Sen. Moran takes FFP proposal to Senate floor
Feb. 17—WASHINGTON D.C. — On the afternoon of Thursday Feb. 13, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan) took his message to the Senate floor about legislation he has helped introduce to move the Food For Peace program from the beleaguered USAID agency to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The move was first proposed last Tuesday by Kansas Rep. Tracey Mann with support from the Kansas delegation and others as a means to not only continue the FFP program, but as a protection for Kansas farmers and grain storage managers to preserve a market outlet for grain sorghum, which represents a significant portion of the Kansas agriculture economy.
In his floor speech, Sen. Moran also higlighted the importance of Food For Peace for national security, as well as a means to feed the world's hungry.
"In conjunction with the President's action, I've introduced a bill with Sen. John Hoeven, Sen. Roger Marshall and Rep. Tracey Mann to move Food for Peace from the turbulent USAID and move it to the Department of Agriculture in an effort to prevent waste and bring the program closer to farmers that depend upon it," Moran said. "By placing Food for Peace under USDA's authority, we can make certain that the program is in good hands and can continue to bring revenue to American agriculture.
"Just a little over an hour ago, the Senate confirmed the new Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins," Moran noted. "I have no doubt she will be an excellent advocate for our nation's farmers, and I appreciate the conversations we've already had on this legislation and her excitement to work on this proposal with me."
On the Senate floor
Moran's message pointed to the program as a Kansas legacy, as well as its necessity for Kansans and others.
"Today, I want to speak about a program that has shaped our nation's humanitarian efforts and made a significant impact on my home state of Kansas, a program called Food for Peace. In 1953, agricultural surpluses had reached an all-time high, but the price of storing excess commodities was too expensive to rationalize, and it was at risk of going to waste.
"Kansas farmers, like Cheyenne County's Peter O'Brien, worked hard to cultivate and grow these commodities. Looking for a solution, Peter suggested at a local farm bureau meeting that maybe the excess food could be sent to countries in need. Peter understood that out of our abundance, we have a moral duty and opportunity to feed the hungry. His idea sparked the origin of a program we now know as Food for Peace.
"Another Kansan, one of my predecessors, Andy Schoeppel, led the Food for Peace Act in the Senate, which was signed into law by President Eisenhower, another Kansan, in 1954. And Senator Bob Dole from Russell, Kansas later championed the reauthorization of Food for Peace. The program's premise was simple but impactful: by leveraging the food surpluses that we produce in Kansas and across the nation, we could address famine around the world while creating new markets for our commodities and bolstering our agricultural economy.
"The first shipments of American wheat and corn were sent to Korea and Greece in 1954, and by the end of Food for Peace's initial year of operation, it had fed 1.2 million people. Over the last 70 years, the program has fed more than 4 billion people in more than 50 countries, all with American grown commodities."
Hunger as a catalyst for conflict
"Hunger, whether driven by price increases or food shortages, can act as a catalyst for protests and armed conflict. We've seen how food can be used as a weapon of war as radical Islamic groups in Syria use food as a means to recruit soldiers. We've witnessed regions of the world that are critical to America's strategic interest sent into chaos due to people not having access to affordable food.
"In a turbulent world stricken with conflict, American leadership is more than just our military and our economic might. Food aid provided by the United States reduces despair and increases stability within fragile countries by enabling economic productivity and minimizing the risk of radicalization.
"For countless individuals around the world, their survival is dependent upon the resources provided by the American people. These vulnerable populations rely on the strength and prosperity of the United States.
"However, much work remains in the ongoing battle against hunger, and part of that battle is improving the process and programs that administer our aid.
A necessary move
"Food for Peace is administered by the USAID, and the inefficiency of USAID has been growing concern. The agency struggles with bureaucratic delays, mismanagement, and a lack of coordination, which undermines its ability to deliver aid effectively to those in need. This inefficiency not only waste taxpayer dollars, but also diminishes the impact of Americans' foreign aid in addressing global crisis.
"Reports suggest that millions of taxpayer dollars have been allocated to promoting tourism in Lebanon and Egypt, funding the purchase of electric vehicles for Vietnam and inadvertently supporting the cultivation of opium in Afghanistan. Even more concerning, it has been confirmed that $9 million intended for civilian food and medical supplies in Syria fell into the hands of terrorist organizations linked to Al-Qaeda due to the failed oversight of USAID.
"Amid these concerns of corruption, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle USAID. In conjunction with the President's action and with approval of the White House policy team, I've introduced a bill with Senator John Hoeven and Senator Roger Marshall, and Representative Tracey Mann to move Food for Peace from the turbulent USAID program and move it to the Department of Agriculture in an effort to prevent waste and bring the program closer to farmers that depend upon it.
"USDA has a long and proven history of managing agricultural policy and programs that support American farmers, food distribution systems and global security efforts. USDA has boots on the ground and the infrastructure already in place to support the logistics for food assistance. The agency understands how to move crops efficiently, sustainably and quickly. This knowledge is indispensable when responding to international crises, where speed and reliability can mean the difference between life and death. By placing Food for Peace under USDA's authority, we make certain that the program is in good hands and can continue to bring revenue to American agriculture."
In conclusion
"In rural America, food assistance programs like Food for Peace put American-grown products in the hands of the hungry, and this food is a tangible extension of the hard work and dedication of farmers and ranchers," Moran concluded. "I'm pleased to help find ways to make our delivery of food aid more effective, more efficient and remove the challenges and things that we've seen that are so disturbing. Food for Peace bolsters the farmers who feed us, creates a more stable world and feeds the hungry."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
31 minutes ago
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
‘I don't know why the president has this problem': Trump had a history of disparaging Haiti and Haitians before the travel ban
So when Haiti was included late Wednesday in a list of countries on which Trump was imposing a near-total travel ban, some saw a culmination of a long campaign against the population. Advertisement 'Donald Trump has been very consistent in his anti-Black racism, both domestically and globally, and when it comes to the country of Haiti, the people of Haiti, he has a long track record of vile, offensive, harmful rhetoric and policies,' said Boston Representative Ayanna Pressley, who co-chairs the congressional Haiti Caucus. 'It is just purely evil.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Florida Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost, who is of Haitian descent, echoed Pressley's comment that the travel ban is 'rooted in bigotry.' 'It does nothing to make our communities safer, but it does vilify immigrants,' Frost said in a statement. 'It will devastate our immigrant families across this country.' In response to Pressley's accusations, the White House called her assertions 'lazy, unfounded and just straight-up false.' Advertisement 'While President Trump is fulfilling his promise to unite the country and keep the American people safe, Pressley is desperate to divide us and smearing our heroic law enforcement officials in the process,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, pointing to the rationale listed in the ban. Haiti is one of 12 countries facing a near-total ban on travel to the United States under Trump's new order, which cites an inability to vet immigrants for national security risks and a high rate of people overstaying their visas as justification for the measure. There are limited exceptions, including current visa-holders, permanent residents, dual nationals, athletic teams, and certain immediate family members of US residents. Other countries affected include Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The move follows several other Trump administration actions that have had an impact on the Haitian community in the United States, including an early end to Temporary Protected Status protections for an estimated through the appeals process. Trump made similar moves in his first administration though most were ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States first granted Haitian migrants protection from deportation after the 2010 earthquake that devastated the country. Since then, a string of natural disasters and political conflicts have worsened conditions. Today, gang violence, crime, and instability are rampant on the island. Advertisement Amid the worsening situation, many Haitians sought refuge in the United States or came to join family here, either through the CHNV program, legal avenues, or without permission. Massachusetts has the third-largest population of Haitians in the US, including an estimated 15,000 who held TPS, But the influx of migration from Haiti has also spurred backlash, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who was the only Democrat in the 2018 meeting with Trump's now-infamous comments, said he doesn't understand why Haiti seems to irk the president as it does. 'His hatred over Haiti is just impossible to explain,' Durbin said. 'I've been there many times. And this is one of the poorest nations on Earth, the poorest in our hemisphere, these people are suffering and need help, and they're wonderful people. I don't know why the president has this problem.' But Republicans defended Trump's actions and denied there was any animus behind it. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican who has backed pro-immigration policies in the past, was also in that 2018 meeting. And while Diaz-Balart declined to talk about what was said, he does not believe Trump has an issue with Haitians. Advertisement 'No, I don't,' he said. 'I really don't. I really, really don't.' His South Florida district is home to a large Haitian population and others affected by the CHNV and TPS reversals, including Cubans but he defended the travel ban. 'There are countries obviously that can't guarantee a process where we know that people are [vetted] to keep the country secure,' Diaz-Balart said. 'I don't think it's unreasonable.' Former Florida Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo, a moderate who was part of the immigration negotiations in 2018 that preceded the meeting, said Trump seems to prefer 'white-collar' immigrants or those whom Trump perceives to be have been recruited or have sufficient resources to come here. 'I don't think he understands or cares that those types of comments and campaigns unfairly mischaracterize hundreds of thousands of people at a time, and I don't think he understands that just because you're a refugee or an exile, that doesn't mean that you aren't capable of making major contributions to this country,' Curbelo said. Noting the Cuban exile community where he (and Diaz-Balart) hail from, Curbelo continued: 'It's people who had to leave their country, that was not their first choice, that was their only choice, and that doesn't preclude people from becoming exceptional Americans who do wonderful things.' Pressley, though, is convinced Trump's approach to Haitians is a concerted effort. She compared the trauma inflicted on the migrant community to the terror campaign of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, saying it gets harder to fight back and project optimism when the actions layer on top of each other. 'It is terrorizing. It is terrifying. It is traumatic,' Pressley said. 'And it's just so intentional. ... Singling out Haitians, I mean, he's moved in a way that is obsessive and consistently, pointedly harmful.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Trump got what he needed out of Elon Musk
In his role as head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk spent several months gleefully subjecting parts of the government he doesn't like to an array of metaphorical power tools. 'We spent the weekend feeding USAID [United States Agency for International Development] into the wood chipper,' he wrote on X in February, after pushing to illegally withhold billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to fight famine, care for sick people, and vaccinate children against deadly diseases. 'Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.' A few weeks later, Musk celebrated his accomplishments to date by taking the stage at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference while triumphantly waving a chainsaw overhead. 'This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,' he yelped, just in case the reference was too subtle for anyone in attendance. 'CHAINSAW!' On the one hand, Musk's efforts set up some of his businesses to make a bunch of money, and delighted Republican politicians whose idea of 'wasteful' spending is anything that does not make hedge fund executives or car dealership owners wealthier. On the other hand, his White House tenure shaved billions of dollars off his net worth, made it genuinely embarrassing to own a Tesla, and transformed Musk into one of the most reviled political figures in the country. Now, as Musk leaves the Trump administration and returns to the private sector—and as the two men engage in oafish public meltdowns on their respective social media platforms—the question of whether DOGE was, on balance, 'worth it' for Musk sort of depends on what happens to his portfolio over the next quarter or so. Already, Musk has embarked on a miniature image rehabilitation tour, framing himself in time-honored reactionary tradition as a tragic victim of his own success. In a soft-lit interview with The Washington Post, he said that DOGE had become the 'whipping boy for everything,' and bemoaned the 'uphill battle' he faced for simply 'trying to improve things in D.C.' In an interview with Ars Technica, Musk admitted that he 'probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,' and expressed eagerness to get back to the business that really matters: presiding over failed SpaceX launches. As a result, many retrospectives on Musk's time at DOGE read like obituaries, both for the organization and the movement it represents. In a recent Reuters profile, for example, a former DOGE staffer predicted that it would 'fizzle out' without Musk, and analogized the remaining employees to 'kids joining a startup that will go out of business in four months.' But talking about DOGE in the past tense is wrong for several reasons. First, Musk's actions will continue to inflict pain and suffering long after Trump has left the White House. One expert estimates that Musk's cuts to USAID have already resulted in about 300,00 preventable deaths, most of them children. Even if the $180 billion that DOGE says it has cut is a generous overestimate, people still died because Elon Musk decided it would be fun to cosplay as the president for a few weeks. Second, Musk's efforts to pillage the federal government will not end the moment he leaves town. A recent Washington Post analysis estimated that Musk's companies are propped up by $38 billion in government funding. Although Trump has threatened to stop doing business with Musk during their ongoing posting war—much, much more on that below—SpaceX in particular is integral to the modern U.S. space program, parts of which would grind to a halt without the (non-exploding versions of) Musk's rockets. Reluctant though Trump may be to keep paying out on these contracts, it would presumably be even more embarrassing for him to leave NASA without a viable in-house method of retrieving astronauts from space. Finally, DOGE was not and was never going to be a one-off effort to, as the conservative activist Grover Norquist once put it, make the government small enough to 'drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' For decades, Republicans, at the behest of their corporate donors, have pushed the idea that government should be run like a business, and insisted that the legitimacy of any government expenditure depends on the associated return on investment. Only if elected officials do something about the scourges of wasteful spending, inefficient regulation, and dastardly bureaucracy, the argument goes, can America ever hope to reach its full potential. But Republicans face the same basic challenge every time they try to follow through on this promise: Although voters theoretically support the idea of making government more efficient, the real-world cuts Republicans would make to effectuate that goal are wildly unpopular. Normal people don't want to gut the National Park Service or the U.S. Postal Service, for example. They don't support making it easier for big banks to rip off consumers, and they definitely don't like GOP politicians threatening to take Sesame Street off the air. By outsourcing much of this unseemly work to Musk and DOGE, Republican lawmakers found a possible solution to their vexing PR problem: a method of speed-running some of the more controversial aspects of their policy agenda, but without having to cast costly votes to implement it. Now Musk is learning the hard way that although he was using the Republican Party to enrich himself, the Republican Party was using him, too. Republican lawmakers are attempting to pass Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a budget reconciliation bill that would result in some 10.9 million fewer people with access to health insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Although the bill would cut some $1.3 trillion in federal spending over a decade, it's still projected to add an additional $2.4 trillion to the national debt over that same period, thanks to a cool $3.7 trillion in tax cuts. Musk at first described himself as 'disappointed' by the bill's price tag, which he said 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.' When his opinion failed to persuade the White House (or Republican leadership on Capitol Hill) to change course, Musk began lashing out, calling the 'Big Ugly Bill' a 'disgusting abomination,' and vowing to help 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' by voting for it. He then went on to call for Trump's impeachment, threaten to start a new political party, link Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein, and otherwise mock the president as a hypocritical, spineless ingrate who would have lost the 2024 election in humiliating fashion if not for Musk's generous infusions of cash. As it turns out, when you just spent four months torpedoing your brand in pursuit of a shared ideological goal, watching your purported allies immediately abandon it can be a frustrating experience. In one sense, this constitutes a 'split' with Trump, in that Musk is indeed trashing the signature policy initiative of a president whose candidacy he supported to the tune of more than a quarter-billion dollars. But it is also evidence that Musk never fully grasped the nature of his relationship with Trump in the first place: While he was out there taking the (well-deserved) reputational hits for doing all the slashing and burning that Republicans wanted to see, GOP lawmakers were preparing to do what they always do: abandon this fiscal responsibility song and dance at their earliest convenience, and enact more tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. When he took the gig at DOGE, Musk imagined himself as a revolutionary, uniquely positioned to identify and cut 'wasteful' spending by virtue of the power in the Republican Party that he believed he'd rightfully purchased. But Musk believed so strongly in his abilities that he forgot that the GOP does not care about saving public resources, but about redirecting that money to its political allies instead. Even if this iteration of DOGE 'fizzles out,' there will be another DOGE before long, because Republicans will never stop looking for ways to slash programs that help vulnerable people, and there will always be someone like Musk who is willing do their dirty work in exchange for the chance to line his pockets.
