>> we're a small business advisor. we add vise individuals and trusts and we imagine money. do ma stag ma staging money. maybe less after this week. we people madnage your money th long-term. i only want your long-term money. we're active money manages and we move. we don't stay with one strategy forever. market conditions and individual conditions change so we move with them. >> the book that you coauthored. creating prosperity? how do you do that? >> you have so to start with

yourself. if every dollar you have is being spent you wl never get ahead. and many americans, for every dollar they make they're spending $1 and 10 and that a description for disaster. start with your own budget. but once you start there you now start carving out money that's for your long-term savings and ra y your long-term investments we have 401k. roth iras. you carve out and put it into these vehicle and your lucky yo employer may match something. you put a dollar understand maybe your employee is matching 50 per and gives you a boost towards your retirement. you ve to pay attention to these. one classic mistake a lot of people make is they take all of their money and put it in company stocks. imagine if you work for apple

how temptin it would be to put all of your 401k into a company stock? and the words i say to people when we talk about this is, enron. there was a time when it looked just like apple like there was no top to their market price. i'm not trying to imply that and sl going to be or doing anything wrong, i'm just saying when you put one stock you can have a disaster effect. make sure you have a diversified portfolio if you go through the last two weeks the mark set down 2% or seven percent in the last week alone but if you go through this. suppose your 401k you had 40% of your 401k invested the stock market. 10% or 40% means you had a 40%

decline. perhaps you have a little gold in the portfolio mitigating the mage to get u through these tough times. >> our guest is you patricia paowell. line for republicans is (202) 737-0001 representative, for democrat, democrat dechlt and we have a line for independent and if you're watching outside the united states. (202) 628-0205. from our twitter page. scott has this point. rather i give you 50,000 dollars in gold or $50,000 in cash? >> that's a very interesting and tough question. being a money manager i would never do all of either. but i certain liam a big fan of cash and i am a small fan of gold at over $1600 an ounce. i was a bigger fan when it was

under thousand dollars an ounce. host: republican line with patricia paowell. good morning da. ller: thanks for my call. i had a question for terrillier caller but i guess she can field this one too. how can we trust the stock market when they gave triple-a ratings to pretty much garbage surime mortgage? can you trust the stock market? people live paycheck to paycheck. how can you 408k when the economy collapsed and everyone had to turn to trim-ple-a but i was garbage. how can you trust it? >> referring to s&p and some of the earlier derivatives. >> i don't think you can. when you make an investment in

the stock market, you are at risk and you have to know that going in. you can't say, i'll put in and everything will be okay. the reaso that most of us would advise people to have some of the money into the stock mark set th, scks have weathered historically, just about every crisis you can imagine. they have recovered from the crash of 29 and world war ii and from the korean war or the cuban missile crisis. think recovered from 911. if you look at this and you say, there is a really strong history of recovery. but that's a large basket of stocks not any individual stocks. not all companies recover. some go out of business so. i'm not a fan of trusting anyone. i'm a fan though of looking carefully at your portfolio. making calculated risks and i

tend to like to buy when things cheaper and not more experience expensive so i don't think people should look to the stock market or corporate america and say, i trust you. that's not what is going to work for you. >> our guest earned her mba at see on the hall university with the market down significantly is it a good time to invest and buy? >> it's always good time to invest. not sure about a good time to buy. i'm not expecting to buy on monday for a lot of my clients. we don't really know how it's going to go. we only have one group of markets open since the downgrade that was the middle east. not sure dubai is a good indicator. but i'm sort of embracing that we might get more of the same. i think it might be a very

difficult beginning and difficult week. but i'm not really that concerned. this is not going to cause the world to come apart. it's not good. it's serious but when you look at our economy. we're still growing. we're not in recession yet. i heard you mention on the last segment that larry summers says the probability of recession he would put it one out of three. i would agree with him. that would mean there's two out of three that we don't go into, into recession and that's good. host: nexcaller. good morning. caller: hi patricia. i'm from connecticut. two questions. yes or no if you put a significant culprit from wall street behind bars would things turn around and they might think twice about putting world

economy in jeopardy next time around >> i think if you find that someone has done something illegal, then you take the actions that are necessary and you, we have a legal process by which we can put people from corporate america in jail. it's difficult. you can see even in the enron process there's only been a couple of people that have actually gone to jail over that. but i think you have to look at was anything that happened illegal and if it was, then you have to ta action against it and if you did, that would send a tremendous signal that white collar work ers don't like going to jail. >> stock mark set legal iced g legalized gambling. >> i don't agree with that

statement but it's legalized risk taking. you have know that the declines can be fast and furious but it' also how we built this country and how we employ the ten office millions of people going to work every day. and it's through this idea of capitalism. i know your viewers identify themsees as republican, democrat or independent and i, identify myself as capitalist. it's an economic philosophy that has worked this country and built a jawinger that economy and weave had struggles and might be just throwing out the baby with the bath water looking for other alternatives. >> why though over the last 20 years we've seen sum wild swings. the market up or down five or

six under hundred. is it unusual o sign of the time? >> wild swings were reay a result of i think, the markets and the people investing in the markets disseminating very bad information and i think i said it earlier in 2008 we came peril obviously close to economic close. the wild days in the market were actually rational. that was a fear that we're dealing with something incredibly serious. the swings today going into this weekend before we hit i would have said we're going through a normal correction.

little more than 10%. i wasn't exseeively concerned with the downgrade over the weekend but a little more concerned with the weekend. >> why so? >> because i think it's serious. i think they're putting us on notice that we have some structural issues and i think it actually was rather courageous of s&p to step forward and not cave to political pressure and keep the rating at a triple-a. clearly the easy thing would have been to just find a reason and say, please don't do or make any worse but they said, y didn't lower the deficit by the 4 trillion dollars we said would be necessary to create to maintain this rateing so they withdrew it. i think that was a courageous statement and there's going to be fall out for them as a company. >> the downgrade quote reflects

our opinion and s&p that congress and the administration falls short of what would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium term debt dynamics. scott has this point from our twitter page. who believes americans will pay back the 14 and a half trillion dollars. and of course it's that figure and the debt agreement that stretched out over the past month with the political give and take that led to the decision by s&p on friday. >> i don't think it's the 14.3 trillion dollars. i think it's the expected expansion of the 14.3 trillion dollars if you look at 2010 we spent approximate nightly 412, 413 billion dollars in interest. the first ten months of fiscal 2011 we spent almost the same amount and still he two months to go. it's the expansion of debt and

the fear that when interest rates rise, not when but or if but when that we could get a huge explosion of debt services that would make things truly unmanageable. >> john from minnesota. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? >> good morning. i'm fine. caller: i reenforcemently retired and all of my nt egg is in a money market with vanguard and i'm thinking about looking at about a thi of it to do conservative investment with maybe a five year span on it. what would you suggest? >> okay. i'm sorry if you gave me your age. i didn't quite catch it? >> 65. >> okay. what you have to look at is how long your really going to be retired and how long you're going to need the money and when

you're going to need income from this money. what i usually would say to somebody in your position, you have to look at this as at least 20 year money. it might be 25 or 30-year money because you could be here at 90 or 95. not all of us will make it that far and those that do don't want to run out of money. this has to be long-term money. the pace of spending out of the account will be incredibly important. on some of this money should be segregated saying this money has to be here 10 to 20 years out and that's how you should look at in investing. middle of the road for my office for the last year or so we've been light on equities but not at 0. we've been running at about 30 to 40% of the portfolio being at equities and positions in bonds and also had positions in folds and commodities and i don't see

this is differently on the surface for somebody like you. but, if your taking large chunk office money out of this account to maintain the standard of living anything above 4% you have to think and say that money is not investment money but that money belongs in very, veryafe vestments and in all honesty if you're in a money market fund and compare and maybe to bank cd's you might do better. might have to go back and forth. >> if you work for a company that doesn't provide a 401k. what advice do you give consumers and what's the difference between that and a root ira? >> a 401k is actually an expense of a profit sharing plan. provision in the tax code. you're talking about the tax code. it allows your viewers offer

employees to contribute in pre tax dollars into a retirement plan that's managed through their employers. usually a separate trust. typically you can put quite a bit of money, for most viewers it's a loft ney. 16 $500 into a 401k. if your over 50 you can put into the neighborhood of $25,000. if your employer matches that and often they'll match the first five or six percent but you put another six percent jaw could have 25% of your gross income going into a retirement plan so it as really good thing. congress has not elected to be as generous the people that have to do it themselves if you have to, you can do a roth ira that

is in after tax dollars. not before tax dollars so you get no immediate max benefit. the beauty of a rothir o is if you immediate the standards your ira is in there for at least fiveears and your over 59 and a half you can take all of the money out without incurring any federal income taxes 401k refers the roth ira and that can be incredibly powerful and retirement. your restrictions are much lower though. you can only put $5,000 in. there's income restrictions on that. depending on whether what your filing statuss. filing single or as a married couple and if you reached certain levels you can't do a roth ira. you do get an opportunity to put an extra thousand inor those of us over 50. >> republican line with

patricia giving financial advice in uncertain economic times. ann? caller: they can't force you to take the money out with a roth because they have to do the minimum deduction and that hit me when the market was down at a very lowest. but the business of america is business and we have a man who hates capitalism in the white house. until we get him out of there people are not going to be investing and you look at e.p.a. wheree's given a bunch of money. lisa jacks has her foot on the neck of the entrepreneur and took money from the e.p.a. to have rap musicians write a song to get young school children agains business. how's people going to have any faith in this stock market when we have a preside like that in the white house and we need to get him out of there and stev can you stop letting democrats

like elliot from new york call in on the republican line and the independent line. you're going to lose all credibility with anybody. host: appreciate our call. it's not a perfect system. we do try our best. paicia paowell you want to respond? >> kind of a hard comment to spond to because it requires more political background than what i represent to have. we go through different kind of philosophies and i think in addition to the political wrangling that's going on in washington, there really is a huge economic argument going on and there's two very different schools of economic thought that are slugging it out. and you have the really took dominance in the great depression and then those that believe more in free markets that were perhaps investing in the prominent member is milton

friedman that wrote extensively on the value of capitalism to, and free markets and i think what you see in washington is a tremendous or meant anhich is the way to go as a society. i don't think it's clear which one is going to take dominance. i think the dominance during the crisis of 2008 and it's hard to argue what would happen if - i'm a little more on timistic than you. i think it's been terribly made hard on entrepreneurs and those that create jobs but entrepreneurs are very optimistic and i come from that school saying it's always dawn in america. there's always some guy in a garage trying to figure out how to be the next yahoo and going

to create the next 50,000 jobs so i do think it's a struggle, but i am not pessimistic about it. >> ac saying everyone forgot the small saver. most are paying less than one percent interest. how can we grow money if we're not willing to risk it in the market? >> you can't. you can't grow your money if you're not willing to risk it. what you do with a saving as count is you protect your money and you have to decide what's imrtant to you. if what is important to protect that money and have the security that under no circumstances, that will i have a problem and it'll go down if the bank fails i have lay of insurance in fdic and if that's what's important then you're absolutely in the right place and can't eat your heart out about growth if you're a saver. >> dee from st. louis.

good morn together yoing to you. caller i have a comment. throughout this show, there's been talking about citizens - the population increasing spending to increase or to improve the economy. at the same time, we're talking about the fact that the average household is spending anywhere between 138 to 110 percent of income and would say that's just to get by. when we want to start talking about the amount of salary dicre energy sis about whats in the average household. we're living off credit. we're not saving because we're trying to get by on you know, what littles being divided between saries and companies

trying to make their stocks look better and more attractive to investors. so or you know, bonuses for c.e.o's and i just don't think that - i think i appreciate the idea of saving and i agree with it, but when you look at the conflict in the messages being sent to the american consumer, and the american employee, and i just, i think i know you value capitalism. .

we have to gain control of ourselves. there are people that have hit a particularly difficult patch. they have lost their jobs. unemployment benefits are running out. for the moment, i will put those people aside and try to address those of us who have a job. we need to live within our means. what has happened is we have become addicted to debt. . we have been enabled to do things with almost unlimited credit. we have to say no to ourselves.

what i tell my clients is the first thing you have to do is get the credit cards out of your wallet. they are shocked and horrified. your standard of living will decline when you do this. if you are not charging starbucks on your credit card and do not have the $4, you are not buying a $4 cup of coffee. you may have to make your own coffee. u will have to refill your water bottle with tap water. take your kids to the library. you may have to take a roommate to make your rent. you may have to share your home to cover your mortgage. these things are not the norm of how people think about their standard of living. they think they could never live like that. sometimes the outcome of not making the cutbacks is you do not have a home anymore.

i have literally said to someone that you have to give upour personal trainer and masseuse coming to the house every saturday. they responded they could not do that. where will they go when you are living in your car? it sounds harsh. i know that. we have to be in control of ourselves. it does us no good to go down this road. we have to spend some time on money management. we have to do it as a family. the kids have to be brought in. kids are a tremendous drain on finances. most children have two phrases "i need" and "i want." as parents, we want to give them everything because we love them so much. we have to learn to say no to them and ourselves. it is hard but true.

host: we will go to ed on the independent line from maryland. caller: i have saved my money. along came mr. bush into office while i was down in the caribbean sailings. he wiped out all ofy games. all i have left is my principal. how do we protect ourselves from the idiot politicians playing games with our money and giving it to people who do not produce anything other than a shovel in money around and throwing money away and into their own pockets? guest: i do not know that you can protect yourself from liticians. you see the tremendous debate going on in washington.

in many cases, there are heartfelt beliefs of the opposite ends of the spectrum of what government should do. i tend to think the government should do less and we should do more. until th is resolved, i think you are always going to feel the government is going to take. part of the debate you hear is that we will tax three people -- rich people. at the end of today, that is probablyoing to happen. you cannot raise enough revenue to cover the kind of deficits we're running by just taxing the rich people. you have to start bringing down the levels. let me give you examples of where governments have done that. in 1986, there was a tremendous debate between ronald reagan and the democrats in washington about raising taxes.

eventually, ronald reagan caved in and did not sign the bill for raisintaxes. they decided they were going to tax the rich social security recipients. they were talking about millionaires when the debate started. what we deced was a rich social secury recipient was a married couple making $44,000 a year and an individual making $34,000 a year. those are still levels where the tax rates change on social security. recently we changed how we charge seniors premiums on medicare. it used to be that every senior paid the exact same premium. we decided that was unfair. for a single medicare participant, he will start paying more if you have an

income of over $85,000 or a married couple with an income of over $170,000. there are all of these additional thresholds. it is very hard to hold the line you are truly trying to raise revenue. the thing we haveo be cautious about when we raise taxes is if we eat our seeds. we can make it hard to grow the economy. we have to grow the economy. host: the next calls on the republican line for patricia powell. caller: social security was a noble program that started off to help with those that we likely going tdie before they collected. it blew up after the baby

boomers because the next group was not bigger. if you are doing something similar, you would be arrested for running a pyramid scheme. it proves the education system in the last 30 years has turned more to liberal arts and academia -- than academia because graduates do not know the difference between the fixed mortgage and adjustable mortgage, but they do know why sally has two moms. do these state pension plans have to be a aaa rating? we have been living in fear and insecurity since 9/11. we have been making bad cisions. host: this goes back to the earlier point about the last 10 years after september 11.

guest: the caller had so many points, it is almost impossible to address all of them. i will start with the point that is near and dear to my heart. the social security system has serious systemic problems. the major problem is baby boomers. those are people born between 1946 and 1964. i am one of them. the oldest baby boomers turned 65 in 2011 and injures the medicare system. the oldest baby boomer on january 1 will enter will turn -- change the social security age. there are 78 million of us baby boomers who contributed to the system and contributed the maximum to the system. we have been finding all of what

has gone on with the expansion of benefits. they feel just as entitled as a 70-year-old senior in the system today. it is absolutely unsustainable in my opinion and the opinion of the chief actuary of the system to maintain the sysm as it currently exists. we have to do something. if we do nothing, we've run tremendous risks we do we run tremendous risks of seeing the same kinds of things in europe and greece. the $412 billion no. i used earlier for deficit spending a interest requirements in 2010 is a very small number. that could explode by interest rates just going up by three percentage points.

spain and ireland had the first downgrade. the 10-year bond had a small adjustment. for ireland, it was 0.4% of boards. the downgrade continue. when it continued, spain was forced to pay two percentage points higher on their debt. ireland was forced to pay 4.5 percentage points higher. that would more than double the cost of interest in our country if we were forced into the same situation. the economic issues we're talking about are very serious and very important. host: dede says risk and peace of mind factors into economic decisions.

she says that is why social security is best left out of the rket. guest: the proposal to put social security savings in the maet came out during the bush should administration. i think we will have to see in 1015 years if that was the best alternative to have the government put this into a special class of treasurys. they are using all of our contributions to fund the current deficit. the deficit does not include the unfunded liability of the baby boomerhitting the system. it is a very tough area. i encourage all of your viewers to pay close attention. step back from the politics and start reading about the issues. they are incredibly important to all of us.

i am not sure this would have turned out to be the best one. we will not know for 10 of 15 years. host: ann joins us from ohio. caller: dee made excellent points above those who do not have extra capital to invest. i wonder if patricia could talk about what percentage of the population does not have extra capital. she responded by saying we all need to look at our spending habits. that makes sense. a substantial part of our nation debt has to do with an unnecessary war and the revenues not raised to pay for it. does she think financial planning causes should be taught starting in the freshman year of high school? a lot of young people do not hear this language at home. i also wanted to ask if she knows about this $2.5 trillion

dependence mention that the banks are sitting on. he pundits mention that the banks are sitting on. does she think bankshould be rated by someone else like elizabeth warren? can we create other trading organizations? host: let me get a quick response from patricia powell. gut: there are a lot of questions there. i will hone in on the one i like the best. that is whether personal finae should be taught in high school. i would love to see something like that go on. i want to be sure it is not at the pense of kids learning math, science, and reading. if you have those skills, you can learn personal finance. if you do not have those skills, you will not have much personal finance to manage.

host: you can log on to patricia powell's website for more information. one point make is that mos >> with the debt ceiling bill signed into law, watch the debate from the floor and see and how they voted with the c-id span congressional chronicle. there is video of every session with complete voting records. when members return in september, follow more of the appropriations process. >> on thursday, defense

secretary leon panetta told reporters that congress cannot balance the budget by cutting the discretionary budget alone. that part includes the defense department and a number of other agencies and programs. at his first official pentagon briefing, he repeated an earlier warning against automatic defense cuts that would be triggered if congress is unable to find deficit reductions on top of what has already been agreed to. this is about 45 minutes. >> i intend to continue these briefings on a regular basis. i just completed my first month us secretary. during that time, i have had a chance to travel to the war

zones to meet with the troops and commanders. i have had a chance to consult with a number of the ministers of defense. i have posted four of my counterparts here at the pentagon. i have begun visiting some of the key commands. i have visited northcom last friday. i will be traveling to stratcom and others and will continue to do that on a regular basis. i have had the privilege of visiting walter reed and meeting with the wounded warriors. . i have established a regular dialogue with leaders on the hill and have built a close working relationship with the service chiefs and secretaries. i meet with them on a weekly basis. i have been truly impressed with the expertise and professionalism of the senior

leaders of the department. i am proud we're going to build on this terrific team in the weeks ahead. the president announced he will nominate ash carter to be my next secretary of defense. he has also nominated the next chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs along with other folks who were approved. i am very pleased the senate was able to rapidly approve those nominations. i have had the honor of administering the oath of office to have no one of field -- admiral winifield in my office this morning. we will have a great team as we face the challenges for this department and the nation. our efforts to meet our fiscal

and national security responsibilities. that brings me to the debt ceiling agreement enacted this week. as i said in a message to dod personnel issued yesterday the reductions in the defense budget that were enacted as part of the debt ceiling agreement are largely in line with the civilian and military leaders of this department and what we were anticipating in preparing to implement. make no mistake about it. we will face some tough challenges as we try to meet those numbers. those numbers are within the ballpark we were discussing with the president and omb.

we have the opportunity to make those decisions based on sound and balanced strategy and policy. we can do that with the best device intended from the service chiefs and secretaries on how to proceed to build a strong defense mel and in the future -- now and in the future. thankfully so far this is a very different process than has been used in the past when there have been defense drawdowns. where defense cuts were applied across the board, the force as a result was hollowed out. it was left undersized,

underfunded relative to the missions and responsibilities that this country must fulfil. that approach would be particularly harmful because we are a nation at war. we face a broad and growing range of security threats and challenges that our military must be prepared to confront. from terrorist networks to rogue nations that are making efforts to obtain nuclear capability. we need to deal with rising powers that always looking at us to determine whether or not we will maintain a strong defense here and throughout the world. it is that multitude of security challenges that makes me particularly concerned about the sequestering mechanism contained

in the debt ceiling agreement. this mechanism is kind of a doomsday mechanism that was built into the agreement. it is designed so that it would only take effect if congress fails to enact further measures to reduce the deficit. but if it happens, it would result in a further round and dangerous cuts across the board that would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our militaries ability to protect the nation. it is an outcome that would be unacceptable to me s secretary of defense, to the president, and i believe to emanations leaders needed to our nation's

leaders. more importantly, it would be unacceptable to the american people. the american people expect our military will provide for their security. they expect that we will always protect our core national security interests while meeting reasonable savings targets. as i have said before, we do not have to choose between fiscal discipline and national security. i recognize the resource limitations we face as a result of the size of the deficits that confront this country. i also recognize the department of defense has responsibilities to do its part in dealing with that. we will do so.

we always have to remember those who are doing their part for the defense of this nation. that is our men and women in uniform and their families. throughout this process, i will be working closely with the leaders of this department, including the service chiefs, to insure we do not break faith with our troops and their families. we have a volunteer force. it is the heart and soul of balkh in military strength. we have to do -- it is the heart and soul of our military strength. we have to do everything possible to protect that force. i have no higher responsibility as secretary of defense but to do everything i can to protect and support them. every thidecision i make will be made with them in mind. they put their lives on the

line. too many have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this country. we owe it to them to do this right and responsibly. quickly agree with you and the need to make tough decisions moving forward. we long ago braced ourselves for a decrease in spending. we have worked hard to find efficiencies where we can. we are gratified with the agreement to raise the debt ceiling. we believe the terms are reasonable and fair with respect to future cuts. the cuts required by this agreement over the next 10 years are in keeping with the

president's previous budgetary direction. we are hard at work inside a comprehensive review process to find the requisite savings. we also share your concerns about the devastating impact of further automatic cuts should congress fail to enact additional deficit reduction measures. the defense department may represent 50% of the discretionary budget in this country, but there is nothing discretionary about the things we do every day for our fellow citizens. from the two wars we're fighting in iraq and afghanistan, to the support we provide our allies in libya, from disaster relief missions like those in haiti and japan, to the training and exercises of the joint combined operations that we conducted around the world, the u.s. military remains a linchpin to defending our national interests.

to lose that through debilitating increases cuts puts at grave risk not only our ability to accomplish the mission as we have been assigned but those we have yet to be assigned as well. i just returned from a trip to afghanistan and iraq. i was struck by the degree to which the debt and the state of our economy preoccupied our troops. you probably saw the media coverage. there was hardly an engagement i conducted in which this issue was not raised. on the one hand, i found it encouraging the troops were informed and interested. on the other hand, i found it lamentable that they needed to be. our men and women downrange have enough to worry about just getting the job done. they should not also be concerned about whether they will be paid to do the job or whether their families will continue to get the support they need during the long absences.

we can do better than that as a military and as a nation. as i have said many times, our debt remains the biggest threat to our national security. the military exists to eliminate or mitigate security threats. we will do our part in this regard. we cannot allow the effort to go so far and cut so deep that it jeopardize his our ability to deal with the real and serious threats we face around the world. we cannot allow it to break the all-volunteer force upon his backswing place the burden of national defense. -- upon whose backs we place the burden of national defense. we expect reasonable and fair cuts. we look forward to working with you as you leave the effort to make these difficult and critical decisions. >> mr. secretary, as you start the process of looking at the

defense budget that has doubled over the last 10 years, where would you see the best opportunity for savings? mr. chairman, do you think these cuts will affect the pace and drawdown in afghanistan as well as the number of troops and resources the u.s. can leave in a rock beyond the end of the year? -- can leave and iraq beyond the end of the year? >> we have an ongoing comprehensive review to look at all of the areas of the defense budgets. the service chiefs are looking at all of those areas and will ultimately make their recommendations as part of the comprehensive review.

my goal is to be able to use the comprehensive review to inform the decisions and strategies we have to make. that is going to be key to the decisions we make and what areas we look to for savings. >> from the standpoint of the troop presence and run the world, i do not think there is a decision that is not going to take cost into consideration. we have to do that. the budget has doubled. a significant part of the, and rightfully so, has been the investment in our people and families over the course of the last 10 years because of what we have asked them to do in fighting these two wars and the stress that they are under. i would argue with the strategic umbrella the secretary described that a balanced

approach looking at our operational costs, the investment in our people, and in programs -- the service chiefs are strongly recommending we look at all of these and adjust accordingly. all of that said, i have no expectation from what i have seen that we will send people into harm's way without the support they need and the resources necessary to fund that support. i expect that will continue whatever the outcome is in iraq or afghanistan or anywhere o's. >> how can you make any of the claims about the cuts being fair

and reasonable and yet how could consequences.aclysmic to mark quickly and not sitting in the office is doing nothing at this point. when i am basically doing is having -- >> we are not sitting in the office doing nothing at this point. i am basically having discussions with all of my people to talk about all the areas that need to be considered. we're waiting for the review as it goes through. that is not stopping us from the ability to sit down and have discussions about how we would have to implement the savings requirement we are facing. >> secretary gates implied it would inform the public about the risks inherent in the different approaches to cutting $400 billion. do you intend to make this

public so they can take place? >> i think the most important responsibility we have is to make public the recommendations we have with regards to our budget. that will reflect some decisions and recommendations in the review. i think what the american people are entitled to is a presentation of what our defense system will look like today and in the next 10 years. that will reflect a lot of the decisions that went into making the final recommendations to the country. >> is it fair to say you are drawing up contingency plans in case the sequestered cuts are triggered? >> no, i am not. we're focused on the number that was part of the debt ceiling agreement. it was very much within the ballpark number we have worked

out with the president and omb. i feel confident that number is manageable and that we can achieve in a way that will protect our national defense. i am not even beginning to consider what would happen with regards to sequestration. from the review we have been doing, anything that doubles it would be disastrous to the defense budget. i am going to give congress the opportunity to have this committee work. i think that is what we're all looking towards. the president and everyone who is part of the debt ceiling agreement believes and hopes this committee will exercise their responsibility to look at other areas of the budget other

than just discretionary to come up with the kind of numbers that have to be part of the deficit reduction deal. >> i understand the review is on going. you have inherited a military that has grown significantly since the start of the two wars. do you need a military that big? can you shed personnel since the wars are winding down? >> i am not going to give in to the particulars of what we will or will not decide. i think is fair to say that the pool -- goal is to design a defense system that will meet the threats of the present and future. there are three areas we absolutely have to protect. we have to protect our court national security interests.

we have to be able to provide the best military in the world. we cannot break faith with the troops and their families. those are the key elements that have to be part of what we decide. >> the question presumes we have dramatically increased our end strength. the army is about about 570,000 right now. it will come down to 520,000. the marine corps will come down 16,000. in the same time, the navy dropped its strength by about 50,000. the air force came down about 20,000. when you look at the totality of the end strength buildup given

the challenges, it has not been that >> mr. secretary, on your recent trip to iraq, you were emphatic in encouraging the iraqis that if they wanted american troops to stay beyond the deadline for withdrawal of all american forces by the end of the year that they needed to make that request soon. yet, this week, vice-president joe biden said in the "atlantic monthly" saying that it has already passed, it is too late and all american troops will be out by the end of the year. is that the case? beyond that, is there a dispute within the administration whether to keep american forces in iraq beyond that withdrawal date if they ask? >> i think everyone appreciates the comments that were made yesterday after the talibani meeting in iraq.

those comments and decisions are now being reviewed to determine what the next steps ought to be. one thing i can assure you is that we will always maintain a broad and long term relationship with the iraqi people. whatever decision we make with regards to our military presence will be done in that context. >> you say you have contingencies to consider in looking forward to the budget, what sort of numbers are you thinking about in terms of how many american troops may need to stay in iraq beyond the deadline? >> that has to be part of the process of discussing exactly where we need to go and the next depths between now and the end of the year. we appreciate the fact they have made the decision to engage and

the question is for us to engage and decide what that will look like. >> yesterday, a senior defense official sat here and said that in his dip -- in his opinion there should be no more pentagon budget cuts from the super committee. they should look to taxes and entitlements. is that realistic position? >> let me for a moment put my old budget hat on. you cannot deal with the size of deficits this country is confronting by simply cutting the discretionary side of the budget. that represents less than one- third of the overall federal budget. you have got to, as the president has made clear, if you're going to deal with those sized deficits, you have to look the mandatory side of the budget, which is two-thirds of the federal budget.

you also have to look revenues as part of that answer. while i am commenting on that, let me make a point on the discretionary budget. the discretionary budget has taken some serious cuts as a result of the continuing resolutions from last year as well as the decision that was just made in the debt agreement. when you look at national security, you have to look at the broader context. national security is not just pendant on that defense budget. it's also dependent on the quality of life in this country, which involves the domestic side of the budget. it is also dependent on the state department budget and their ability to conduct diplomacy abroad. all of those areas are contained

in the discretionary side of the budget and i think all of them represent in a very real way the security of this country. i would hope the leadership in congress would take the time to look at the areas they should be looking at if they are serious about dealing with the deficit. >> is the answer that there should be no cuts -- >> we are already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this agreement and those are going to be tough enough. i think anything beyond that will damage our national defense. >> mr. secretary, a recent analysis of pentagon spending over the past 10 years found that you are spending more and getting less for it. some of the things driving that are likely to continue. how will you be able to deal with that in your budget review

as you go forward? >> as you know, over the course of the last couple of years, we have focused very heavily on the efficiencies' aspect of who we are. that continues to be a case in terms of the review that is going on right now. underneath this process of the comprehensive review, we will continue to do that, to look at our staffs and look at the overhead that exist. we recognize resources that are going there are not going to those that are out on point. there is a trade. we also fully recognize that at some level, depending on where we take the cut or what the cuts are, our force structure really comes into play very dramatically. that is why i talk about this balanced approach.

programs that cannot meet schedule, that cannot meet cost, their cost and schedule requirements are very much in jeopardy and will be very much under scrutiny, if you will, as we go forward. i am confident we can meet the targets we have been given the star. it is in that review that we have understood or do understand if those cuts were to double, we have looked into that of this, if you will, and we know -- my view is it is very dangerous for the country. all of us are looking at better, more efficient ways to do this while continuing to focus in stride on these national security requirements, the demands of which are still out there and will be in the future. >> you have said that you hope

sequestration will not happen. but like the military says, hope is not a tragedy. -- hope is not a strategy. you have said it would be unacceptable to you and mr. chairman, you have said you cannot allow the cuts to go so far and so deep as to risk national security. with respect, the question is, if sequestration happens, how unacceptable to you feel you could continue in office? >> i did not think it was going to sequester may. >> you have both made some very serious -- >> i did not come into this job to quit. i came into this job to fight and my intention is to fight to make sure that hopefully some

common sense prevails and the committee that is established does its work in looking at other areas of the budget. i have to emphasize with them the dangers of sequestration and the impact it would have on our national defense. mike and i and others here have a responsibility to educate the leadership on the hill of the dangers if they allow sequestration to take place. i was involved in the conference on gramm-rudman. i know what sequestration is all about. the fact was, at that time, a decision was to use this tool as a way to force the right decisions. it has not worked. i do not think it will work. but it was the approach that was

taken in the past and congress made the decision not to proceed with gramm-rudman and not to proceed with sequestering because the results would be so damaging. every time the trigger was about to take effect, it was postponed. >> another unprecedented thing has been that twice now with a number of months, you have had to say to the troops that you do not know if they would get paid. i don't know if any of us can recall that happening. that has to be very difficult. how do you command in a war when the troops come to you time after time and wonder if they're getting a paycheck? >> i tried to address that in some of my comments today. i think putting them in a position where they have to worry about this and their families is something we just have to make sure in the future, in the future debates, does not occur. we have a significant number of

younger -- of the younger part of our force who are married and living paycheck to paycheck. that was the source of the question the other day when i was in afghanistan. that said, throughout my career, when pay starts being discussed, it comes to the top of the list for our troops. it always has. i don't think we should put them in a position to have to ask that question. >> doing this review, tell us a little bit about how the threats as you perceive them will feed into this. you worry a lot about that in your last job every day. when you were in afghanistan, you said you thought al qaeda,

which had been a big focus of the last decade, was almost defeated. obviously, there are offshoots, but what do you tell the american people is the real threat out there to national security and how do you match that to what the defense budget should look like? >> that is the fundamental issue we have to deal with. to identify with those threats are and make sure we are prepared to confront those threats. that's what national defence is all about. clearly, terrorism and the terrorism networks still remain a threat even though we have badly damaged al qaeda and their ability to conduct attacks in this country. the fact is they still remain a threat coming out of yemen, a threat coming out of somalia, and elsewhere. that means we have to continue the pressure to deal with the

threat of al qaeda. in addition to that, as mike mentioned, we have to wars we're dealing with in afghanistan and iraq. we have a responsibility to bring those wars to a stable conclusion. that is what we are trying to do. in addition to that, we have the threats come from iran and north korea. the need to continue to watch them closely with the danger being they could achieve some kind of nuclear capability. in addition to that, the responsibility is to be able to project our power in the world in order to make sure rising powers understand the united states still has a strong defense. all those areas are important national defense areas we have to pay attention to.

>> what is your level of concern with north korea and the chinese military expansion? >> having just visited china recently, south korea and japan, we are all concerned with continuing stability in the region. north korea has historically generated provocations which included last year where they killed 46 south korean sailors. they killed three south korean marines. the south koreans have taken a very strong position that they are not going to tolerate that anymore. south korea is a tremendously strong, longstanding ally that we are very supportive of and we continue to work with them to try to ensure that stability and assailing the discussion i had when i was in china with my

counterpart. there is concern throughout the region with the growth of china, the pace they're growing their defense and the capabilities which in many cases are what we call anti-access. they would like to see the united states stay out and we are addressing those issues. i was delighted i was able to go there and he was able to come here and we were able to start military to military relationships so we could have these discussions. i hope we can sustain that relationship and build on it over time. is an area of great concern and growing concern as china build and what we speak to when we talk to china is transparency. what is your strategy? why are you building this? the answer is defensive but there are other capabilities that are not offensive. the unity with respect to the south china sea is important.

we need those disputes to be settled peacefully. again, to support stability in the region is what we are focused on. >> to go back to the iraq question, could you give us more details about who would be in charge of the negotiations with the iraqi government? do you think the chinese mission can last for more than two years? the training mission can involve u.s. contractors without u.s. troops. >> the general heading our forces and the ambassador there are going to be the ones that will be the primary interlocutors there. >> i have a replacement -- i have a question about the replacement of ashton carter. many felt he lacked the experience to be an effective undersecretary. will his replacement come from

an industry background? >> he has a long and distinguished history on defense issues. just to work with him in the time i have been here and having worked with him and passed capacities as well, i find him to be someone who is serious minded and very capable and the good manager. that is the primary interest have, making sure the deputy understands this department and can help manage this department. i think he will do an outstanding job at that. with regards to his successor, i have asked for a whole list of individuals we think who can replace them and have an industry knowledge i think is important to the job. >> i would only add to that -- i have been in and out of

acquisitions made times in my career and i watched secretary carter worked in acquisitions for many years and i was incredibly impressed with how he focuses on programs and he is a bright, capable guy to understand that. he has interacted exceptionally well with industry in that regard. his other focus has been on those things we need in the fight and he has made a huge difference. he will continue to do that, should he be confirmed in this new assignment. >> mr. secretary and chairman, to questions on the war that has not been mentioned -- libya. you warned about allies essentially becoming exhausted in libya. i'm wondering if you think there are more steps the u.s. ought to take in the near term to break the stalemate? i think you have a request for additional u.s. isr from the nato commander. has there been anything else on

that? >> i'm not going to comment on what additional steps we may be considering. with regards to working with our allies, i do believe that nato has done a very good job at conducting the operations in libya. we have been working within the nato context, we think they have made good progress. the key there obviously is for the opposition to continue to exert itself and bring pressure on the regime. the combination of nato and the opposition i think has weakened the regime and given us a better opportunity to put diplomatic pressure on walmart gaddafi to step down. >> -- on walmart gaddafi to step down. >> i would say with respect to

isr, there is not a combatant commander i know that would not like more. there is something that we look to to adjudicate and apportion all the time. >> we have time for two more questions. >> about the alliance, especially nato, our country is not the only one facing serious budget problems. many of our european allies are facing them. could you talk about what you see the future of nato being and what the future challenges are for nato considering how many of these countries are in tight financial times? >> i think bob gates made some excellent remarks with terms of the other countries being able to put up their fair share to make sure nato remains strong. i am a big believer in those partnerships. it is not enough for the united

states to maintain a strong national defense. it is important that other countries work with us to assume the responsibilities that an increasingly difficult world is presenting, not just to us but other nations throughout the world. michael will be to try to strengthen that partnership with nato and one of the keys is we have to work on an approach that tries to develop some kind of resources for nato so that it can be strong for the future. i think it is important, i think it plays a very important role in terms of world security, but i think much more needs to be done to strengthen the partnership. >> welcome and congratulations.

you have been in the afghanistan and pakistan region extensively and have met with all of the leaders inside and outside. threats are going -- threats are growing inside afghanistan and are targeting high-level officials. what role is in dieppe playing as far as security in afghanistan and the region is concerned? >> -- what role is india playing as far as security in afghanistan? >> as far as the threats in afghanistan, we have some expectation they would move to these spectacular assassinations and we do not dismiss them. they're very serious threats in that regard. the taliban suffered pretty significantly last year. they no longer own the battle space in many places that we expect this will continue.

we are working hard to protect our forces and provide enhanced security for the senior afghan officials which are targeted here. the second part of the question -- >> [unintelligible] >> this is a regional issue. it is a south asian and regional challenge that all countries have. the united states has a vital interest in the region and so the countries that lived there. we all have to continue to work together to address these challenges or they're going to get worse. i'm actually encouraged, very specifically, with the discussions between pakistan and india in recent weeks and months and, if fighters and both governments, those are going to continue.

i hope that they do and i consider those to be very positive steps. >> thank you. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> treasury secretary tim geithner has told president obama he will remain on the job as treasury secretary. a spokesman says he looks forward to the work ahead and some say he is expected to remain at least through the fall of next year. he is the only remaining top official of the president's original economics team. in june, people close to him said he was considering leaving

after the debt limit was raised because he was tired of commuting to new york where his son is finishing high school. yesterday, some gop 2012 presidential candidates, including michele bachmann called for his resignation after the downgrade of the u.s. credit rating. next, a look at a senate african affairs subcommittee meeting on the food and humanitarian crisis in the horn of africa and the worst drought in somalia in 60 years at refugee camps in ethiopia and kenya. you will hear from the head of the u.s. agency for international development and other state department officials. this is one hour and 45 minutes.

i would like to thank senator isaacson for staying with me to help preside over today's hearing. this is a children's crisis. there are hundreds of thousands of children on the verge of death, suffering from severe malnutrition in the horn of africa and senator isaacson and i agree this hearing could not wait. many of our colleagues have returned to their home states and districts. we believe it's crucially go ahead with this hearing today and not let another month to buy. senator isaacson has been a true and good partner in highlighting a range of issues on shared concerns in africa and i appreciate his leadership on this subcommittee. as everyone is aware, the u.s. congress has been entirely focused on that deficit and debt crisis in recent weeks. while that issue was rightly of the top of the agenda, we must also consider a global issue of greater humanitarian concern,

especially when millions of lives are at risk and tens of thousands have already died. we have displayed images of the crisis in the horn of africa to demonstrate the rising human toll of the drought and famine, including on children, who are facing unspeakable deprivation and hardship. we will list numbers that quantify the impact of the drought but these images help convey powerfully the true impact on human lives. i want to thank unicef for their vital work on behalf of children worldwide and for providing the photographs we have displayed. unicef has submitted a statement detailing its efforts in the horn of africa that i will submit for the record. the crisis in the horn of africa has been caused by the worst drought in the region in more than 60 years, resulting in severe malnutrition, acute hunger colorizing levels of starvation and famine in somalia. it's the most severe famine a generation, affecting food security for more than 12 million people across somalia,

ethiopia and surrounding areas as illustrated by a map i will submit for the record. according to unicef, an estimated 2.3 million children in the region are acutely mel nourished. half a million are at risk of the death. -- acutely malnourished. this is expected to eclipsed the famine in ethiopia that initiative -- initiative global outcry and a great response as demonstrated by memorable events like live aid. the public awareness appears to be absent despite a worsening humanitarian crisis and the need for aid. the situation is most severe in somalia where rising food prices and failures of governments have exacerbated an already dire situation. given the ongoing conflict, pro- government and the work of al- shabaab. officials estimate more than 1500 refugees every day are

leaving, flooding the world largest refugee compound which is well over capacity, during half a million refugees. eight population comparable to tucson, arizona. hundreds are fleeing for other camps in ethiopia, which are also well over their capacity with over 100,000 refugees. the international community and the u.s. is working with the governments of kenya, ethiopia and djibouti to address this massive, transnational influx of refugees and i praised their efforts to accommodate these displaced populations while their own people in their own countries face severe challenges from the drought. the country's impacted by this drought and famine are among the world's poorest, suffering from high rates of poverty, and unemployment. while a failure of two consecutive reasons has contributed to the scale of the disaster, the humanitarian crisis that has resulted pilots broader capacity, governments,

and the structure problems throughout the region. this drop was not a surprise. usaid through its early warning system predicted an impending crisis last year and worked closely with the canyon and ethiopian government as well as our run to enhance -- the kenyan and iniki of being government as well as our own to enhance aid supplies. we must consider the lessons learned to avert the next famine and improve food security globally and build capacity and mitigate the impact of this crisis on future generations. in response to the drought, the u.s. has been the largest donor, providing more than $450 billion -- $450 million in food aid. the responsibility cannot rest on our shoulders alone, especially in difficult budgetary times. the humanitarian response must be shared, transnational obligation. according to the united nations, more

nations, only 1 million has been -- $1 billion has been committed. they have this in the near term to save lives of minor children and those in desperate need. as we consider the international response we also have to look at the restrictions on access, given the volatile security. yesterday, the u.s. government eases restrictions on humanitarian organizations. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about this new policy which will provide additional guidance and assurance to the u.s. partner organizations in southern somalia. with more on the impact and the response to the crisis, we are joined by a couple of the sandwich panels.

mrs. lindberg will be joined by admiral yamamoto, the former ambassador to ethiopia and djibouti. and the council on foreign relations. on the second panel, we will hear from the leader of the humanitarian operations throughout the region, and then the africa center and a former professor with madison university. from thely, we'll hear associate director who was based in nairobi and returned to their visit of the drought affected areas.

i highlight the growing urgency of this, and helping those as we continue to partner with the international agency in the warm-up -- horn of africa. i look forward to your testimony. >> i want to welcome all of those who will testify today. a headquartered in my hometown of atlanta, georgia. i have been on site in kenya and tanzania, and seen firsthand what they do to deliver humanitarian aid as well as in the case of life sustaining techniques that people can learn to be self sustaining on themselves, which is so critical in areas of that

poverty. i appreciate you being here and testifying, and i am happy to have the home team here, talking about the good things that they do. i am delighted that dr. peter is here, because he can be and forms observer of the security dynamic without constraints that must be maintained in describing the situation given the exposure of the staff. and the persistent extremist vein that runs through somalia, in this region with the international donors. the complexity of the geopolitical situation coupled with the united nations, dealing with hunger and conflict in somalia makes this a very challenging humanitarian response. in these areas the principles of our policies are tested, regarding the purveyors of

illegitimate and immoral control. i am delighted the chairman called this hearing, with the leading humanitarian crisis before the world today, and we have to bring humanitarian relief to those struggling in a terrible part of the world. i look forward to the testimony of all witnesses. >> we will begin with the opening statement. mrs. nancy lindborg and then -- >> i have a longer version for the record. >> i would encourage 5 minute statements and we will submit the full record without -- the false statements for the record. >> ranking members -- and members of the committee. the humanitarian crisis in the horn of africa has its roots in

the brutal force of al-shabba ab. in changing the regional climate patterns that affect the vast rural populations. we're working hard with the international and regional partners to deliver the short term relief that is critical to those suffering from the effects of this crisis. the u.s. fund assistance have -- we cannot rely on emergency assistance alone for the underlying long-term problems in the region and we are working with the governments in the region to support long-term political food security in the region. the response to the drought has been complicated by the instability in somalia, and the actions of al-shabaab.

2 million simoleons are trapped in the controlled areas and since january 2010, they have prohibited international workers from operating in the areas that they control. they continued to refuse to grant humanitarian access and this has presented the international community from responding quickly inside somalia. as we seek to take advantage of any openings, we were with our partners in the international community -- and we are taking the necessary steps for the urgently needed humanitarian aid that is needed in south-central somalia, minimizing the risk of diversion. we want to ensure that the aid

workers to help save lives under difficult and dangerous conditions -- that they're not in conflict with u.s. laws and regulations. the sanctions have never prohibited the delivery of assistance to somalia under the disaster control. regional security in the horn of africa -- there was political stability in somalia. the united states had a long- term conflict to stabilize somalia, and we announced plans to broaden our efforts with the nature of somalian society and politics as part of the engagement. we have the transitional government, to expel them from mogadishu. since 2007 we have supported

these efforts with $280 million for the statistical needs and $85 million to support the capacity to these forces. we're keeping our engagement with the government, the route to central and south somalian areas. those or not affiliated with them, the us this will provide $21 million to support the developing efforts in this policy. we have further information as we go on and i would like to allow my colleagues to speak so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, chairman. i really appreciate taking time

to hold a hearing and as we meet today, the situation is deteriorating and we have significant controls. the horn of africa has been plagued by the drought, and what we see is the worst in 60 years. the 10-year drought cycles are happening every over -- every other year, and this is affecting 12.4 million people in somalia and kenya. the crisis is humanitarian and also security related. the most difficult access areas of somalia, we will hear more about the refugees going across the border to distressed areas of kenya and ethiopia. more than a million and a half displaced simoleons are crowding in and they cannot handle this increase in population.

the july 20 declaration of famine was not made lightly entry-level -- truly reflects the dire conditions of the people in somalia. that has been verified and on the basis of that we ask that in the last 90 days -- 29,000 somalian children have died, nearly 4% of the children in southern somalia. the fear of the international community is that the famine conditions will spread to encompass the entire region of southern somalia. the next rains in september and october and even if they are good, we could have another wave of mortality in the south. in ethiopia and kenya, the situation is grave but we do not

expect famine, what we're witnessing in the south. ethiopia and kenya have large areas of land and in partnership with the local governments, we have worked extensively in both countries to increase the resilience and the food security of these communities in the drought-affected areas. we have supported the ongoing safety net and community protection programs and increase productivity in arid land. with the world bank and other donors, the u.s. government has supported the safety net program and as a result, 7.6 million people have been removed from the emergency caseload. the government of ethiopia has stated that 13.2 million people

in ethiopia were affected by the drought and by contrast, only 4.8 million people are in need. the needs in ethiopia are serious and require sustained focus and attention, but the results of these programs are paying off. and we see results. there is a huge early warning system that ellen us in august that there was a drought on the horizon and we began positioning the food stocks, stockpiling food in kenya and south africa. we have provided $459 million of aid to include food assistance and treatment for minor children and water sanitation and assistance in the refugee camp. we are now focused aggressively on the potential for mass

starvation in southern somalia. in 1992, we learned of the leading cause for death for children under 5 years old was disease. the availability of food, including that that is so essential for children under 5, and in terms of the key challenges, we edified 3. we have a small window to reach those in need, with the additional deaths of several hundred thousand. we're looking at a six or eight week window. the accesses in the worst affected areas, remain the primary obstacle to the relief efforts. most international organization suspended operations in 2010. they have lost 14 staff members.

until now, al-shabbaab has sent mixed signals over whether they will lift the band. -- ban. we will safely provide assistance where there is access. in the face of these needs, we have new guidance on the provision of assistance for greater flexibility. and the aid workers working with united states are not in conflict. we will continue to work with the resources currently available within the international community. we are working aggressively to encourage all of the donors and all nations to step forward with assistance. we cannot stop the drop from happening, specifically in this region, but we can strengthen communities and the ability to

withstand natural calamities. the focus is precisely on the root causes of nutrition, and strengthening the communities. we have the ability of these populations to withstand drought, the trade in the transport barriers, with the sale of livestock, and technology. the investments -- mr. chairman, thank you. we have the symbol to those -- the american people are there with them in this time of need. >> thank you very much for this

opportunity to testify. the humanitarian crisis in the horn of africa. we appreciate the support that has been given to this crisis, with some the other issues that you have been grappling with. as more survivors reached this -- they are working to save as many lives as we possibly can. i travelled in july to look into the emerging refugee crisis, and during my trip, we have representatives from the government officials, with the un agencies, and i also spoke

with many refugees. it was clear that this situation is developing into the worst humanitarian issues since the great famine of 1991 and 1992. we have the protracted refugee situation. years of hard work, have worked hard to address the basic needs, but this is quickly overrun by the needs to have new rather rigid border crossing the border crossing facilities. both ethiopia and kenya have a record number of refugees from somalia, and they are in bad physical health. they are sad that they had walked for several days, with virtually no food were water.

there were dozens of minor children who were so weak, and they appeared close to death. in the refugee camps, we see 50% levels of malnutrition, with the children inside somalia. ethiopia and kenya are far beyond their capacity in every way. they are looking into food and essential services as a deal with the refugees, and somalia's of the largest refugee population in africa. they now host more than 620,000 somalian refugees. over 75,000 arrived since

january. they have 38,000 refugees arriving sense the first of this year. djibouti -- we have a tremendous support for the agents in the region as a deal with the drought that may be the worst in 60 years. there is the already stressed system hang i am confident that the government has the ability to deal with this crisis head- on, and they will find new solutions to address their needs, and also those in somalia.

our regional partners have to wrap up the emergency assistance. there were accompanied by the u.s. ambassadors, and don steinberg. and several donor embassies. as we wandered through the refugee camp, we heard versions of the same story, over and over again. one man that i met had come all the way from mogadishu, traveling nine days with his wife and children. his youngest child was a three year-old girl. as we spoke, issa never stopped moaning.

she could not get comfortable as a tiny bones would pierce her paper-than skin. i spoke to one mother who had carried her daughter on her back for nine days, with food and water hazard children trailed behind. with hot meals and the transit center, her viols went to -- i commend the high commissioner of refugees to find a way to do this a few days after i had. but more must be done. the second example is how the united states increased refugee assistance throughout the region.

a host hundreds of thousands of refugees, with $459 million in aid for those in need. there are the displaced persons, with $69 million. we have zero population refugees. we have the simoleons in neighboring countries, they are now moving refugees into the same space. this is to allow the same opening. we will open more quickly, and

we have the silence, with the support. in the have the ngo's region. this is rigorous and sustain diplomacy. and we have the other capitals for the international community. we want to take the necessary measures to save lives in the coming months. there is an immediate need to reach this area, and unless we find ways to go inside somalia,

and you continue to see the mortality rates in the refugee camps. and this has made the current situation worse. and the united nations has declared -- as the situation continues to worsen. we are working to tackle this with a variety of means. and this is an administrator. thank you for your time and your attention. >> we were being able to deliver the humanitarian aid, and this is vital to preventing the refugees from having to make

the week-long treks, and this is their -- >> they have these the humanitarian saw on these groups, and if you could describe this a little bit more detailed, the way you will increase the flow of aid. and you have confidence for the humanitarian assistance to be provided, given the famine. this is multifaceted. 60% of those in need are in this territory and the question is whether -- this is extremely difficult and impossible. the united nations has taken this, with these groups.

there are the due diligence procedures, and you have the allowed groups, sen. these areas, if they can, with the convoys here, and once these measures have the licensing and the procedures, they will allow the delivery. you have about 100,000 or so in mogadishu. you have 100,000 every day going into these areas, with al- shabaab targeting refugees. amazon has done a pre-emptive

measure to try to keep them -- and the question is how we will stabilize this area, how we will allow the flow of food into these areas. >> if you would like to expand. >> we are working closely with the international community, and we have a greater access. and they are bringing the food into mogadishu. and we are hoping that there will be the opportunity, for these areas where there is a willingness to let them in.

i think the new guidance that was issued creates greater assurance and greater flexibility, but this is a tough area to operate in. it will take seasons humanitarian workers to navigate to this environment. >> how would you assess the international community and their response compared to the united states? how we are using this -- with others, the multilateral entities and groups? and the response from the united states has always been there. for the last several years, the united states is the primary

food supplier to the region. this is the no. 1 region for the food recipients, and ethiopia is the number one country for the last several years. this gives it a breath and the death of the problem. you have 300 kids under the age -- and the rates are much higher, and so, the response has been how to get more food into the pipeline, to ensure delivery. and there is a refugee camp. and we have the capability to this, and we are easing up the procedures to make it easier to

operate. and how we can open up more quarters. >> this is the important role of harnessing science and technology, and the role that the future has played, in doing the background reading. and there revolutionized the billy to get -- with water drilling in ethiopia to allow pasturists to maintain their lifestyle. is there anything else that you have said about the particular crisis and how this has changed

the previous drought cycles. >> in my testimony, i talked about the other donors and the government, we have unable 7.5 million not to go into a state of urgent need. there has been significant work on increasing the ability to weather these kinds of serious droughts to improve the health of their livestock, and as we look ahead to see the future initiatives, this is really at the heart of the vision of president obama with how to mobilize large emergency responses every time there is a drought. there is the trade reforms that can allow the hon. populations

to have greater protection, and to use science and technology, with the drought resistant seeds, and the livestock approaches. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the sanctions do not prohibit the humanitarian aid. what did the sanctions say regarding humanitarian aid? >> this is the licensing. when we debated this issue on delivering into al-shabaab territory, this was about the payment of the convoy fees, to

get us into those areas. and what would they need the funding and the money for? this was a major concern. are we also contributing to greater instability? this became a great debate. with the famine and the nutrition -- the malnutrition, how the open up the capability to explore opportunities to allow them to get into those areas more quickly for deliveries? even with all the procedural openness, you know ethiopia and kenya have tried to open up the borders for feeding or they would push into somalia, but even those are still in secure areas, in danger. it becomes a major problem, how

you open borders and how you get food into those areas where 50% of those in need are in the enemy territory. >> they have payoff fees for safe passage and the use that for these organizations -- this is what you are talking about. >> and we are telling them that traveling for humanitarian aid, it is ok to pay those fees? >> we ask that they do the due diligence so they could be able to see and provide to the needed areas, but if this becomes necessary -- >> is there any security that is provided for the african union in terms of getting the materials at the moment? >> i know you have a panel

following so they now have much to say on this, but most of those operating have a very principled approach to not paying taxes, and many are able to accomplish this and the easing of the legal restrictions simply removes any concerns that an accidental or incidental payment will not jeopardize them within legal actions. this is creating a greater sense of comfort, and this is not a barrier to an effective delivery. >> this is still a dangerous place, with the intimidation to carry this. do they have anything other than their own provided protection. >> most of them choose not have

their own protection, rather than the communities welcoming them in, hosting them in the provision of assistance. ultimately, we all need the kind of access that comes from the communities understanding the importance of the international efforts to help them at this critical hour. >> we have traveled to africa together and have seen the corruption throughout the continent, and that is not related to this issue, but what the united states is doing to get democratic institutions. themselves of corruption in return for contracts and things of that nature is changing africa. this region, not necessarily because of al-shabaab but that is the single biggest inhibited and i say, with the u.s. foreign

aid going there. let me ask you about this for a moment. i was in kenya a couple of years ago and the canyons show their frustration with the pressure that was applied to them with the refugees that they had. your flyer says that they get 1225 new refugees per day. other than providing the additional land, what pressure is put on the people of kenya to provide support and how is this costs being borne? >> you are correct. this has been there since 1991 and the issue of refugees inside kenya is very sensitive. they have been patient in dealing with this crisis for a couple of decades.

to give you an idea of the magnitude, there were getting about 1200 new arrivals a week and now this is 1200 per day. the international community has asked for another camp. there was the it expansion that we have asked for them to expand and when i was there three weeks ago, i was there on the ground, and there was a press conference with the international media. he gave his word that the government of canada would allow for the expansion to be opened. we look forward to a continued commitment from kenya to support this. the cost for the camp is borne by the international community. cashre responsible for the management and the food program, which is responsible

for feeding the refugees. there was financial support for the guard with the security forces around the border. the united states has been the leader working with international partners to do so. >> i brought this up because we talk about tragedies like the famine, and we also want to thank those countries that are trying to help. the kenyan people have a tremendous amount of the burden now than the cost alone -- this is a good contribution and we have to appreciate what they have done. >> and we do, regularly. >> if i could follow up, the other largest refugee camp that is receiving simoleons in ethiopia, there were nearly --

they have recently dropped and you have a sense of the cause of this and how do you assess the increased willingness to is -- to provide support for the ongoing issues. >> i was there about three weeks ago, and the a rival rate was about 250 per day and there is no good action about -- answer for why this number increased by that magnitude. we're trying to understand the nature of that dynamic. the major camps there, they had about 50,000 refugees combined, and now this is about 100,000. in the rate we were receiving in july, this could double again by the end of the year. the government of ethiopia has been a good partner in terms of

supporting the refugee population, since the beginning of the current drought crisis, they have provided additional staff, to deploy their, and they have operated at the transit center there and we engage regularly with the ministry of foreign affairs, to make certain that they know that we are effective partners for them and they haven't said to the hospitality, these people in need. >> it is hard for someone from delaware to grasp the camp of a half million people, because this is the size of kansas city, five times larger than the largest city in my state. how are they dealing with health concerns, with the follow on the humanitarian crisis, --

>> the end of the year and the current rates, the health pressures are enormous. this is the fourth largest population center in kenya. having said that, there are a number of providers looking for health services, and this is one of the more important -- but with the new refugees that are arriving, 44,000 refugees are simply on the outskirts because there were not allowed to go into the other camp expansion. those settling on the outskirts, where there were no significant health services, they have additional rates of all sorts of basic diseases for the respiratory diseases.

these are hot and dusty conditions and you can develop these sorts of problems. we are hoping that the opening of these camps will give people shelter, will give people access to the health center that is already built, with the permission of the government of ethiopia, and we will continue to support them as they provide the essential medical services, especially to treat these horrible rates of malnutrition among bus children under 5 years old. >> you were talking about science and technology earlier. they are bearing an enormous burden, and much of the power of kenya is delivered by hydroelectric power, and this has dropped by more than half. what are you doing to help

deploy the alternative power, the other sources of power that may help with kenya and these camps, for the rest of these host nations in terms of their electricity. they are not so reliant -- there are a number of conversations about ways in which we can work closely with them to mitigate the impact of the future droughts. we would be delighted to get back to you on this. >> what are we doing to avoid the significant security challenges, as those of -- both

of these nations have supported a large refugee populations for a long time, and would have concerns about the possibility of the state -- destabilizing. this would be efficient for the united states and the international community, with how we can be more effective in engaging this community and the international community. and the commitment made by the united states. >> somalia is so complex. if you think about this -- the refugees and the issue that comes in, is on stability. this is of strategic interest because of the security concerns.

they had 12 bombings in one year, and they moved out of somalia into ethiopia. this is a concern for ethiopia and in the region today. how the movies these security concerns. and one approach that we have worked, not just with the regional states but also the transitional government, is to stabilize this region. if you look at the security by the smallest themselves, and the amazon soldiers from you done that, they have done a great job in taking back parts of mogadishu, and the problem is that this will be a long-term problem, and do we have the finances, no, but we have the

regional states and the somalis themselves. >> if i asked about one concrete example with the security aspect, one of the problems -- is a place where the united states has encouraged the government of canada have a screening center. they have closed their border, and have for some years. they are reopening best and there are considerable funds to help pay for this and this will be a means for them to help them know who was coming into their country. this is the first point of crossing before they make the first track. >> i will wrap this up.

we are very focused on ensuring that the communities around the camps will receive assistance. there are large areas affected by drought, and it is important that we worked to meet those very grave needs as well. on the awareness issue, it is critically important that resources of very generous private citizens as well as the donors and the non traditional donors, -- >> thank you very much. there was one question, and this may be directed to ambassador yamamoto. there is a reference to the ethnic somalis living in ethiopia.

the inference is that this was somewhat restricted. is there a restriction to get food and aid to those simoleons? >> i spent most of my time traveling to make certain that the u.s. food assistance was getting to the right areas. we had $600 million in metric tons of food to deliver. and we were able to verify this and other groups about 70% with the accuracy rates to get the food to the distribution, because of the beneficiaries and were only able to confirm about 20%, because of the security and the problems with delivering the

food with areas with heavy security and conflict. we have a working to open up the access to allow the groups to go into the areas to make certain that the food was getting to the right people. this is part of the essential process. >> but there is still some difficulty getting it there. >> yes, there s. >> we would like to thank all members of this panel for your testimony and your service. we would now like to turn to the second panel, and we will take a moment while they join us, and we will get done --

my people are still putting together a briefing. >> we would like to wekcome kacyndyv, phom, and sch--- we would like to thank you for

having your testimony to the record,. the senate and the international community, for the horn of africa. thank you for giving an opening statement and i would encourage each of you to contain your comments and we will submit this for the record, any additional statements that you may have. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify. this is an incredibly important issue, this is very timely and original. i am here representing the relief and the development organizations, particularly for the most affected countries in the region.

and i think that people have been shocked by the photographs coming out of this region, and there was a very shocking photograph in yesterday's "yenew york times." it is important to recognize the for every image of a child who has at least made it to a treatment center in mogadishu, there are many children and adults who have not made it that far. this is a growing tragedy. the situation -- the teams are doing assessments right now

throughout ethiopia in initiating programs, as a look into an area of extreme humanitarian emergency, the same landscapes for the dead and dying live stock which form the basis of those living there to feed themselves. they see villages completely emptied by the drought because people cannot get water and have to go elsewhere. they have families who are struggling to eat even one meal per day. the superlatives for the crisis -- this threatens to become the worst humanitarian crisis that we have seen in a generation. the good news is -- the good news is that we know how to deal with a crisis like this. i have described as in much more detail in my written remarks.

the major question is whether the groups will have the opportunity to acquire the understanding that we have developed. this sector is facing a massive shortfall with their response. the u.s. has been generous so far. the rest of the world -- they still fall far short of what we saw a few years ago when the drought hit the region. aere doesn't seem to be global recognition of how severe that the crisis says, as we see just a fraction of the engagement that we saw after the heydey earthquake, of a number of people at risk now exceeds the total population of haiti. the u.s. government is working hard to respond and to mobilize resources and we are appreciative of that. those working the issue at the

refugee bureau really are the best. we deeply appreciate their professionalism, but they need to have resources to combat the crisis. this was extremely generous and we recognize this as such, but this under half of what the bush of ministration contributed in 2008. as we looked up at this debate, there are proposals on the other side of the hill to slash these accounts with the assistance that the u.s. government is using to respond to this crisis. with a migration refugees. this is the food aid account, with a proposed cut of 80% of this budget. this would be a 50% cut over

2008 during the last budget crisis. the other challenge is the legal restrictions, it appears that the government is looking to waive this and this is a positive step. we commend the administration for taking this. we do have some concerns about the implementation and i would like to address these in more detail. that is important to recognize that the fact that the administration issued this several weeks after the famine was declared, and several months after, we understood that something very bad was coming. this shows a systemic problem. it makes no sense to point to any part of the administration for their responsibility, there were trying to do this the best that they could.

this was in terms of the interaction between the humanitarian priorities. with the question of whether we can get into the south and how this will work, we are not certain. the legal restrictions take a lot of this out of the way. but there were questions about what could be achieved, and i think that he can talk a little bit more about the regional politics. there are reasons for optimism with the red cross so far in getting the shipments in without interference, so that we have a mixture of hope and cautious optimism. thank you. i want to thank you for this chance to testify today on very

important issue. as the other panelists have stated, the u.s. refugee agency claims this as a worse humanitarian disaster in the world, with half of the population of somalia facing starvation. given this grim reality, the first concern should be, understandably, to give relief to the victims. however, in addressing these immediate needs, they must look into the broader political context as well as the long-term implications. other witnesses are in a better position, individually or institutionally, to address the technical questions, the impact on vulnerable populations and the logistics of getting assistance to them, we have the

key points that the policymakers and other actors should bear in mind in assessing the current situation for the adequate response to this as well as the planning of the long-term engagement with this region. they have the responsibility of exacerbate -- exasperated the crisis. they cannot be blamed for meal -- neurological conditions, they have engaged in the economic -- economic policies and this has made a bad situation worse.

there was black gold shipped to countries in the persian gulf. i cannot estimate the negative impact of this which earned al shabab millions in profits recycled into violence and terrorism. and if this were not bad enough, once the famine set in, al shabab leaders have alternateed between denying the crisis and prevented people from moving in search of food. whether or not it is a

formal policy of the group, i have reports from sources on the ground in the last 24 hours of at least three holding areas in lower areas of the country where the shabab forces are using force or the threat thereof to keep displaced people from leaving the territory and finding help and we can get into why they might be doing that. secondly, far from being part of the solution, somolia's transitional federal government, the tfg, is part of the problem. in fact, a not insignificant cause of the ongoing crisis. the regime's unelected officials may be preferable to al shabab insurgents but they represent at best the choice of the lesser of two evils. hobbled by corruption, weakness and in-fighting, the tfg is of limited helpfulness in the face of the present emergency. tfg leaders are likelier to see the crisis as another opportunity to capture rents since their mandate expires

in two weeks and is for want of a plan b and the international community is not taking issue with the tfg leaders arbitrary extension of their terms of office by another year no wonder the official position of the government of the united states, not with standing its engagements with the regime is not to recognize the tfg or any other entity as the legal sovereign of somolia. we need to pursue a permanent resolution to the ongoing crisis of state failure in somolia if we want to avoid humanitarian emergencies in the future. thirdly, the sheer number of people moving in and from somali territory will have consequences for the region. the potential population shifts threatening to up end delicate political balances for the horn of africa and beyond. if they are not the cause, however unintentionally

greater harm to this mass migration need to be factored into these considerations. finally, amid the crisis, there is nonetheless an opportunity to promote stability and security in somolia. in fact, there is a narrow window of opportunity during which it might be possible to seriously weaken and possibly even finish al shabab as a force in somali politics once and for all. the disaster has exposed divisions within the movement with some of its local councils an militias expressinging a willingness to accept help even if the leadership continues to spurn it. the disaster has exposed divisions to some of the groups within it and there is a way the international community can get assistance to drought affected populations and do so where they are aer this than requiring of these poor people to displace themselves and create additional challenges that will be dealt with down the road. i want to underscore that there are local ngo's with a

proven ability to book delivered aid all the while avoiding diversion of aid to al shabab anding other entities. thank you for your attention. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, doctor. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity you have given us to testify today on this horrible situation that we're facing in the horn of africa. i speak today on behalf of care, a leading humanitarian organization fighting global poverty, and with six decades of experience in helping to prepare for and respond to natural disasters providing lifesaving assistance in crises and helping communities recover after an emergency, we place special focus on women and children and yet again in this crisis they bear the brunt of what's happening. myself, assistant director for programs for care in

somolia, i see firsthand in my work the consequences that tens of thousands of people are facing today. i have worked in the horn for seven years now traveling extensively within somolia both in the north and south. i recently returned from a trip to camps in drought affected areas in the north and what we see there is probably less dramatic than what we see in some parts of the south, yet the stories we hear are horrible. a woman that i met in one of the camps with a severely malnourished child on her arm explained she didn't have any money to go to the health clinic to seek assistance for her child and assistance was not salable there. you could see in her eyes she was traumatized by the experiences in the south and she thinks the things she has seen there. i met a father who recently lost his wife and was there nursing his five remaining

cows. the cows were bleeding from their noses and he was trying to do something about it but not really knowing what to do and our staff said, well, this is a lost cause. this kind of experience my staff see on a regular bases is and they are stories that remain with you for the rest of your life. our response to the emergency in the horn began to scale up in 2011, the beginning of 2011 when the signs were clear this was going to be a major crisis. today we're helping more than one million people in ethiopia, somolia and kenya with lifesaving food and nutrition and other lifesaving assistance. care is one of the largest agencies working there and we also support long-term activities that help people become more resilient to drought. the severity of the situation is extremely worrying anding other speakers have spoken at lect about that so i will keep my

remarks on that quite short. the worry is that the situation is not at its worst yet. the deepest part of the drought is normally the month before the rains come and then people are weakened and so by september we will see a significant increase in the number offing deaths due to diseases that affect these lar weakened populations. so, as my colleagues said, agencies know now how to deal with this kind of situation, and that we need to focus on a broad range of services like health, nutrition, food, and address those multiple causes of deaths in a famine crisis. however, unfortunately, there is still a major funding gap in the region of about $1.4 billion u.s. dollars for the consolidated appeal of the u.n. this is really a worry not withstanding all the generous contributions from various donors and we really appreciate the support from the u.s. government for our

work in these three countries where we have been supported and we really appreciate that. however, it's not enough. the crisis is so massive it needs additional support. the issues have been discussed at length. the ongoing conflict in the south is making it much more difficult to get access to the south, and what we're seeing is that agencies already present there, local ngo's, other international ngo's that work there have the ability to negotiate some level of access but it is limited. and unfortunately, aid is being politicized in this environment and it is important for all sides to lift this conflict to let impar impartiality guide our humanitarian assistance and we're determined to provide only assistance to those most in need and assistance in place to make sure that only those people get it.

we are urging local authorities to grant an uninhibited and unconditional access but the crisis happening now and it needs a concerted thoughtful, careful diplomatic work of u.n. donors and ngo's to get aid to the victims of famine wherever they are, and now is really the time to have space and reach out to all parties of the conflict and work to save the lives of tens of thousands of people and to avoid politicization of the issues. we had been speaking with colleagues from the u.s. government about the legal issues that have concerned us, and we really appreciate the recent steps taken by the u.s. government specifically for programs funded by u.s. aid and the department of state. questions, however, remain on the ability of u.s. government -- u.s. ngo's to program from u.s. government donors. for instance, the u.s. public.

ngo's get large sums of money from the u.s. public but this funding doesn't fall under the licensing that is now being put in place for ngo's. that would only be cover fire department you have funding from the u.s. government for south central somalia. other funding like echo, dfid, that would not be covered for u.s. based ngo's and those are major sources of funding for u.s. based ngo's. the long-term implications, we need to start thinking about those as well. i'm sorry i'm running a little bit over my time. these are very marginalized populations and they are among the most vulnerable to the impact of changes in the weather patterns. when i started working on somolia we would see a drought every five years and now it is a continuous sibeel of missed seasons and things are changing. people are finding it difficult to adjust to these changes. there are things we can do to help that and we need to

invest in that in the years to come. our are recommendations, i just want to sum up, the expansion and the state of funding for the cries cease is really important. the urgency is there, but we're seeing that major donors take quite essential time for funding to become available on the ground to support our work, and we urge donors to be faster in their processes and moving things forward. we need to start planning for increased long-term support for resilience in these areas. i will need concerted, thoughtful and careful diplomatic work of u.n. donors and ngo's to negotiate access on the ground and help to support a public climate in which those efforts can actually take place by the agencies working there, and the efforts by the u.s. government is to ease legal restrictions restrictions for

u.s.-governmented funded work is appreciated but it is not enough, because we are at risk when we use other government's funding and u.s. public funding, for instance. so on that last item, we really need some very urgent action forward. the ngo community is ready to engage the appropriate u.s. government agencies to develop constructive options to repude kuwait the effects of famine while controlling the risks of diversion and there are precedents for this in bahrain and gaza and that could be achieved in two different ways. first, issuance of a general license that would reduce the risk of prosecution due to transactions that may be incidental to the famine response, and secondly, favorable and very expedicious processing of specific license requests for u.s.-based ngo's. those things would really help agencies place

themselves in a position where they can starting negotiating for access on the ground. thank you. >> thank you very much. i hear a common theme obviously. there are both naturally caused or occurring climb mat driven causes for this regional drought and famine but also those that arise directly from al shabab and its control of a significant area. there is real concerns both about the security and logistics about getting into the area but in a more pressing way about the united states and the interaction of several of our agencies and departments and the opportunity to get a license. you also had raised some concerns or questions about the implementation of the new license opportunity. we're grateful for the role that care and mercy corps and others play. the issue was raised about how ngo's who receive

funding other than directly from the united states government would operate some unresolved questions about the license. would you expand a little bit as you suggested in your statement you would like to about concerns about implementation and clarity about the necessary path forward for us to deliver assistance appropriately and in a multi-lateral way. >> as we understand it and we were only briefed on this yesterday afternoon and we are still digesting it. we have an army of law lawyers reviewing this and whatnot. our review at this point is that the license issued would only apply to programs partly or wholly funded by the u.s. government and if our agencies are working there doing discreet programs that do not receive u.s. government funding org wishing to do that, that would not be covered by the license that was issued apparently last friday. >> so your concern from both

of you is that relief efforts that are not directly funded by the united states government may still put your organizations at some legal risk if they are operating within south somolia? >> that's correct. and our hope is that that can be resolved promptly. >> we hope so as well. the other concern on implementation, you say it has the obvious clearances it needs and it is going to be a matter of how they translate that into what applies to their partners and that is a discussion we will be having. >> and all three of you in the previous panel emphasized the time is of the essence, that there are literally tens of thousands of children who are straferring and hundreds of thousands who are at risk or on the verge of starvation. would further bureaucratic delay cause you as cruel and inappropriate? >> your words, not mine, senator. i certainly think that the administration is moving now with great urgency to try

and clear these things out of the way. i think what we were told yesterday is an important step forward and a sign of sincere good faith on the part of the administration resolving these things. i hope we're now to a point of detail negotiations rather than kind of big picture political will and i do think that's the case, but as i said in my remarks and as i expand on them in my written testimony, i do think there is a larger issue that bears ex-moration by the congress -- exploration by the congress of how and why it even got to this point. can we find some ways of reviewing the law on this so that we don't have to go through this long drawn out bureaucratic process to do what everyone agrees should be done in the first place. >> let's turn to the question of al shabab. understandably, they are subject to sanctions by the united states. we have done everything we can to restrict their opportunity to gain funding

for their terrorist activities. you are referenced both in your written testimony and the testimony you just gave us to the real opportunity here, because of some tensions within the organization. speak if you would, just a little bit further about whether it is appropriate for us to be issuing broad licenses and allowing humanitarian assistance if it might further strengthen this terrorist organization. >> thank you. mr. chairman, the question of al shabab really is to understand that it's not a monolythic organization. >> right. >> at its core is a very radicalized extremist leadership with very close connections to some very dangerous people in other parts of the world, and we need to seriously be concerned. they have operational reach and have shown themselves capable of carrying out attacks in neighboring countries as well. that being said, however, the organization itself is broken up. it is a marriage of convenience. some of the factions in al

shabab a year ago were possibly with the government. next year, they are clan factions and militias. this is an opportunity. some of them in places have stated they will bring us aid. we're willing to switch allegiances, so there is an opportunity. this is where i support the secondary track two policies that assistant secretary carson announced last year. we need to get that going. it was announced a year ago but we still haven't really developed it. this is a type of program that would allow us to have the information and the partners on the ground who can distinguish, ok, which, where are the areas we can work in? right now it is a theory. it is a concept, a very valid one but we really haven't worked it out as well as we should have. >> if i understand you credible, like most groups, it is made up of a variety of splinter groups, some that are hard-core jihadists

bent on international terror. some are local clan or tribal groups aligned with al shabab sort of out of convenience. you mentioned in your testimony before there is reason to believe that they may be holding buying force or threat of force thousands of potential refugees who could find assistance elsewhere in kenya or eat open ya. why would you think they might be doing that? >> several reasons. first, there have been several districts where they didn't exercise that type of control, and now they rule literally a desert. 100% of the people are gone. 100% of the livestock is dead. they have a desert to themselves. they can enjoy it. quite pragmatically if you're trying to take control of territory, you get rid of the population. talking about the quandary of aid delivery, are i think they gambled that eventually aid is going to flow and this is where we have to be careful how we allow that to

flow and we have had this experience in somolia. we were there in the '90's when it happened. the more refugees you have shall the more displaced persons shall the more resources will flow to your area, not necessarily to those people but resources you can divert, so some of them may well be simply holding people so they can increase head count and rent seeking behavior. >> one other country we haven't referenced is aratria, one of the most totalitarian regimes in the world and there is little information about the conditions on the ground and humanitarian needs if i understand that credible. as i was looking at maps it was literally blank in terms of data. any insight on the humanitarian mission there also understand on the tension with the security situation and the humanitarian situation is unresolved and with an unclear path? >> if i may begin, senator, just to give one index of how bad the situation probably is there, somewhere

slightly around 50,000 people have crossed the border into ethiopia. it is a mine-laden trap, and these people have risked everything, not just to walk be a cross the desert, but a minefield to get -- and these are the survivors, and so that just says something about the level of desperation. i've met people who have made that passage who become refugees have spoken with them and the situation is pretty dire. >> thank you. i have further questions but i will yield to senator isaac son. >> i want to ask you a specific question what you regarded as a systemic problem in the administration regarding licensing. is the systemic program too much bureaucracy? >> i don't know if i would say there is too much bureaucracy. i think that what we have, there are different agencies that have different priorities and different angles on some of these issues and the setup we have right now in terms of the

legal restrictions, what is prohibited in terms of what is considered to be material support makes it, i think, very difficult for those different agencies that all have a stake in this to resolve this sort of thing quickly. our suggestion would be to look at, maybe as a first step, to my understanding the patriot act exempts medical supplies and religionous materials from the definition of would constitute material support. we would be interested in exploring whether that carve-out could be broadened to include other urgent humanitarian services in situations like this so it wouldn't require a long drawn-out bureaucratic process to enable aid agencies to have the legal permissions to respond in this type of situation. >> on that point, it's my understanding -- well, i know, in fact, in your testimony you said that in many cases local ngo's are

better equipped to deliver aid than might be a non-resident ngo and syed is a group of somali women who deliver support within somolia but would probably be prohibited from having assets because of this restriction. it would only be u.s. delivered funds is, that correct? >> to cite that specific ngo, one of their problems was that they were falsely accused a year and a half ago of in a u.n. or the of having made payoffs to al shabab. they with were exonerated in the subsequent u.n. follow-up report but that meant 18 months where they were cut off from the inter national funding, and those were 18 months they lost, but they worked very effectively by partnering with traditional clan elders, local community members and that's their protection. during that period of fighting in mowing due shoe,

they were the only government entity that had operations in all 16 districts of the city. it is a tremendous organization today and the scale of what they're delivering is amazing, so i want to pay tribute to them. if i can turn back, i know my two colleagues are somewhat constrained by relationships to comment. >> that's why i asked you. >> with the government. although we focus a lot on, although we are americans, we focus a lot on perhaps obstacles in our own processes. i think we ought to, in fairness, also look at obstacles at the international level. the world food program works on a three-month delivery cycle. how is it and i ask myself, how is it that knowing this was coming down the line, although there is a major resource in the region, they didn't put more food in the region. over the weekend they had two flights for all intents an purposes that were for show. they took four tons of

plumpy, 14 tons to mogudishu.the syed goes to 65 ts in mogodushu alone. it was more for the cameras than anything else, frankly. >> well, i wanted to be quite clear. i understand that it's important that the administration and our country don't have it in the can to prohibit u.s. aid from getting into terrorist hands and that's some of the reason for the restrictions but when you do reach a crisis point in a humanitarian problem like this, it seems like there ought to be expedited procedures or else the people you're trying to help are going to be dead, and that's the comment that i was trying to get to, because there's no question these organizations in africa operate on cash flow from corruption and many more organizations that are of a affiliated with al qaeda or other nefarious groups around the world, but it is

important with this many people the threat of losing their life that we have an ebbs pe dited procedure to the maximum -- expedited procedure to the maximum extent possible. i noted that bob was supposed to testify and you are in his place. it caused me to make an observation for the people here today. mr. la plat is from care international and couldn't be here because he suffers from malaria. my first trip with care to ethiopia and the care representative i worked with also had malaria. i want to thank you for the risk that you take in very dangerous parts of the world to deliver humanitarian aid and hope and care's organization and many other ngo's like it people sometimes don't equate the are risk and exposure of your own health that you put to help other people so thank you for doing that. one last question for dr. pham. you talked in your remarks about al shabab keeping

people from getting help. they're actually stopping are refugees from leaving the country to get help, is that correct? >> from sources on the ground that i have spoken with in the last 24 hours, their appear to be three different areas, one that appears to be a cap of sorts where they're actually holding people. two are just areas where they created enough violence around them more or less to corral them in, so it's not a guarded situation but it's a threatening one, and they're preventinging people in those cases from heading to mogidishu crossing the lines to the area controlled by the african union where peacekeepers can get to them. 100,000 people have crossed and they're preventing morgue from going. the other area is to divert people from heading south toward kenya. >> and the goal that is to

just strike fear in the population or what? >> i think it's several-fold, and it's hard to disaggregate them, to keep people that they can still rule. they aspire to rule, an ruling on empty land is not what they were planning to do, and two, i think some of it might be local interests of local shabab commanders to have people as resources, because people will attract aid, which they hope they will be able to tax, divert or other wise tap into. >> the last question, one of the big problems in africa is a lot of the -- in a lot of cases organizations will use rape and violence against women as a tool of accomplishing their end goal. do your people on the ground give you any indication that al shabab is using that as a tool? >> not on a -- i'm not getting any reports on cases of violence against women very clearly and some of

those are being documented, but not as a systematic attempt to exert control or terror, unlike other tragic cases in africa. >> i have a point on that. in various camps in the evening john, sexual violence against women is a serious problem and not just within somolia but outside. >> thank you very much for testifying today, all of you. mr. chairman. >> i would like to follow up if i could to a comment you made in response to the earthquake that was in iran in 2003, that there was an exception to the licensing procedure by them that might be a useful procedure here. could you elaborate on that? >> i don't have the technical details as such but we can get back to you on that. >> certainly from all of our witnesses today, we're looking for a responsible swift and appropriate path forward. i understand despite my

comment earlier, i understand that different entities within the united states government are charged with enforcing different legal obligations and that sometimes the desire for prompt and effective humanitarian assistance runs up against the barriers that we put in place in order to prevent assistance from being provided witting ly or unwittingly to those that are enemies of the united states and pose a real threat to the international order. i would be interested in your input if i could in my three last questions here, first about future planning, about how the united states can better assist countries in the region, particularly here in the horn of africa, with where the climactic conditions seem to be worsening. how do we help them build resilience and sustainable capacity to deal with these crises so that we don't have to keep doing this periodically and several threatened cuts to u.s. aid

that the house has taken up with with the relevant budget and has proposed, and i think it was a 30% cut over last year, 50% over the '08 funding level. how do you see our efforts to sustain american engage ment with development, with assistance playing out and what suggestions might you have for us in how to help the average american understand why there is value inning doing this, not just from a humanitarian perspective but a strategic perspective? >> i think the need for recovery and resilience programming is extremely high and i think it's important to get that the planning for that started now, even while we're in such crises. there are a lot of things that ngo's and others are doing in these areas and ensuring livestock health and ensuring improvement of natural resource management and vocational training to diversify the income streams

that people have and savings groups to ensure asset diversifications so people have liquid assets during a drought, so there are a lot of things that can be done, and this needs to be scaled up in response to the drought because people have lost all of their assets and we want to avoid a situation where after this drought and after this massive crisis, because it's going to be massive, people are left for a long period of time while agencies are planning for recovery and resilience programming afterwards. and if i may add a point on your earlier comment, obstacles on aid delivery coming through quickly, this is a serious concern. we're looking at a 2, 3-month window of opportunity in which we can still save lives. with the base, we have seen not just with u.s. government donors but with other donors as well, it

takes multiple months to get through the process and the added complications of u.s. are regulations have added significant periods of time and that's really worrying also going forward now that we have such a short time frame to prevent more deaths. >> thank you. >> again, i would fully endorse what he said about the need to build resiliency the programs that the u.s. government has funded and many of its partners to do in ethiopia an kenya are an important reason that the impact of the drought is not as severe as southern somolia. regardless of the political insecurity factors, the lack of sustained development programming going back years in southern somolia, far before the current political party was in place is a reason why it is so much worse there. in looking forward, we need to invest in a response right now that is not thinking just about the next three months but about the

next five to ten years and trying to rebuild people's resiliency and livelihoods as quickly as possible n terms of the u.s. government support, the specific budgets and engaging the american public, we have been very concerned so far that this situation doesn't seem to have really broken through yet in terms of the american consciousness in a way that the recent crisis in japan and haiti did. i think that there is a very clear link between level of american public engagement and crisis and the level of private donations and private support that the public provides but also in the level of support that the u.s. government is motivated to provide, and so i think that, you know, obviously we strongly support the accounts that i mentioned earlier and we think that protecting those is critical but it is also really important for u.s. political leaders to, i think, to signal to the american people just how serious this situation is.

after the crises in haiti, the president and first lady were very vocal about the needs there, about the importance of providing eight there aid there. we haven't seen that level of engagement out of the white house yet. we think that would be important and helpful. i understand the president has been dealing with other issues lately but hopefully in the coming months we can see more engagement on that, and i think as well for members of congress, also going back to the district for recess now, i think this is an important issue to discuss with your constituents and we would love to see, you know, joint calls from the congress and the administration for greater american engagement on this. >> thank you. thank you. >> following up, what guarantee or assurance does mercy corps give that funds made available to it actually get to the needy communitys? >> well, we have a range of measures in place for that.

as with any private american charity, there are laws and procedures in place. we get audited every year and make the audit findings public, so they are very intensive and they're every year. we also are part of -- collaborate with various accountability networks within our sector. there is a group called interaction which is sort of the umbrella organization for all american international charities that has member standards that we adhere to that get to exactly that, and then also as a partner of the u.s. government, there are very rigorous standards that we have to adhere to in order to qualify for u.s. government funding, so there are a lot of overlapping accountability standards an audits and all of those things that -- which help to hold us to account. >> in those standards or in your own internally-control standards, is there and acceptable amount of -- i

understand we're dealing in difficult parts of the world in difficult circumstances s there and acceptable level of link am and one upon which -- linkage and one upon which there is no tolerance? >> you never want to say here is our acceptable level offing leakage, because then you will get that level of leakage. >> i understand that's how things can work. our priority is to ensure that the aid gets to where it's supposed to go. i think that we have a very low tolerance for leakage. it's always on a case-by-case basis. as i've written in earlier articles on this, one of the factors that caused us to scale back our operations in the south back in 2010 even before we were formally expelled was that we were seeing unacceptable levels of interference and so we, you know, no level of leakage is really tolerable,

and i think that what is -- what we are willing to -- what we are willing to work with is minimal but it can't be defined except on a case-by-case basis. >> mr. pham is nodding in agreement on that, i think. >> also, in nairobi with agencies working with somolia, there is constant dialogue about what mechanisms we have in place to severely limit the ability of the diversion to happen, and the leadership of the u.n. humanitarian coordinator on this has been quite strong in the last couple of months to really push back on those initiatives that have been pushing for taxation, et cetera on the ground, and our systems internally are very tight, trying to make sure that whatever we pledge to provide to beneficiaries and not to anyones else.

>> senator isaacson, thank you very much for joining me. i'd like to thank you all for your personal service, for the risks you have taken in order to deliver relief for the leadership role that your organizations have taken, and for the insight you have given us and the world as folks that deliberated over this humanitarian crisis, as you have helped make clear today, this is the gravest humanitarian crisis facing the world today. it was foreseeable. it was one for which prep races were made and where -- preparations were made and there is investment that has made it less severe than it might have been, but it is one that can be expected to occur again because of the combination of governance, climactic, regional, economic and social factors in the horn of africa, and so it is my hope that we will be working together, the people of the united states, the non-profit community, our private citizens, to heighten public concern, to strengthen

international engagement, to not just respond to this immediate and very real crisis that will likely take tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives, but to lay the groundwork for preventing a recurrence of this crisis, those parts of it that were entirely preventable. senator isaacson and i share a view that africa is a continent of enormous promise and it is tragic to have this particular crises be what most americans will be seeing about africa in the month ahead. it is my hope that they will be seeing more of it, and i'm grateful for your role in highlighting and addressing this very serious humanitarian crisis. thank you for your testimony. ly keep the record open for the senators who were not able to join us today to submit statements until the close of business friday august 5, and this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, a discussion on the united nations' response to the african famine. this runs about 40 minutes. jou. host: vincent cochetel is the ngional representative for the the high commissioner for refugees. , the famine in somalia -- is this new or something that is just getting reported? how did we get to the point that we are at now? guest: thank you for having me. well, it is not new but it is one of these predictable

famines. there were indications in the beginning of the year that the rain was not sufficient in that part of the world -- not just somalia, but djibouti, kenya. we had the famine in 1992. 1998, 1999, 2000. what is important to see is that the famine stops at the border with somalia. in other countries affected by the drought, people are not dying. host: why? gues because in somalia we have a conflict, we don't just aly fm an-- not just only famine. fighting for control of the markets, the routes. the affected population cannot get access to supplies. host: when did the fighting start?

guest: in long time ago in 1999. since then, the country has bee divided. we had different regimes succeeding each other. recently, there has been fightinground at the mogadishu area, with a transitional national government is fighting. host: n, what is the situation in mogadishu? is aid getting at least to mogadishu and not being distributed, or is a did not even reaching the somalia at this point? guest: no, aid is reaching mogadishu, but mogadishu is a small part of the country. only people who can get access to the area controlled by the transitional national governnt, protected by peacekeeping force there, limited peacekeeping force there, the people can get into an indoor area control. but it is a tiny portion of the territory, only 5% of the territory up somalia. host: once it gets to mogadishu,

what happens to it? guest: we have local community- based organizations, directly buy control of making sure hte the aid reaches the right people outside the area's control, it is more difficult. host: why? guest: because you cannot bring a lot of supplies there. there are logistical issues, and there is always a risk that it can attract attention, being manipulad by some of the armed groups around. the distribution outside this area controlled by the transitional nional government has to be done on aow scale, using a community-based organizations. past be quite discreet. -- it has to be quite discreet. host: for safety reasons? guest: for safety reasons.

there are many other partners involved in relief actities in somalia. inrnationals working there. they our exposing themselves to danger. if you take 2008, 2009, 42 aid workers killed in somalia. you risk your life just working for a humanitarian organization. host: is this purposeful famine? is there enough food on the ground in somalia or available to get to somalia quickly? guest: at this stage there is t enough food to feed all the people. because of the distribution problems, unfortunately, we will not be able to reach everybody in a matter that is transparent, in a way where we are making sure all the affected population receives 2. 8 is very difficult at this stage to reach out all the people in need. is there enough food in the

country? no, there is not enough food in the country. more food items and non-food items are brought into the country. host: according to the un high commissioner's office, at the office you work for, 3.7 million people in somalia are in crisis out of a population of 7.5 million. 3.2 million are in need of life saving assistance. this the worst drought in somalia in 60 years. what about the designation of certain tribes or certain groups as terrorist groups that affect aid distribution? guest: it certainly affects distribution in the sense that one group, al-shabbab, is in control of the largest portion of somalia and there is no way we can work with those people. we hope they will let humanitarian aid workers reach the population at any, al- shabab has made various

statements in recent days and weeks and banning certain organizations, putting conditions on certain organizations, accusing organizations that we wanted to lure people with food assistance in order to convert them to christianity. our job is an impartial humanitarian work. we try to save lives with other organizations. that is what we want to achieve in somalia and the sort of message we pass in different communities in somalia. host: acute malnutrition rates, children exceeding 30%. those are the three criteria for declaring famine, correct? guest: correct. host: are there other areas in

the world currently in famine conditions? guest: no. host: just this area? guest: just this area. others are suffering from drought and access to food, but it has not reached a state of famine. host: we are talking about famine in somalia and what can be done about it. our guest is vincent cochetel of the u.n. high commissioner for refues office. you can also send a tweet, twitter.com/cspanwj, or an email, journal@c-span.org. where the refugees going? guest: mainly to 40 countries. kenya elmont, we are -- kenya

at 50,000 people 5 coming since the beginning of the year. host: are people getting an offer nutrition? . -- enough nutrition? guest: ngo's are doing their best to save lives when people arrive in kenya from ethiopia. we have problems in terms of registration, creating -- [unintelligible] the response is satisfactory in can and ethiopia. the government is concerned for its own security -- save for for ethiopia.aame on the 14th of july, the prime minister of the kenyan government agreed to an extension of the largest refugee

camp in the world. it has reached more than 400,000 people living there. it was opened 20 years ago, designed for something like 80,000 people. we now have 400,000 people. host: what is the u.n. high commissioner for refugees office? guest: the u.n. high commissioner for refugees office was a u.n. organization created after the second world war i in order to protect refugees. this way, refugees unable to return to eastern europe, displaced becae of the war -- the united nations decided to create it with a limited mandate of the three years initially. host:t it is still in existence today. in 2008, the u.s. was the top donor for the u.n. high commissioner's office, with $510 million donation.

those statistics you see there are from the unhcr office, and ey are 2008. our guest is vincent cochetel. we are talking about the drought in somalia. republican in connecticut, you are for stop. -- are first up. caller: good morning, commissioners. host: joyce, you have got to turn down th volume and a tv. we will put you on hold, but don't hang up. listen to the found -- to the phone. mike in tampa. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span, for taking my call. you know, just thinking about this, at there has to be a similar solution. supplying the people with a

way of growing their own food. put up solar panels and used the condensation. host: simpler solution for helping these people. guest: we see that in other countries and we fully agree with you. the problem is that in somalia, as soon as you demonstrate entrepreneurial skills, your be a suspected to wealthy individual and are at risk to be abducted were killed. al-shabab is keeping a close look on people and it is difficult to establish any kind of business in central or southern somalia. host: is it time, in your view, for military intervention in this situation? guest: i am representing a humanitarian organization. and never for conflict. but we should not be mistaken, there is no humanitarian solution do something that is a political problem in somalia.

this cannot go on forever. otherwise, we are going to see more people leaving somalia. we can provide some humanitarian response. safety in the countries around the somalia. we can do it inside somalia to assist people most in need. but there is no a humanitarian solution to this problem. host: there for? gu -- therefore? guest: therefore, the countries with some leverage on somalia -- saudi arabia, yemen, qatar -- need to talk to various stakeholders in somalia on a political deal at some stage. host: next ca for mr. cochetel, let's go back to connecticut. joyce, you ready? caller: yes. good morning, commissioner. i was the administrator of two

the fiji camps for two years. i found that i could not get -- tw refugee camps for two years. i thought that i cannot get to first base with the high commissioner for refugees when i had problems with the camp and the government. the food that used to come in, us flags on them, said "gift of the people of the united states," were immediately turned over to the refugees in the camps, which were governed by it thugs. they would take the food and make refugees pay for it, or they did not get it. now, i don't know about you, but it seems to me that every time i went to high commissioner for refugees about problems, the only answer i ever got was, "oh,

i will have to speak to the president." is this condition going to continue? guest: well, thank you for your questions. the issue of the diversion by some people, some individuals, sometimes some refugees inside some camps, that is a real problem. it happens in many countries around the world. we have a complete mechanism. we established a couple of years ago an investigation unit that is totally independent, capacity to investigate and take remedial action against these sorts of allegations. what we are confronted with these allegations, we investigate and take remedial action. i have to tell you come in 25 years working in the field with refugee emergency, it is complex. when you have a camp like that with 400,000 people, you try to do your best. you are putting monitoring procedures in place to make sure people get what they are supposed to get.

we take corrective measures. it is true that in some situations, difficult sometimes fo refugees to access our stuff. especially at times of emergency, because we are a bit overwhelmed. but there are procedures in place and people to voice complaints. if they can not reach you and staff on the ground, they can reach u.s. ngo staff on the ground and we investigate. host: just this year alone in the fit half of 2011, and ans tional 425,000 somali an have fled to kenya and 6000 have fled to ethiopia. if somebody wanted to help, where would you suggest they go? guest: if people want to help, first, there are many non- governmental organizations, including american and non- governmental organizations.

if people have time to volunteer, it is a good time to help. there are many in the areof medical respons comcommunity service. people can also donate to u.s. ngo's and other actors involved in relief efforts. host: ifomebody, mr. cochetel, or to donate it to you when a food relief for whatever, or the high commissioner's office, would they be ensured that they are buying foodstuffs for people? guest: absolutely. when people give money, they can give money for this project, the scarboro refugees, and we make sure the money is not used for -- this group of refugees, and we make sure the money is not used for other purposes. host: my point being, how do you know the aid is actually getting

to it? guest: we have no guarantee tha it will reach the people. i worked in the middle of the war in chechnya. we cannot get guarantees in some communities that we would be able to verify whether the people were getting assistance we provide it. i went back with food trucks and we did not distribute anything. host: what happened with the food trucks? guest: we kept them until we have an adequate mechanism. we did not just want to add it to the authorities on the trust they would be destroyed. host: you were kidnapped, correct? guest: yes, i was kidnapped and spent one year in captivity. host: 20 minutes of sunlight a day? guest: the candle. soup on a piece of bread.

host: what was the point of 20 minutes of sunlight a day? guest: i was kept in a location in chechnya and they put them in the ground where people don't know about their presence. any part -- many parts of chechnya at that time, they did not have electricity supply. host: how is it you got released? guest: the russian authorities, after a lot of pressure, said a special operation to get me out. host: military operation? guest: yeah. people got killed. host: that was in 1991 -- guest: 1998. host: the which it with your question for -- go ahead with your question for vincent cochetel.

caller: i was concerned, because i would like to donate but i do not have internet access. a lot of the media will prompt you to "go to our website" if you want to help, but i know a lot of people where i lived don't have internet access. maybe you have a phone number of the top of your head, maybe? what can people like me do? i will take your answer offline. guest: you have to decide which organization you want to give your donation. you can send it to us and we can channel it to the organization. you can write to us at 1717 k street, washington. indicate which organization you want to give your check and we will channel it to the organization. ho: once again, the u.n. high commissioner for refugees

office, unhcr. 1775 k street nw, washington, d.c. 20005. connecticut, frank, you are on with vincent cochetel. caller: yeah, good morning. my question is, ok, i have been listening, and you sort of basicay answered, but there's actually no way to ensure that the money we are giving to somalia is actually going to get to the simoleons -- to the somalians? is there a way to ensure it is going to get there? guest: well, i'm talking first

about so many refugees in kenya, ethiopia, djibouti. we can assure you we get the assistance with the generous response we're getting from u.s. citizens, but also citizens from many parts of the world and governments. inside a somalia, all the organizations involved -- we don't do much in somalia because we don't have guarantees in place in many areas of somalia that the aid will rch people. it is important to check with the organization where you want to donate to, where they operates, how they operates, what sort of assurance they can give you. i am not saying the money will be diverted. we know there is more demand got humanitarian organizations to make sure the assistance reaches the right people. if you have hesitation, contact the agency you want to help or

get more details on what they are doing inside somalia. host: do you have any estimates on how many people have died so far in this somalia famine? guest: no, i don't have estimates. but what i want your viewers to know is that we talk about the famine. but if people come to ethiopia, kenya, not just because of the famine -- if it was just the famine, they would a sta where it they are. if they moves, it is because there are other pressures. the conflict has been going on for many years, all sorts of human rights violations taking place their. and 30 seconds with someone in -- if you spend 30 seconds with someone in kenya and ask why they went to kenya, and they say the famine, give them fi minutes and asked them what their life was like in somalia

and white they made the choice to move to kenya, you will hear stories that they were beaten because they would not wear the veil, beaten in prison because they wore bras, prohibited by al-shabab, prohibited to sell me on the market. peop have left to their livelihoods. you hear about girls being gang raped by local thugs, protected by officials. you have a lot of factors contributing to the movement of people. it is not just famine. host: recently the u.s. eased restrictions on its relationship relationship,early but eased restrictions when it came to al-shabab. guest: the u.s. did not

necessarily ease restrictions, but the u.s. understands better the constraints under which organizations can work inside somalia. there is a constant and regular dialogue between the u.s. administration on the non- governmental organizations and u.n. agencies that work in somalia. they and a san better how we work, with whom we work. -- they understandetter how we work, with whom we work. as soon as you have big camps, we are going to bring to the trucking contract, bring the food and at the camp, distribute inside the camp. there is going to be a tax imposed, bris requested to get access to supplies and all that. they understand that there are -- we have to work at the community-based level with people trust and that working for for many years did those people have a limited capacity.

host: is there an end to the situation there? guest: well -- host: as far as the weather go, and you talk about the political situation going on since 1991 are so. guest: well, political situation, i am not very optimistic, on the sticky stakeholders in the region -- not necessarily the u.s. government, but neighboring countries taking a role in peace process in somalia. and it depends on the rainfall. we will see in late september and beginning of october whether the situation improves. it will not bring immediate results. we expect more people to continue to be affected by the famine and continue to move until the end of september. host: beginning at 10:00 a.m. this morning, the house foreign affairs subcommitt on africa is holding a hearing on ethnic

cleansing in sudan. we will be bringing that to you live. humanitarian crisis there as well. when was the last time you were in mogadishu? guest: personally i got into modishu, but have been in and out every day. host: what have you heard from fellow co-workers about the situation? guest: a lot of people try to get there to access the food, but to do that they have to cross the fire in line. host: brooklyn, new york, thanks for holding. stephanie, you are on the air to . caller: peter, i think you are great. you are the most unbiased representative for the network. the un forces, are they extending our relationship with the saudi companies that are able to add aid to what

others have done? it seems a shame that the people are beingeld hostage by their own people in the form of terrorism. this is against all moral standards. i cannot understand why the very wealthy countries are not stepping in and reaching out in a humanitarian way and also the u.n. peacekeeping forces trying to put some type fence around these people that are basically extorting money in order to get aid to get through. it seems like a thing at needs to be done in a group effort. guest: absolutely right, but there is the challenge, to mobilize other countries that can play an active role inside somalia. the saudi private donors, some of the other governments in the gulf, the middle east, playing a

more active role in studying the situation and reaching conditions for national dialogue, a reconciliation process, improvement of the situation on the ground. it was an article recently in "foreign policy" saying that famine maybe the crime. it could averted through mitigation measures. and other population in a situation for many years paying a high price for people who did not take responsibility. host: mr. cochetel, what has been the reaction of the kenyan governnt, the ethiopian government? yemen government has quite a few refugees. you got the -- ugandan government, etc. guest:he country sat in it quite generous. -- the countriesave been quite

generous 170,000 people went to kenya in less than six months. imagine what the reaction of the people would be in this country. those governmes have been generous. local populations are also showing solidarity vis-a-vis peopleoming over t. there are national security concerns, and we have to listen to them and mitigate those concerns. we have to screen the people who are there. it is going to take a lot of months for uto reassure those countries that all those people in the camps are genuine refugees a not people coming for other purposes. host: are you satisfied with the amount of attention the u.s. and eu are paying to the situation? guest: we are satisfied by the response. it is always difficult, especially in times of constraints and all that --

budgetary constraints and all that, but there are significant efforts to study the situation -- to stabilize the situation, at least for refugees. we hopto see more governments involved in the response. host: tweets in -- next call for vincent cochetel comes from detroit. william, you are on the air guest. caller: your record at the un has been dismal when it comes to crises. we can cite rwanda, congo. when are you going to go over there and make something happen? guest: 90 for the call.

i understand your -- but frustrate -- thank you for the call. i understand your frustration. it depends on member states, what decisions are taken within the security council. it is not the when deciding -- not the un deciding. as far as humanitarian organizations are concerned, and i am not talking only about the commission for refugees, but talking about unicef, i can talk about the world food program, we do what we can to provide humanitarian response to people in need their. but we have a very, very little leverage on the root causes of the conflict spread at most we can help the victims, but we are not able prevent the conflict and we have at very little leverage in trying to engage the actors into a political dialogue.

host: does the un have troops on the ground in somalia? guest: four different countries have troops under very specific mandate given to the security council for a mission inside mogadishu area. host: next call, fairfax, virginia. you are on the air. caller: hello, is that me? yeah, i was born and raised in africa. it seems that this problem has been gng on for much -- long time, ages. it is about time for the west to change their policy. i appreciate the gentleman there is trying to help, helping solve the problem. but really, we are not solving the problem. all the energy in studying religion -- religion is not going to help issues like that.

how about sending a message that it is not just sending aid, but may be changing the policy towards the third world? maybe we should start supporting more on science and find ways and means to stop the problem physically, not just sitting there and teaching people every day religion. not that i am against religion, but people in that part of the rld spend 90% of their time just teaching religion and religion does not help solve the probm. i think it is about time that we change the message. let them get the message that we will get involved in science. that is why america and the west is developed. it is more about science in schools. the kids grow up and actually get into innovation and come up -- this problem n be solvable. host: where did you grow up? caller: i grew up in sierra leone. the poorest country in the world right now.

host: mr. cochetel? guest: you are absolutely right. some of these countries need a longer term development programs that would address the root causes of the problem. a bit more on a positive note -- none of the other countries in africa are facing famine to d -- today. lack of development, human rights, but you don't have other countries at this stage with a famine. development programs using science -- i don't think religion is necessarily -- many organizationsou are deeply involved in a country and africa. but i agree with you that we need to be more creative on these programs. host: matt tweets in.

guest: well, that is a very good question. transfer of population has not taken place. it is not something that the international community, i think, would support. the last transfer of population i can think of -- part of the dismantlement of the ottoman empire where turks moved to avoid a mass killing of minorities. transfer of populations affected by harsh climate i don't think will happen. what you see in somalia at th stage is a bit of a partition of the country. you have two regions of somalia

, defacto iseparated from the rest of the somalia. not politically separated, but administratively separated you may see more fragmentation of the country in the coming months. host: was there tactically at famine in sudan and the last decade or so? -- technically famine in sud in the last decade or so? guest: not to the best of my knowledge. host: the countries separated with the south sudan. can you see tt happening in somalia? guest: again, i don't want to make political statements. we are a humanitarian organization. an initiative pushed by some somali factions in kenya to create a separate territory in the south of somalia, which would comprise four or five

regions in the south of somalia. the idea is that we would have to have some sort of safe-haven there with different territory. whether it will happen, whether kenya will allow for that, nobody knows. host: a few minutes left before the house foreign affairs hearing on the humanitarian situation in sudan. tampa, you are on the air. caller: two comments. first of all, i think the last caller was from west africa. the problems in west africa are very different from what we're talking about in somalia. west africa is making it no progress at the moment. -- is making a little progress at the moment. also, somalia is an indictment of the international community. how could we let al-shabab and al qaeda affiliate's when an

entire country? i don't know how that happened. i lived in minneapolis for awhile, and it is a visible somali community there. it is i don't want to say everywhere, but they are very visible. i was hoping you could explain the process you have of resettling refugees at how they come to the united states and places in europe. host: thank you, caller. guest: very good. thank you for your remarks about west africa. you are absolutely right. i want to give yours positive tone on that. like ivory coast, nobody talks about it now. is getting soft. some crisefind a -- solutions. -- it is getting solved. some crises find solutions. that is good, really up positive sign. you are absolutely right. people have forgotten somalia. after the last missions, the

u.s. engaging missions in somalia, somalia has been to a large extent of black hole with no one wanting to intervene at, nobody wants to trigger a political diague. djibouti, a uple of countries tried to initiate a political dialogue. i think there is a sense of fatigue when you talk about somalia among lot of countries. in relation with so many refugees who are resettled, about 10,000 somali refugees are settled around the world. 5000 of them are coming to the u.s. every year. it is a small program. resettlement is not the solution for everybody. it is only the solution for a tiny minory of refugees. the u.s. has been generous. the somali refugees are doing well whatever they are in the u.s.

minneapolis, and other parts of the country. i visited some recently in chicago, illinois. they are doing very well. they have an entrepreneurial mind and they don't reduce the stigma of the fragmentation of the somali society when they get the chance to live in resettlement. many areed up with the situation back home. they like to play an active role in promoting some sort of dialogue in their country. i think tt maybe some of the solutions to somalia may come from the diaspora. host: nearly 900,000 somalis are currently refugees. you can see it on this map. thcountries st affected, kenya, ethiopia, djibouti, down to tanzania. how they getting ross the borders? is there any border control? is it mostly walking?

by their tribes walking across the border? guest: they are walking. there is no smuggling. people walk on their own. it is a long border. there are border control posts, but there was no possibility for a country like kenya to control entire border. it is a long walk. in countries like ethiopia, the border is better guarded. they have a problem with eritrea, so they have a better capacity to control the border. you have landmines also between eritrea and ethiopia and some of the refugees are going through these writs to get to ethiopia. those coming to yemen are going by boat.

often these people are exploited by all sorts of the smugglers d thugs abusing the people on their way to yemen. host: guest: host: how much of this is tribal? guest: the chance are very important. even the subclan affiliation is important in somalia. so the clanic structure of the country is not necessarily been a very factor enforced during national dialogue in the country. host: mr. cochetel, are there any other refugee situations in the world that you'd like to bring our attention to, not on this scale necessarily, but other ones we should be aware of? gut: i think one to keep in mind is the afghan refugee. that's the largest refugee situation. you know, pakistan, other

countries in the region have prided asylum and services for afghan refugees. host: does that include iran? guest: yes, that includes iran. since the afghan invasion of afghanistan. we odd to see a good response to those refugees because unfortunately last year not that many -- we ought to see a good response to those r refuge because unfortunately last year >> on monday, a discussion on guns on college campuses. >> welcome. thank you for being here. shaun tandon is with agence france-presse and howard lafranchi is with the "christian

science monitor." >> aid groups are rather critical of the world response to the famine in somalia and the broader crisis in the horn of africa. they say indicators have been out there for months if not longer. is this a presentable crisis? >> we know in somalia, al- shabab has been a horrific redone horrific things in the nine food. there were indications last january that suggested a huge dam and was about to break out -- that a huge famine was about to break out in the horn of africa. we have been slow. donor responses have been slow.

about three weeks ago, the and the need was about $200 million. the capabilities to get it from the port to the hungry people is another issue. united states is providing aid to about one out of every four somalis in the areas where we have access. we need to do more. i think the administration is going to try to do more. there are countries like saudi arabia and others who have not contributed close to what they're capable of. the word needs to go out. donations made now will absolutely save lives. we need to have access to the areas. >> you said that aid is getting to areas where we have access. you mentioned al-shabab, a terrorist organization, in control of the south and central part of the country.

what about the u.s. performance there? it does seem some u.s. law concerning working in the areas concerned -- controlled by terrorist groups has been at the root of some groups pulling out. that has changed now. how would you rate the u.s. response to getting into areas controlled by a terrorist organization? ngo's, and workers, in gm usaid workers are far less likely to go into those areas. we have to look after the welfare of our workers. unless we're willing to commit troops, the african union and you and have a relatively you and have a relatively strong