Lugar, Glickman, Weber support food aid changes, but express caution
April 11, 2013 | 07:26 PM
Former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and former Reps. Dan Glickman, D-Kan., and Vin Weber, R-Minn., said Wednesday that they support the Obama administration’s proposal to change the food aid program, but also urged caution in making the changes.
Under the current Food for Peace program, almost all U.S. food aid is purchased in the United States and shipped in U.S. carriers to the needy countries. The administration has proposed eliminating the program and putting the money into three USAID foreign assistance and development accounts that could use cash transfers to individuals and purchase food in other countries.
The three former legislators appeared at a discussion of the proposal at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at which U.S. Agency for International Development Agency Administrator Rajiv Shah gave a speech.
Richard Lugar
Before introducing Shah, Lugar, a longtime supporter of food aid, said that P.L. 480, as Food for Peace is often called, “was created in an earlier era” when the United States had food surpluses and that the time for reform had come.
But Lugar, a former leader of both the Senate Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees, also noted that the proposal had aroused “passionate responses” and said that he hopes that the various groups involved in food aid “will come together” and treat each with “civility” as the proposed is considered.
Lugar was referring to the two camps of food aid groups, which issued competing news releases Wednesday in reaction to the proposal’s release.
One is the Alliance for Global Food Security, whose members defend the current program of U.S. purchases and the monetization of food aid.
The alliance is composed of Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, ACDI/VOCA, the Congressional Hunger Center, Counterpart International, Food for the Hungry, Joint Aid Management, International Relief & Development, Food for the Hungry, Land O'Lakes, OIC International, Planet Aid, PCI, Salesian Missions, United Methodist Committee on Relief and World Vision.
USA Maritime, which is composed of shipping companies and labor unions, also defends the current program.
The other camp favors the administration proposal to give USAID more freedom to distribute cash, make cash purchases and end monetization.
That coalition is composed of Bread for the World, the American Jewish Service, CARE, Oxfam America, Save the Children, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, ActionAid, the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, the One campaign, Partners in Health and the Maryknoll missionaries.
In addition, World Food Program USA, a private sector group created to support the U.N. World Food Program, issued a statement endorsing the proposals, but without criticizing the current program.
Rick Leach, the executive director of WFP USA, said in an interview that he hopes the two camps can come together to continue to support food aid programs and that his group can play a role in bringing them together.
Dan Glickman
In a panel discussion after Shah’s speech, Glickman, who served as Agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration and who recently co-authored an op-ed piece with Catherine Bertini, a former executive director of the World Food Program, favoring the changes, said, “This is not going to be a snap process.”
Glickman asked the audience, which included many supporters of the changes, “How will we develop congressional support for this?”
The business, farm and faith-based groups “can’t see this as a threat,” he said.
Glickman also noted that the U.S. food aid program grew out of a commodity surplus, and while there have not been surpluses in recent years, it’s unclear whether the United States “is entering a period of much greater surpluses.”
Glickman also noted that procurement of commodities under a program with looser rules will be complicated, and suggested that USAID put together a panel of knowledgeable parties to discuss implementation of the program.
The relationship between future food aid and Feed the Future, USAID’s agricultural development program, needs to be clear and part of the debate, Glickman said. He added that the reformers need to think about how they would assure future appropriations if the jurisdiction shifts from the Agriculture appropriations subcommittees, where it has been a favored program, to the foreign operations subcommittees.
“The United States will always respond to humanitarian crises, but we don’t want to be lurching from crisis to crisis,” he said, and not able to plan for the future or to preposition commodities for emergencies, as can be done under the current program.
Weber, now a Washington lobbyist, said that “intellectually” he favors the proposal, but that the reformers need to be aware that the proposal “assaults” the members of Congress and interest groups that have favored the current program and the subcommittees of jurisdiction.
Farmers, shippers, grain elevator operators and the maritime industry will all make the point that they have learned how to work with the program, he said.
“This is not a reason not to do it, but it is a deeply challenging,” Weber said.
Under the current Food for Peace program, almost all U.S. food aid is purchased in the United States and shipped in U.S. carriers to the needy countries. The administration has proposed eliminating the program and putting the money into three USAID foreign assistance and development accounts that could use cash transfers to individuals and purchase food in other countries.
The three former legislators appeared at a discussion of the proposal at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at which U.S. Agency for International Development Agency Administrator Rajiv Shah gave a speech.
Before introducing Shah, Lugar, a longtime supporter of food aid, said that P.L. 480, as Food for Peace is often called, “was created in an earlier era” when the United States had food surpluses and that the time for reform had come.
But Lugar, a former leader of both the Senate Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees, also noted that the proposal had aroused “passionate responses” and said that he hopes that the various groups involved in food aid “will come together” and treat each with “civility” as the proposed is considered.
Lugar was referring to the two camps of food aid groups, which issued competing news releases Wednesday in reaction to the proposal’s release.
One is the Alliance for Global Food Security, whose members defend the current program of U.S. purchases and the monetization of food aid.
The alliance is composed of Adventist Development & Relief Agency International, ACDI/VOCA, the Congressional Hunger Center, Counterpart International, Food for the Hungry, Joint Aid Management, International Relief & Development, Food for the Hungry, Land O'Lakes, OIC International, Planet Aid, PCI, Salesian Missions, United Methodist Committee on Relief and World Vision.
USA Maritime, which is composed of shipping companies and labor unions, also defends the current program.
The other camp favors the administration proposal to give USAID more freedom to distribute cash, make cash purchases and end monetization.
That coalition is composed of Bread for the World, the American Jewish Service, CARE, Oxfam America, Save the Children, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, ActionAid, the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, the One campaign, Partners in Health and the Maryknoll missionaries.
In addition, World Food Program USA, a private sector group created to support the U.N. World Food Program, issued a statement endorsing the proposals, but without criticizing the current program.
Rick Leach, the executive director of WFP USA, said in an interview that he hopes the two camps can come together to continue to support food aid programs and that his group can play a role in bringing them together.
In a panel discussion after Shah’s speech, Glickman, who served as Agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration and who recently co-authored an op-ed piece with Catherine Bertini, a former executive director of the World Food Program, favoring the changes, said, “This is not going to be a snap process.”
Glickman asked the audience, which included many supporters of the changes, “How will we develop congressional support for this?”
The business, farm and faith-based groups “can’t see this as a threat,” he said.
Glickman also noted that the U.S. food aid program grew out of a commodity surplus, and while there have not been surpluses in recent years, it’s unclear whether the United States “is entering a period of much greater surpluses.”
Glickman also noted that procurement of commodities under a program with looser rules will be complicated, and suggested that USAID put together a panel of knowledgeable parties to discuss implementation of the program.
The relationship between future food aid and Feed the Future, USAID’s agricultural development program, needs to be clear and part of the debate, Glickman said. He added that the reformers need to think about how they would assure future appropriations if the jurisdiction shifts from the Agriculture appropriations subcommittees, where it has been a favored program, to the foreign operations subcommittees.
“The United States will always respond to humanitarian crises, but we don’t want to be lurching from crisis to crisis,” he said, and not able to plan for the future or to preposition commodities for emergencies, as can be done under the current program.
Weber, now a Washington lobbyist, said that “intellectually” he favors the proposal, but that the reformers need to be aware that the proposal “assaults” the members of Congress and interest groups that have favored the current program and the subcommittees of jurisdiction.
Farmers, shippers, grain elevator operators and the maritime industry will all make the point that they have learned how to work with the program, he said.
“This is not a reason not to do it, but it is a deeply challenging,” Weber said.
