Agriculture groups have been on Capitol Hill this week to broaden support for legislation that would shift control of the Food for Peace program to USDA.
Representatives from the North American Millers Association, American Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Sorghum Producers and the USA Rice Federation met with lawmakers and staffers on Tuesday and Wednesday to carry the message that the State Department isn’t up to the task of administering the program.
“Nothing’s moving,” said Kim Cooper, NAMA’s vice president of government affairs. “The longer that Food for Peace languishes over at State, I think the more people see that we need to be doing something sooner than later in order to save the program.”
The State Department took over the program – which sends surplus U.S. ag commodities to countries facing food insecurity – after the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. But the department has only put out a few small tenders, Cooper said.
Food for Peace purchases of cornmeal, for example, stand at just 8% of the fiscal year 2020-2024 average, according to USDA data; meanwhile, corn soy blend plus purchases sit at around 1%.
“State continues to show us that they are not capable of running this program,” Cooper said.
The groups have been pressing lawmakers to move the program under USDA, which they say has proven its adeptness by running programs like the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program and Food for Progress.
Previous lobbying efforts had focused on securing Republican champions and shoring up GOP support. A House bill that would bring Food for Peace to USDA has 39 GOP backers, while a Senate version led by GOP Sen. Roger Marshall, Kan., has eight Republican cosponsors.
“Now, we’re trying to get that bill passed. And to do that, you do need bipartisan support,” a fly-in participant told Agri-Pulse. The participant said the next phase of lobbying will focus on rallying Democratic support.
The effort already has the backing of Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., who signed onto the House bill last week. But the participant said they are hopeful that some of the Democratic offices they met with will soon throw their support behind the effort.
The participant said they are targeting Agriculture Committee Democrats, as well as those on the Appropriations Committee with “a good agriculture or maritime constituency.”
Cooper said that they have seen some interest from Democratic senators.
“We’re pretty close to introducing a Dem co-lead over there,” she said. “There’s a few offices that are interested.”
Language that would move the program to USDA was included in a draft of the fiscal year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies bill. But it was axed during a markup in June.
The Senate appropriations bill, which advanced through its own Appropriations Committee in July, includes a provision commissioning a study on the feasibility of, and the process for, USDA taking on the program. The Senate is more restricted than the House in what it can do as part of the appropriations process.
“I think ultimately it’s going to come down a little bit to what [Secretary of State] Marco [Rubio] wants,” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told Agri-Pulse last week. Hoeven is a cosponsor on the Senate bill to move Food for Peace to USDA.
Rubio “wants to make sure that State has ability to use [Food for Peace] as a tool like diplomacy. And that’s fine,” Hoeven added. “Generally, we feel like USDA should deliver — get the food and deliver the food. make sure it’s food aid and not financial aid — but that it would be subject to what State wants to do, as far as diplomacy.”
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has also expressed some interest in USDA taking responsibility for the program. She told the Senate Agriculture Committee appropriations subcommittee in May that she had had “very initial conversations about it.”
“Obviously, we’ll follow your lead,” she told Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. “And if, in fact, this is the will of Congress, I think we would be very willing to take that on.”
While the groups see the next farm bill as a natural vehicle for the legislation, they are hopeful that it could move sooner, including in a minibus appropriations package, if such a thing materializes later this year.
As commodity prices remain depressed, and economic and trade uncertainty weighs heavily on U.S. farmers, Food for Peace supporters argue that the program could offer some much-needed relief for farm country.
“It wouldn’t be a silver bullet to the challenges that are facing the farm economy,” Jake Westlin, vice president of government affairs at USA Rice Federation said. But he added that “any sort of movement right now, when you have markets in a tight spot, is beneficial.”
“When the commodity market is in such a challenging state, it does also provide a little bit of relief there as just another opportunity to help get rice or other commodities moving and help provide another avenue for exports,” he added.
Philip Brasher contributed to this report.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.