction of Ukraine's agricultural sector.
    USAID's other agriculture program, the long-term Agriculture 
Growing Rural Opportunities (AGRO) activity, takes a comprehensive, 
balanced approach that responds to the most critical sector needs to 
rebuild and strengthen Ukrainian farmers' abilities to increase global 
and domestic food security for years ahead. AGRO will ensure that 
Ukraine's agriculture sector is successfully integrated into 
competitive markets in Ukraine and internationally in the years to 
come. Among other activities, AGRO supports initiatives aimed at 
improving production; establishing partnerships among MSMEs 
(manufacturers and processors); and developing access to sales networks 
in domestic and foreign markets.

    Question. Recognizing the acute need for shelter, medicine, and 
food both in and beyond Ukraine, Congress approved nearly $10 billion 
in humanitarian and food aid through two separate emergency packages--
one in March 2022 and another in May 2022--but the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) has failed to deliver aid quickly. 
USAID has not yet delivered or even committed all the funding from the 
first package, and has elected to hold more than half of the funding 
from the second package until the next fiscal year.
    Please describe any roadblocks or impediments that contributed to 
the delayed implementation.

    Answer. USAID is working at record speed and scale to move a 
historic $7 billion in supplemental International Disaster Assistance 
(IDA) funding to address humanitarian needs from the global food 
security crisis and inside Ukraine. USAID staff are moving an 
unprecedented amount of funding as quickly, strategically, and 
responsibly as possible, consistent with U.S. law and policy. In the 
days leading up to the enactment of the second supplemental, USAID 
immediately began planning and prioritizing required actions for the 
additional funds. USAID made funding allocations within a week of the 
bill's signing and shared those decisions with program teams 
immediately so that they could solicit and process grant applications. 
To move funding as quickly as possible, USAID is infusing money into 
existing awards, with a focus on public international organization 
(PIO) partners that have the capacity to scale quickly. We are also 
working with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to design essential 
multi-sectoral programming. This type of programming is critical to 
famine prevention, but takes additional time to design. To date, USAID 
has already programmed more than $2 billion from the first Ukraine 
supplemental and more than $2.1 billion from the second Ukraine 
supplemental--nearly $4.2 billion more than USAID's baseline 
humanitarian programming--in just the few short months since the 
supplemental bills passed in March and May of 2022. USAID plans to 
program the majority of the remainder by the end of calendar year 2022, 
to enable a strategic, multi-sectoral, and sustained response to this 
long-term crisis.

    Question. Please describe USAID's intent and/or plan to utilize its 
existing authorities to hire more Contracting and Agreement Officers 
(CO) to expedite the movement of humanitarian aid to Ukraine and 
countries affected by Russia's war in Ukraine.

    Answer. USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA) provides 
contracting officer support to the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance 
(BHA) and all other USAID bureaus and missions. BHA does not make 
decisions about the allocation of contracting officers within the 
Agency. Over the past year, OAA has increased the number of contracting 
officers supporting BHA's work from 2 to 5 and surged contracting 
officer staff to support the obligation of food security and Ukraine 
supplemental funding to help expedite critical humanitarian assistance 
awards. BHA continues to communicate with OAA on its anticipated 
workload and identifying where additional support is needed. BHA is 
also increasing contractor support so that it can process more awards 
more quickly. Given the supplemental funding that has increased BHA's 
obligation level by 40 percent this year, USAID has surged additional 
resources to BHA to help ensure critical humanitarian assistance awards 
are completed before the end of the fiscal year.

    Question. Please describe USAID's efforts to mitigate the severe CO 
shortage within the Bureau of Humanitarian Affairs (BHA) and efforts to 
transfer or supplement BHA with more COs permanently.

    Answer. To address the longer-term issue of OAA support to BHA, 
USAID is also engaging with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to 
improve benefits to help recruit additional Contracting Officers. USAID 
is currently recruiting to fill additional CO vacancies.

    Question. Please describe USAID's timetable, in writing, to 
obligate and deliver Congressionally-approved commodity-based food aid, 
including accompanying data and an explanation of why such lifesaving 
aid may take 6-12 months to deliver.

    Answer. After an award has been signed, USAID's timeline for 
procuring and shipping Food for Peace Title II funded commodities is 
approximately 4-6 months. For packaged Title II commodities, it takes 
approximately 6 months from procurement to delivery to the discharge 
port. For bulk commodities, the total timeline ranges from 4-5 months. 
Packaged commodity deliveries take longer due to the time needed for 
manufacturing, packaging, and transportation to the U.S. load port. 
Commodity deliveries can sometimes be expedited when stocks are 
available in USAID's food aid prepositioning warehouses. Stocks in the 
prepositioning warehouses are available for immediate release following 
signature of an award. Food aid prepositioning warehouses are located 
in Houston, TX; Djibouti, Djibouti; and Durban, South Africa.

    Question. How much of the Ukraine supplemental funding has gone to 
long-term agricultural development and food assistance programming in 
Ukraine?

    Answer. USAID will allocate $128 million from the two Ukraine 
supplemental funding bills for agricultural development in Ukraine. Of 
this, $28 million will go towards our long-term programs, which will 
rebuild and strengthen Ukrainian farmers' abilities to increase global 
and domestic food security for years ahead by ensuring that Ukraine's 
agriculture sector is successfully integrated into competitive markets 
in Ukraine and internationally. Among other activities, this funding 
supports initiatives aimed at improving production; establishing 
partnerships among MSMEs (manufacturers and processors); developing 
access to sales networks in domestic and foreign markets; and 
increasing MSME farmers' access to finance. The remainder, $100 
million, will go to the immediate crisis caused by Russia's war and 
Black Sea blockade, and will act as a foundational building block for 
the long-term agricultural development and reconstruction of Ukraine's 
agricultural sector. Of the total $128 million, $49 million was 
notified through Congressional Notification (CN) #148; $20 million 
through CN #177; and the remainder will be notified shortly in a new 
CN.
    Through supplemental IDA resources, USAID is funding international 
NGO and U.N. partners to distribute in-kind food and cash assistance, 
which helps people fleeing active fighting, households who have lost 
income sources due to conflict, and other conflict-affected populations 
access the food they need. BHA has provided nearly $242 million in 
emergency food assistance funding towards the Ukraine humanitarian 
response. Between February 24 and July 1, USAID's partner, the World 
Food Program (WFP), has reached more than 8 million people impacted by 
Russia's War in Ukraine with emergency food assistance and multipurpose 
cash assistance. USAID is also funding WFP, the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM), and NGO partners with nearly $343 
million in multi-purpose cash assistance to help people meet their 
basic needs--including purchasing food--in areas where markets and 
banks are operational.

    Question. Research and innovation are critical to enhancing food 
security.
    As we work to reauthorize the Global Food Security Act, please 
describe how USAID is working to expand public-private partnerships 
that deliver enduring results, such as the Global Biotech Potato 
Partnership Activity.

    Answer. Thank you for your leadership on the reauthorization of the 
Global Food Security Act. Through Feed the Future programming, USAID 
works hand-in-hand with the private sector to design, create and 
finance solutions that reduce poverty, fight hunger and improve 
nutrition across the globe. Our private sector partners are thought 
leaders who help increase country and market capacities, drive 
inclusive economic growth and achieve more sustainable outcomes at 
scale. By collaborating with the private sector, Feed the Future helps 
male and female entrepreneurs, especially small-to-medium enterprises 
and local business owners, generate income and opportunity in their 
communities.
    USAID champions private sector engagement as a means to innovate 
and deliver value at scale. U.S.-based companies, like J.R. Simplot and 
Corteva Agriscience, provide proven innovations in partner countries 
that help solve practical problems and then work closely with local 
industry and partners to facilitate widespread adoption and 
agriculture-led growth. Under the Feed the Future Global Biotech Potato 
Partnership, for example, Idaho-based J.R. Simplot is sharing 
innovative technologies that increase potato disease resistance with a 
consortium of U.S. universities and public research institutes located 
across Southeast Asia and Africa to improve the productivity and 
resilience of potato farmers.
    Building on a long track record of success, private sector 
engagement (PSE) has been elevated as an Agency-wide priority and 
implemented through a set of core principles and practices:

   Early and ongoing engagement with local and international 
        private-sector actors is vital to achieving better outcomes. 
        This allows us to benefit from the perspective and knowledge of 
        private-sector stakeholders, identify market-based approaches, 
        and understand the role of the private sector and its barriers 
        to investment and greater collaboration with local 
        stakeholders.

   Integration of private sector engagement throughout program 
        planning and at every stage of product research, development 
        and dissemination. While large companies have the capacity to 
        work across the entire value chain, USAID focuses on 
        strengthening markets that are less mature and connected. This 
        requires us to engage many small producers and businesses and 
        link them together to expand production and commercialization.

   Applying a broad range of approaches and tools to unlock the 
        potential of the private sector in achieving more effective and 
        sustainable outcomes. This ranges from information sharing; 
        joint research and learning; harnessing private sector 
        expertise, innovation and resources: and collaborating to 
        strengthen the enabling environment, such as regulatory 
        reforms, to make markets more transparent and predictable.

   In alignment with the Agriculture Innovation Mission for 
        Climate (AIM4C), USAID is encouraging partnerships with the 
        private sector that advance AIM4C's goal of increasing 
        investments in research, development and deployment for 
        climate-smart food systems. This includes working with U.S. 
        companies and research institutions to advance climate-smart 
        food systems, including partnerships with multinational 
        companies to ensure improved rice seeds are used in developing 
        countries or with fertilizer companies and research 
        institutions to improve yields and decrease misuse of 
        fertilizer.

   USAID collaborates directly with U.S.-based and 
        multinational companies to provide customized technical 
        assistance to strengthen the local food processing sector. This 
        technical assistance is focused on working with small and 
        medium enterprises, which are the backbone of local economies, 
        to improve productivity, food safety practices, and nutritional 
        quality of foods produced.

    Through a collaborative relationship with the private sector, we 
are able to bring more resources, better solutions, and more 
sustainability and scale to the work we do. Regardless of the role, 
private sector considerations are part of every programming effort, as 
these partnerships are critical for delivery of enduring results. We 
have therefore institutionalized PSE as a core tenet of USAID's 
operating model.
                                 ______
                                 

              Responses of Mr. David Beasley to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. Director Beasley: In your written testimony, you said 
``we urgently need a political solution to reopen these ports'' and 
``in truth, instead of exporting food to help feed entire countries, 
the conflict means that Ukraine is now being forced to export hunger.''
    Do you acknowledge that Vladimir Putin is using food as a weapon in 
his war against Ukraine and, that by blocking the production and export 
of Ukraine's agricultural commodities, Russia is ``exporting global 
hunger''?

    Answer. I have said over and over that failure to open the Odessa 
Ports is a declaration of war on global food security and I have 
message clearly to President Putin that failure to open the ports will 
bring famine to nations around the world. It is clear that the conflict 
in Ukraine is having an extremely negative impact upon Ukraine's 
ability to feed its people and to produce and export agricultural 
commodities. It is also clear that the blockade of Ukrainian ports was 
depriving the global market of a significant percentage of global 
grains and oils thereby reducing global availability and raising global 
prices to an extent that was creating hardship and hunger in many 
countries. As I stated in my testimony, I have been clear with my 
Russian counterparts that, to ensure they are not perceived as using 
food as a weapon they should support the opening of the Odessa port. I 
was very pleased to learn that just 2 days after my briefing to your 
committee an agreement was reached to reopen the port. Already, global 
grain markets have stabilized and Ukrainian grain is now being 
exported.

    Question. Do you also agree that using food as a weapon of war is, 
in fact, a war crime?

    Answer. WFP works to combat hunger. I would defer to experts in 
international criminal law to determine what constitutes a war crime.

    Question. The United States has provided robust funding in response 
to the global food security crisis. Please describe your efforts to 
increase other donor governments' participation in providing their fair 
share.

    Answer. I have always believed that the donor community must work 
together to address global humanitarian needs--including by sharing the 
financial burden. I have traveled extensively throughout my tenure at 
WFP to all donor capitals to press for increased contributions to WFP 
from policy makers, private sector companies and from extensive media 
outreach. What we have proved is that as leaders understand the causes 
and effects of hunger, they have deepened their commitment to WFP.
    During my tenure we have seen increased contributions from most of 
WFP's traditional government donors, even during the COVID-19 crisis. 
In addition to the generous support from the United States, Germany in 
particular has become a much more robust donor over the past 7 years, 
increasing their support from $329 million in 2015 to $1.4 billion in 
2022. Attached is the record of all WFP's donors from 2017-2021 showing 
annual contributions by donor, along with 2022 grants received to date. 
The Gulf region should be given particular note and concern. With oil 
prices bringing record revenues and at the same time negatively 
impacting fertilizer costs and severe impacts on farmers, large and 
small, at a minimum the Gulf States should be funding the humanitarian 
needs of their region.
    Over the past 5 years I have also prioritized diversifying WFP's 
revenues, knowing that we cannot end hunger without ending poverty, 
which requires deeper engagement and partnership with the private 
sector. To this end, I reorganized the management of our private sector 
team, and worked closely with business leaders to get them involved in 
this effort. The results speak for themselves: increases from $80 
million in 2017 to $496 million in 2021. I am convinced that WFP's 
long-term success can only be achieved with deeper partnerships with 
the private sector.
    Finally, we have significantly increased our partnership with 
International Financial Institutions such as the World Bank. We have 
seen contributions grow over the years from $3 million in 2017 to $478 
in 2021 \1\. We anticipate funding of $1 billion by the close of 2022 
and the trend to upward continue in the coming years.

----------------
Note

    \1\ Contributions from the World Bank in some cases are given 
directly to host governments then channeled to WFP. For accounting 
purposes the contribution is credited from whichever entity make the 
direct payment, so within WFP's attached donor list, World Bank figures 
will appear differently.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                                 ______
                                 

             Responses of Ms. Samantha Power to Questions 
                   Submitted by Senator John Barrasso

    Question. On May 11, 2022, I asked you why it has taken USAID, at 
that time, 2 months to get food assistance to Ukraine. USAID is taking 
months to deliver food aid to countries in need. There are estimates 
that the aid could take 6 months to deliver.
    How much of the approved food assistance to Ukraine has been 
delivered?

    Answer. Food is broadly available in Ukraine, and humanitarian 
intervention has focused on improving access to existing food since the 
onset of the crisis. To improve access to food, USAID has worked 
closely with implementing partners to ensure those impacted by Russia's 
war in Ukraine have access to food vouchers and cash. Additionally, 
some direct provision of food has been necessary in areas directly 
impacted by conflict where food is not available; however, the majority 
of that food has been obtained inside Ukraine. Externally sourced 
emergency food items, such as 239 metric tons (MT) of high energy 
biscuits (HEBs), were imported by the World Food Program (WFP) to 
supplement available food items in areas experiencing extreme duress.

    Question. How long did it take to get the assistance to Ukraine?

    Answer. Food was and remains largely available in Ukraine. 
Beginning in early March, NGOs were able to quickly distribute cash and 
vouchers to individuals specifically to acquire food inside Ukraine 
with USAID funding following Russia's invasion on February 24. USAID 
supports cash and vouchers for food assistance, which can often reach 
people in need much more rapidly than the importation of food 
commodities and is a more appropriate modality when food is available 
locally. In Ukraine, USAID has provided $10.1 million in cash and 
voucher assistance specifically for food. Additionally, USAID made the 
239 MT of HEBs available to WFP in late April and the biscuits began to 
arrive in Ukraine in early July.

    Question. Why has the distribution of the aid been drawn out to 
this extent?

    Answer. The distribution of humanitarian aid in Ukraine has 
experienced some delays, primarily resulting from active conflict 
impacting safe access to areas with people in need. In addition, many 
humanitarian organizations operating inside Ukraine continue to 
experience widespread staffing challenges for a variety of reasons, 
including a decreased pool of available qualified staff, the 
possibility of military conscription by the Government of Ukraine of 
Ukrainian men aged 18-60 who are employed by humanitarian non-
governmental organization, and ongoing visa challenges for 
international staff due to the non-multiple entry 90-day visa 
restrictions. However, provision of food assistance via cash and 
vouchers as well as emergency food was an early successful 
intervention. USAID strives to provide timely humanitarian assistance 
through strategic partnerships to organizations able to provide 
consistent resources to those impacted by the conflict.

    Question. When will the remaining allocations be delivered?

    Answer. USAID expects any food imported to Ukraine via our 
programming will be to supplement the existing pipeline, therefore it 
is expected to arrive in several tranches throughout the conflict to 
ensure food is consistently available.

    Question. Was the goal of the World Food Program reaching 7 million 
people in Ukraine met by the end of June?

    Answer. WFP exceeded its goal, reaching more than 7 million people 
in Ukraine by late June.

    Question. The Biden administration announced it was taking 
emergency measures to liquidate the $282 million Bill Emerson 
Humanitarian Trust to procure U.S. food commodities for countries in 
need. In addition, USAID announced it will cost $388 million to cover 
the transportation of the food aid to Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, 
South Sudan, and Yemen. To be clear, the Biden administration is 
spending $106 million more for transportation than they are spending on 
actual food.
    What is this the quickest and most cost effective way to deliver 
food to those in need?
    What are you doing to fix this?

    Answer. The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT) allows USAID's 
Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) to respond to unanticipated 
food assistance needs when other resources authorized under Title II of 
the Food for Peace Act are not available. Once released, BEHT resources 
take on the authorities of Title II funding, but they can only be used 
for the purchase of U.S. agricultural commodities. The balance of the 
BEHT was $282 million when the drawdown occurred. Given rising fuel and 
transportation costs, partially driven by Russia's war in Ukraine and 
the lingering market impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the total cost 
to move and distribute $282 million worth of U.S. agricultural 
commodities from the United States to beneficiaries in Ethiopia, Kenya, 
Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Yemen was $388 million. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 
financed these costs, per the provisions of the BEHT Act, which 
included ocean freight transportation, inland transport, internal 
transport, shipping and handling, and other costs associated with 
programming the BEHT commodities.
    Transportation costs for commodities grown in the United States 
have always been a significant portion of the Title II food assistance 
program. There are opportunities to improve the cost effectiveness of 
U.S. food assistance. Specifically, the reauthorization of the Food for 
Peace Act as part of the Farm Bill, at this time of global crisis, 
provides an unparalleled opportunity for Congress and USAID to work 
together to ensure the U.S. Government has the best tools at its 
disposal to meet the humanitarian challenges of the day. Given the 
scale of global food insecurity and the dynamic nature of its causes, 
it is imperative that USAID fully optimize its food assistance programs 
and be able to employ the best food assistance modalities to respond to 
each context. During this reauthorization process, USAID will pursue 
technical legislative changes to the Food for Peace Act to reduce 
administrative burden for new, small, or local partners; allow USAID to 
support increasingly expensive emergency response operations and 
quality nonemergency program design with Title II funds; streamline the 
award-making process; and improve flexibility between humanitarian 
funding streams to ensure that the most appropriate funding tool is 
used for every crisis.
    In addition to opportunities through the reauthorization of the 
Food for Peace Act, there are additional opportunities to maximize the 
reach of U.S. food aid programs through other legislative vehicles. As 
Russia's aggression in Ukraine drives up fuel prices, the cost of 
delivering humanitarian assistance continues to rise, particularly in 
terms of the cost of shipping aid overseas. Due to statutory 
requirements in the Cargo Preference Act (CPA), USAID is required to 
ship at least 50 percent of all tonnage on U.S. flagged vessels. While 
USAID is committed to CPA compliance, it does generate significant 
costs for life-saving food assistance. On average, USAID pays 
approximately 25 percent more per metric ton (MT) to ship commodities 
on U.S.-flag vessels than foreign-flag vessels. In addition, in many 
cases, the U.S.-flag fleet cannot currently meet USAID's needs due to a 
lack of available ships. In FY 2021, USAID shipped 1.7 million metric 
tons of food assistance overseas and more than 75 percent of those 
cargoes were shipped on bulk vessels. Today, there are only three U.S.-
flag bulk vessels. These are significant inefficiencies, especially for 
a humanitarian operation working to keep pace with unprecedented levels 
of global hunger.

    Question. An increase or fluctuation in the price of energy is a 
factor in the driving up of food prices and will lead to instability. 
The fallout creates higher costs for agricultural inputs.
    To what extent is the energy crisis responsible for the global food 
security crisis?

    Answer. When the crisis began to unfold back in March, USAID worked 
with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and other 
partners to identify how high fuel, fertilizer, and fuel prices would 
impact our global food security work.
    When examining the impact of high global commodity prices, a 19 
country IFPRI study indicates that high fuel prices, like the cost of 
imported oil, and high fertilizer prices, rather than high food prices, 
are the primary drivers of increased poverty and hunger. This modeling 
concluded that across these 19 countries an additional 26 million 
people would be pushed into poverty and an additional 21 million would 
become chronically hungry. Meanwhile, high food prices, especially the 
high cost of edible oils, are expected to drive significant declines in 
the quality of household diets. This analysis is publicly available 
here (https://www.agrilinks.org/activities/ifpri-analyses-country-
level-impacts-high-food-fuel-and-fertilizer-prices).
    Higher prices for food, fertilizer, and fuel have led to shortages. 
In the case of fertilizer, many farmers do not have access or the 
ability to purchase the fertilizer they need. This will only exacerbate 
the current crisis because this will reduce food production over the 
next harvest.
    That is why, with the generous support of Congress, we are focused 
on three global lines of effort to help rapidly address the crisis: 
mitigating the global fertilizer shortage; increasing investments in 
agricultural capacity and resilience; and cushioning the macroeconomic 
shock and impact on poor people to ensure this crisis does not become 
locked in.

                                  [all]