Farm bill has little aid for children abroad

International aid groups have long criticized U.S. farm bills for ignoring the plight of farmers in developing countries by making them compete with wealthy, taxpayer-subsidized American growers.

By maintaining the bulk of direct payments — billions of dollars in subsidies that are distributed to farmers no matter how much they grow — and other subsidies in this bill, lawmakers failed to help the poor, the groups say.

"The pigs at the trough continued to promote generous handouts from taxpayers ... even as agriculture markets are so strong and our economy so weak," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America, an international aid group.

Oxfam and other groups have joined the White House in criticizing lawmakers for ignoring an administration request to allow a quarter of U.S. food aid funds for abroad to be used to purchase foreign supplies near crisis areas.

Farm groups have traditionally pushed for food aid designated for foreign locations to come from the United States, which means it often takes too long to get the food to where it's needed most, according to the Agriculture Department.

Instead, congressional negotiators set up a small-scale pilot program that would allow limited local foreign purchases using U.S. aid money and then study how effective that was. They say the idea of such local purchases is untested.

Why the Farm Bill matters It costs nearly $300 billion, but besides the cost, why should you care? Click here to find out why the farm bill matters.

But Schafer says that local buying in foreign locations "would just simply help save lives in some of the most stressed areas in the world." He also criticized a mandate in the bill to reduce the amount of emergency foreign food aid in favor of more money for non-emergency assistance.

Farm-state lawmakers say a robust U.S. farm economy, including a safety net in case prices drop, will help economies worldwide.

"By reducing systemic risk to our growers, they can do what they do best, which is to grow food," said North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat who helped negotiate the bill.

Supporters of the legislation point to an increase in money for food stamps and other U.S. nutrition programs, which account for more than two-thirds of the bill. Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, says available funding "fell well short of the need" for anti-hunger initiatives abroad, but he argued that those programs should be boosted through annual spending bills.

"We had to make hard choices and focused available funds on helping U.S. children and families who face tremendous hardships because of the recession and rising food prices," Harkin said. "These are programs typically funded by farm bills."

Supporters also point to a cut in the federal tax subsidy to refineries for corn-based ethanol fuel, which some say is contributing to higher food costs. That cut was made in favor of more money for cellulosic ethanol, which is made from plant matter.

Patrick Westhoff of the University of Missouri's Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute says cutting the ethanol credit could lower food prices slightly. Otherwise, the bill is not really written to do that, he said.

"By design there's not much in the bill that is intended to increase production or otherwise reduce prices," Westhoff said.

MORE FROM CAPITOL HILL

Capitol Hill Section Front

Senate set for health care debate   Levin: Afghan forces key to success Newsweek: Deconstructing Arkansas and Blanche Lincoln NYT: Health bill revives abortion groups Ill. Democrats: Keeping Obama Senate seat not easy For Reid, Dodd, clout cuts both ways Poll: Americans conflicted over health overhaul Schumer: Dems can go it alone on health care Senate health bill targets ‘Cadillac’ plans Text message exposed senator’s affair Capitol Hill Section Front   Add Capitol Hill headlines to your news reader: