As the U.S. Congress considers a five-year farm bill, the Bush administration is pushing for change to allow delivery of some food aid by procuring commodities from local markets rather than providing only U.S.-produced commodities. Resistance to change is strong, and the outcome is uncertain.

Bruce Odessey is managing editor of eJournal USA.

Government decisions about food aid spending involve a political calculation, of course. The biggest U.S. food aid program is called Public Law 480, Title II. For a long time this program has required that all U.S. foreign donations of food aid consist of U.S.-produced commodities.

Right now Congress is considering U.S. agricultural policy for the next five years as the 2002 farm bill expires at the end of September 2007. Whether Congress will change the food aid policy part of the bill remains uncertain.

Passed by Congress about every five years, a farm bill regulates U.S. agriculture policy, covering not only foreign and domestic food aid but also support for commodity prices and farm incomes, loans, conservation, research, and rural development.

The fact that U.S. food aid helps support American farmers and agribusiness interests has been crucial in Congress's support for these programs over the years.

Differing Viewpoints

Among several changes the Bush administration wants from Congress in the 2007 farm bill is some flexibility for the U.S. food aid program.

The administration wants authority to use up to 25 percent of the money allocated to the food aid program every year to be able to buy food commodities in the local and regional markets of developing countries. In some emergency situations, buying in local or nearby markets could hasten food delivery to victims.

The version of the 2007 farm bill passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 222 to 202 in July would leave the existing program unchanged. House members did not raise the issue during full House debate.

"They're still of the mode that this should be American products we're using our tax dollars to provide them," said Representative Collin Peterson, Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture.

The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes local and regional purchases of emergency food. Chris Garza, the group's director of congressional relations, says the existing program of sending U.S.-grown commodities has worked well.

"A lot of the product ... that would be purchased is obviously coming from countries that don't always have enough food of their own, and so it could cause food prices in those countries to go up," Garza said.

The final outcome remains uncertain, however. To become law, a final version of the 2007 farm bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the president. And the Senate has yet to begin its consideration of the bill -- in fact, final passage of the 2007 farm bill remains unlikely to happen until months after the 2002 farm bill expires.

If the Senate passed a bill differing from the House version, then the House and Senate would have to reconcile the different versions. Most likely a House-Senate conference would work to put together a compromise bill for final votes in the House and Senate.

Senator Tom Harkin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, has indicated interest in creating a small pilot program for local procurement, perhaps $25 million a year for four years. "The goal is to help us respond more quickly to dire humanitarian emergencies," Harkin said.

Administration Position

Mark Keenum, under secretary of agriculture, agrees that local procurement would be used only for emergencies. "It would mean the difference in saving lives," Keenum said. Even in emergencies, he said, the United States would send U.S. food when and where no local or regional food is available for purchase.

Keenum added that the flexibility to buy locally, instead of shipping U.S.-sourced food aid, should have no notable effect on U.S. commercial markets.

According to Keenum, the vast majority of U.S. food aid consists of grains and oil seeds. Annual U.S. production of these commodities amounts to about 200 million tons a year. Annual food aid donations of these amount to less than 3 million tons. And the administration proposes providing locally procured food instead of U.S. food for only up to 25 percent of donations, he said.

Some U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that distribute food aid around the world support the local procurement concept; others do not.

Also, the United States is under pressure in the long-stalled World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations to make a change. The United States resists any agreement letting the WTO dictate what quantity or proportion of food aid must be cash or commodities, Keenum said.