[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9425-S9426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         AGRICULTURE CONFERENCE REPORT--PUBLIC LAW 480 FUNDING

  Mr. LEAHY. In the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies' conference, on 
July 30, the conferees accepted a proposal to reduce the Senate's title 
III funding level by $10.5 million and increase title I funding by 
approximately $7.9 million. I do not serve on the subcommittee but I am 
concerned about the implications of this action. I would like to hear 
from the Senator from Iowa, who has expertise on the subject through 
his years of service both on the Agriculture Committee and on the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Harkin, what are your 
thoughts about this action?
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for 
raising this issue. His work on food aid issues has been unsurpassed. 
It was under his leadership as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in 1990 and as ranking member 
during the 1996 farm bill, that the Public Law 480 Food for Peace 
program continues to benefit the world's starving and undernourished 
people.
  I share the concerns of the Senator from Vermont regarding the 
funding level for the title III Food Aid Program adopted in conference. 
It would have been much better, in my view, to have retained the Senate 
level of funding for title III. Title III is an important tool in 
combating the long-term obstacles to food security, yet it has been cut 
significantly over the past several years. The title III fiscal year 
1995 funding level was down by well over 50 percent from fiscal year 
1994, and the number of countries receiving title III food aid dropped 
from 13 in fiscal year 1994 to 7 in fiscal year 1995.
  Title III serves the poorest and most food-deficient countries. In 
times of shrinking budgets, it is especially important that in using 
the available funds priority be given to addressing the most pressing 
needs. Unfortunately, the $40 million contained in the President's 
budget and in the Senate bill already represented a substantial cut in 
title III funding, as compared to $50 million in fiscal year 1996, 
$117.4 million in fiscal year 1995, $255.1 in fiscal year 1994, and 
$333.6 million in fiscal year 1993. So I believe that at a minimum the 
title III funding should have been maintained at the $40 million level 
in the President's budget and the Senate bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator for his comments. I share his concern 
that by cutting this program we are cutting aid to those populations 
that are the most needy. I can only hope that this occurred because of 
a lack of understanding about what this program does and what 
populations it serves. These programs are now tightly focused on the 
poorest, most food-deficit countries in the world such as Bangladesh 
and Ethiopia.
  Let me give an example of the way the program operates: Title III 
wheat in Ethiopia has been used to capitalize an emergency reserve. 
This has helped to stabilize grain markets, while providing a cushion 
against periodic drought. Under this program Private Voluntary 
Organizations such as Catholic Relief Services and Care can borrow from 
this reserve to meet emergency requirements, with a promise to 
replenish the reserve in the future. Without this facility we would 
have greater requirements for costly emergency feeding programs.
  So here's a way, in a time when we are cutting back on total food aid 
dollars, that we can help alleviate problems before they become 
expensive emergency situations. I think the U.S. Congress should be in 
favor of this type of preventive activity.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Vermont is certainly correct in his 
comments about the title III program. The focus of title III is on 
structural, policy reforms and activities that directly affect or 
improve food production and consumption, including nutrition. Helping 
the poorest, most food-deficient countries address these issues will 
help them see their way to food security. Reforms achieved through 
title III are an important tool in a longer term strategy for poorer 
developing countries.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand that the Senator from Iowa also shares my 
grave concerns about the consistent reductions in our funding of the 
Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program--a key part of our global effort 
to foster international food security throughout the globe.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Vermont is correct. In addition to our 
discussion about title III, I would like to speak about my deep concern 
regarding the overall cuts in funding for the Public Law 480 Food for 
Peace Program in recent years. These cuts, combined with higher 
commodity prices and the virtual disappearance of surplus commodities, 
have caused a dramatic reduction in the volume of U.S. food aid. Since 
fiscal year 1993, total food aid provided by the United States has 
dropped by about two-thirds--from 8 million metric tons to about 2.8 
million metric tons this fiscal year.
  The United States has been generous in providing food aid. Since its 
inception in 1954, our Food for Peace Program has delivered over 372 
million metric tons of food to needy countries--and Americans sincerely 
want to help alleviate world hunger. We also realize that Public Law 
480 assistance works to our own benefit. It is a win-win proposition 
for our farmers and agricultural businesses. In the short term, 
purchases for Public Law 480 shipments strengthen markets for U.S. 
commodities. Over the long term, Public Law 480 helps develop world 
markets for U.S. agricultural exports. Forty-three nations that once 
received U.S. foreign aid are now among the top consumers of U.S. 
agricultural products.
  It is very unfortunate that these cuts in Public Law 480 are 
occurring at a time when world food aid needs are growing dramatically. 
These needs are expected to double by 2002 according to a report by 
USDA's Economic Research Service issued in October 1995. Regrettably, 
as U.S. food aid tonnages have dropped, so have those of other donor 
nations, resulting in only about 6 million metric tons of food aid 
annually to meet need amounting to some 27 million metric tons of food.
  Over 800 million people on Earth are now chronically undernourished. 
The people hardest hit are young children and pregnant and lactating 
mothers who are deprived of adequate nutrition at the most critical 
times in their lives because of abject poverty and horrible living 
conditions. They suffer from frequent illness, poor growth and 
development, lack of productivity, and early death.

  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is correct. Under the Public Law 480 program, 
each title addresses a vital, yet different need and population group. 
These titles are like tools in a toolbox. Each one has a vital 
function; each one is needed but at different times.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have discussed the importance of title III in 
targeting countries with low incomes, high infant mortality, and low 
caloric intakes. Title II is similarly focused on addressing the 
critical needs of the hungry and malnourished. Title II saves lives 
through emergency assistance and improves health, incomes, and living 
conditions through development programs conducted by private voluntary 
organizations.
  It is particularly important that title II have enough resources so 
that emergency food aid demands do not consume resources that would 
otherwise be available for the development component of title II 
carried out by

[[Page S9426]]

PVOs. Eroding these development programs--which are critical to 
alleviating poverty and hunger over the long term--to meet overriding 
emergency demands is surely a stark example of eating one's seed corn.
  By contrast, the title I market development program serves a 
completely different population. Title I is important to U.S. 
agriculture and to foreign market development--and I am concerned about 
the funding cuts it has suffered--but I also believe that we must seek 
a reasonable balance among the three titles in light of pressing human 
needs.
  Given the growing need for food aid and the reductions in Public Law 
480 funding, I encourage the administration to make full use of its 
authority to focus the limited Public Law 480 funds on meeting the 
priority needs of the poorest and most food-deficient countries.
  Mr. LEAHY. I agree with the Senator from Iowa and I know that we can 
work in concert with the administration and the Congress to ensure that 
our limited food aid resources are effectively used to promote food 
security.

                          ____________________