Vilsack Defends Proposed Restructure of International Food Program
By Ellyn Ferguson | CQ Roll Call | April 16, 2013

 

 

A skeptical chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Appropriations panel questioned the merits of the Obama administration’s proposal to transfer $1.4 billion in international food aid from the Agriculture Department.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the proposal in his fiscal 2014 budget to move the Food for Peace program to the U.S. Agency for International Development is designed to make Food for Peace more efficient and timely in its delivery of food to people in need.

Food aid organizations are divided over the restructuring, but the American Soybean Association and other agriculture groups oppose revamping the program to reduce the government purchase of U.S. agricultural goods.

Vilsack said opponents are ignoring the benefits that an overhaul could generate.

“The reality is that the proposal, we believe, will result in 4 million additional people being helped and assisted. We believe it will probably cut somewhere between 11 to 14 weeks the amount of time it takes to get through to people in need,” Vilsack said. “This is really about getting more assistance to more people, more quickly for fewer dollars.”

He said $25 million would be set aside for the U.S. maritime industry and estimated that the reorganization would save $520 million over 10 years.

But Vilsack and the administration face a tough sale with members of Congress.

More than 20 senators, including the leaders of the agriculture authorizing and appropriations committees, sent a letter in February warning the administration not to change the program. They noted that shifting the program and reducing the purchase of U.S. food for the program could harm farmers and the U.S. shipping industry. The reorganization also would move congressional responsibility from the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittees to the House and Senate State-Foreign Operations panels.

Chairman Robert B. Aderholt, R-Ala., said he remains concerned that farmers who sell products to the Food for Peace program will suffer losses under the restructuring. The administration would limit purchase of U.S. goods to no more than 55 percent of the food budget, freeing 45 percent to be spent in areas closer to people in need.

“Can you explain a little bit to the subcommittee why the U.S. Department of Ag would support a major overhaul of this program especially if fewer dollars are going back to the farm-based commodities and jeopardizes American businesses and jobs are lost?” Aderholt asked.

Ranking Democrat Sam Farr of California said the current program, with shipping and handling of goods, makes U.S. aid “the most expensive food in the world.” However, Farr said he was concerned about the department losing program money and the subcommittee losing oversight of such a critical program. Farr said he worried that the mission of Food for Peace, also known as PL 480, could be muddled or lost in the transition.

“I’m not endorsing the transfer — the realignment — yet until there are assurances the program will stay intact and not be raided by other Foreign Ops interests,” Farr said.

Vilsack said department officials believe that dividing Food for Peace among three accounts — International Disaster Assistance, Development Assistance and Emergency Food Contingency Assistance — with clearly identified missions will protect accountability.

“I believe given the way this is structured there will be proper oversight and accountability in terms of the dollars getting to people who need it,” Vilsack replied. “I’m confident USAID will administer this properly.”

Farr said that might be the case if Congress strictly followed the administration’s plan, but warned that the institution is unpredictable.

“You can’t control what Congress will do with the money. I’d like to see more of the details,” Farr said. He gave the administration low odds for success this year, noting the opposition.

“I don’t think it will happen this year. That’s the politics,” Farr said. “We need to make sure the money will get used for the purposes, really to feed the most needy people in the world, which is important for our foreign policy and for our national security.”