Ag Policy Blog

WASHINGTON (DTN) -- The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday unanimously passed a fiscal year 2026 Agriculture appropriations bill that doesn't move Title II of the Food for Peace program to the Agriculture Department, as some ag leaders had hoped, but provides $1 million for a study of the idea.

The bill also includes a provision written by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to make changes to the hemp law passed as part of the 2018 farm bill to avoid the sale of hemp-based hallucinogenic products. The provision would be implemented over one year so that farmers can harvest this year's crop under current rules, Merkley said.

McConnell, who wrote the section in the 2018 farm bill to allow the production and sale of hemp in the United States for the first time in many years, said the change would take the definition of hemp back to the congressional intent and would keep hemp-related hallucinogenic substances out of the hands of children while still making it possible for farmers to grow hemp. Merkley also noted that the hemp industry makes products to improve people's health.

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., had introduced a bill to move Food for Peace, the nation's main international food assistance program, from the U.S. Agency for International Development to the Agriculture Department, and many ag leaders had hoped some version of Moran's bill would be included in the Agriculture appropriations bill.

But Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Hoeven, R-N.D. told DTN that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch, R-Idaho, objected to the idea.

The House version of the fiscal year 2026 Agriculture appropriations bill contained a provision for the transfer of Food for Peace to USDA, but it was stripped out in the manager's amendment, reportedly due to the objections of House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla.

The bill's report provides $1 million for an interagency review and report and directs USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service "to work with USAID" (although the State Department has taken over USAID's functions since the Trump administration ended that agency) on a report "that outlines the process and needs within USAID to operate the Food for Peace program should Congress direct such a transfer of administration from USAID to USDA."

The report also says, "Regardless of which agency manages such program, the committee supports efforts to improve administrative efficiencies, transparency and integration of American farmers within the program."

The bill requests a report within 60 days addressing the agency's capacity needs, pre-and post-relocation, such as space requirements, IT infrastructure, staffing levels and staff expertise.

Hoeven said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio wants to keep the decision over the destinations for food aid in order to make sure that the use of food aid is in line with U.S. foreign policy and that the decisions on destinations will remain with State if other Food for Peace functions are moved to USDA.

Food for Peace started in 1954 as a way to make use of U.S. agricultural surpluses. USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) pays ocean freight on shipments and may also pay overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well as internal distribution costs in emergency situations, the bill report notes.

In recent years, USAID has split Food for Peace Title II spending between U.S. commodities and food and commodities and food in countries close to the need. Humanitarian leaders have said the purchase of food nearer the countries in need is a more efficient way to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars.

But U.S. farm leaders, millers, shippers and maritime unions have said that U.S. taxpayer dollars should go for the purchase and shipment of U.S.-produced food, and they hope that transferring Food for Peace to USDA will mean an emphasis on U.S. sourcing.

In a separate section of the report, the appropriators said they were "concerned" by delays in purchases and distribution of food for Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program and directed USAID and State to brief the committee on the status of both programs "including any proposed improvements and opportunities for efficiencies for the committee to consider."

Kansas farmers recently noted to The New York Times that President Dwight Eisenhower, a Kansan, had signed the law establishing Food for Peace, and complained that the Trump administration is not spending the money that Congress appropriated for it.

The overall bill provided $21.7 billion for USDA, the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies, exactly the same as last year, Hoeven said. But he noted that the biggest increase was for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). The WIC increase, he said, required cuts in other programs. One of those was Food for Peace, which went from $1.6 billion in fiscal 2025 to $1.5 billion in fiscal 2026.

Hoeven noted that the bill "fully funds" the National Institute for Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service, USDA's main research agencies.

During the bill's discussion a dispute arose over the Trump administration's authority to make changes to spending for USDA's Agricultural Research Service facilities. Merkley offered an amendment that would not allow USDA to make any changes in ARS spending.

But Hoeven noted that the bill contains language that prevents USDA from closing or consolidating any ARS facilities without informing both the House and Senate appropriations committee and getting the approval of both. Merkley eventually agreed that the provision of that language in bill text was strong enough to win his support and withdrew his amendment.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., the ranking member on the subcommittee, pointed out that the bill maintains the full WIC fruit and vegetable benefit and fully funds rental assistance and financing for low-income home buyers as well as voluntary conservation tools.

The Ag bill was considered in a session that also included the fiscal year 2026 Commerce Justice Science and Legislative Branch appropriations bills.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., offered an amendment to the CJS bill that would stop the Trump administration from using funds allocated for moving the Federal Bureau of Investigation to a location determined by an expert committee to another location. During the Biden administration the expert committee chose a Maryland location, but the Trump administration has announced plans to move the FBI to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, which housed USAID until it was disbanded.

Van Hollen made the case that the issue was bigger than the FBI relocation, and his amendment passed. Republicans then rescinded their votes in favor of advancing the CJS bill to the Senate floor and the committee went into recess.

Hoeven said that the committee intended to bring up the three bills together on the Senate floor and that Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., had agreed to that plan. But the recess over the CJS bill and the fact that one of the three bills has not been approved would appear to throw a wrench into that plan.

Hoeven also acknowledged to reporters that there are differences with the fiscal year 2026 Ag bill that the House Appropriations Committee approved and said he believed there would need to be negotiations between the two chambers.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said after his committee approved the Ag bill that he did not know when the full House might consider it and there has been speculation that it might become part of an omnibus bill late in the calendar year.

In opening remarks at the session on the three bills, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the ranking member on Senate Appropriations, said that the committee should defend its bills and said she is worried about the Trump administration's rescissions bill that is expected to come up in the Senate next week.

Murray said that if the Appropriations Committee does not defend its decisions and expect the executive branch to spend the money it provides, the committee will become "the rescissions committee" with fights over the projects each member has inserted into its bills.

Merkley also said that the Appropriations Committee has been undergoing a "degradation." He noted that members of the committee used to consider themselves appropriators first and Democrats and Republicans second and suggested a committee discussion on how to revive the committee's power.

Also see, "Kansas Farmers on Food for Peace and Plans to Eliminate USDA Climate Hubs," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Jerry Hagstrom can be reached at jhagstrom@nationaljournal.com

Follow him on social platform X @hagstromreport

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.