WASHINGTON - It's one of those issues that often confronts Congress - whether to continue a policy that means jobs for some key constituencies, or a new policy that is more cost effective. That's a dilemma Congress will face again if President Barack Obama follows through with a reported plan to change the $1.5 billion Food for Peace Program...
WASHINGTON - It's one of those issues that often confronts Congress - whether to continue a policy that means jobs for some key constituencies, or a new policy that is more cost effective.
Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter are fighting a proposal to end direct U.S. food shipments abroad and replace it with a cash program in which poor nations would get money to buy food from local producers.
That's a dilemma Congress will face again if President Barack Obama follows through with a reported plan to change the $1.5 billion Food for Peace Program that sends U.S. food to 44 nations to help feed hungry people.
Under the proposal being considered by the president, perhaps as part of his 2014 budget proposal, the program would switch from direct food shipments purchased from U.S. farmers to a cash program in which foreign nations would get money to buy food from local farmers and producers.
The theory is that avoiding the shipping costs of sending food thousands of miles from the United States to recipient nations would save money. It would also provide the added benefit of boosting the food production capacity of foreign nations so that they can become more self sufficient.
"Creating a more flexible approach to food aid -- including buying food from farmers close to regions in crisis -- could feed up to 17 million more people without costing taxpayers an extra dime," said Ruth Messinger, president of the American Jewish World Service. "It would also support local agricultural economies, contributing to our long-term goal of a world free of hunger."
But a coalition of agricultural and shipping groups are vowing a fight, and they're getting support from some members of Congress. Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La, and David Vitter, R-La., were among 21 senators who recently wrote a letter to the president expressing concern with the kind of changes being considered by the White House.
Louisiana Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain is also speaking out about changes he says would drain the income of Louisiana farmers.
"This is a program that benefits the recipients of the food aid, and it also helps our farmers," Strain said.
The letter signed by Landrieu and Vitter, along with 19 colleagues, describes the Food for Peace program as the nation's "flagship international food assistance program," one that has helped feed the world since 1954 during the Eisenhower administration.
It provides critical aid overseas, while providing "economic benefits at home" by providing jobs for the farm and transportation industries, the senators wrote.
Proponents of the current system say that by directly shipping food
overseas the United States is in a better position of getting the food
distributed to people who actually need it. But those seeking direct
payments say that non-profit groups already working in the recipient
nations are well equipped to coordinate assistance and buying local
means food can be more distributed to those in need.
Twenty seven agricultural groups, including the U.S. Rice Producers Association, the U.S. Dairy Export Council and National Cotton Council, recently wrote the leaders of the Senate Agricultural Committee, urging them to resist major changes in the program.
"Bags of U.S.-grown food bearing the U.S. flag and stamped as 'From the American people' serve as ambassadors of our nation's goodwill, which can help to address the root causes of instability," the groups wrote.
But in tough economic times, the United States and the world's hunger people can't afford inefficiencies, even if it benefits some U.S. businesses, wrote a coalition of foreign assistance organizations that included CARE, Save the Children, Oxfam and the Mercy Corps.
"When 80 million people around the world go hungry every day, making every food aid dollar count is not only a responsible use of taxpayer money, it is a moral imperative," the groups said in a statement.