Even among America First lawmakers, there is little appetite for President Trump’s proposals to eliminate programs providing $1.8 billion a year in food aid overseas. Members of the House Agriculture Committee defended the six-decade-old Food for Peace program, the largest of U.S. food aid program, during a hearing where questions veered toward how to improve the programs rather than building a case for termination.
Created during the cold war, Food for Peace donates U.S.-grown food to alleviate hunger, with a portion of funding earmarked for local agricultural development. The administration says the International Disaster Assistance program at the State Department is better suited for the job and is more flexible in responding to needs around the world. IDA offers cash, vouchers, locally purchased food or U.S. food to mitigate hunger and undertakes affiliated but non-food activities that help communities recover from disaster.
Food for Peace is popular among farm-state lawmakers, who see it as an example of American largesse. The program also is regarded as an outlet for U.S. surpluses. For years, a coalition of farm groups, aid groups and mariners has fought proposals to switch to cash donations, the approach taken by most countries. That approach would “take America out of American food aid,” said Brian Schoeneman of the Seafarers International Union. By law, half of U.S. food aid must be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels.
Louisiana Rep. Ralph Abraham described himself as an adherent of Trump’s America First philosophy but said he distrusted cash or vouchers and was only slightly less dubious of buying food in nearby countries as a way to respond to hunger. “It does go back to national security. It does go back to food security,” said the second-term Republican, repeating the argument of other committee members that food aid bolsters U.S. security by building good will and preventing civil unrest overseas.
Marked for elimination along with Food for Peace is the McGovern-Dole food program for schoolchildren overseas. Food for Peace was allotted $1.6 billion this year and McGovern-Dole $202 million.
In opening the hearing, Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway anticipated the complaints that the White House was short-sighted in its proposals. “I tend to agree,” he said. “Americans are big-hearted folks who love to see the U.S. flag on a donated bag of rice.”
Nonetheless, said Conaway, the president is right to look for efficiency in government. Funding will be tight in the future, he said. “We are going to have to make choices between good stuff.”
Professor Thomas Jayne of Michigan State University said the most cost-effective approach would be training programs of all sorts, from farmer-to-farmer and ask-an-expert programs to college education, so nations can expand food production on their own.
The United States is the world’s largest food aid donor. The administration is calling on other nations to spend more on food aid as it throttles back in the name of a more equitable share of the burden. Officials from food charities told the Agriculture Committee that U.S. funding is vital because of the threat of famine in four countries this year, what Margaret Schuler of World Vision called “the worst humanitarian crisis since 1945.”
Democrats Marcia Fudge of Ohio, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Jimmy Panetta of California spoke against the cuts, pointing to a worldwide need for aid. “At some point, it will not be America First, it will be America alone,” said Fudge.
To watch a video of the hearing or to read the written testimony of the witnesses and Conaway’s opening statement, click here.
To read a National Journal article about resistance to Trump’s proposals, “Trump takes ax to rural budget,” click here.