The Global Food Security Act (S. 1252)
S.1252 is a Republican led bill:
 It brings critical oversight to existing programs by authorizing programs at current funding levels for 2 years.
Right now, these programs currently operate without congressional authorization.
 It is budget neutral as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. There are no funds appropriated under
this bill. This is an authorizing bill with no new spending and it will not increase spending.
 It requires transparency, including public reporting. It demands unprecedented accountability and sets
standards of effectiveness for funding that otherwise will NOT have this critical oversight.
 It reasserts congressional prerogative over foreign assistance funding. It has been written in conjunction
with efforts from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the House Agriculture Committee, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate Agriculture Committee.
 It is broadly supported by both chambers. The House passed its version of the bill (H.R. 1567) on April 12
with a vote of 370-33. The Senate passed its version of the bill though hotline with unanimous consent.
What S.1252 will do:
 Authorize global food security programs and International Disaster Assistance programs at their current
funding levels for 2 years.
o International Disaster Assistance desperately needs to be reauthorized with a return to congressional
oversight and regular order. International Disaster Assistance was last authorized in 1987.
 IDA currently addresses refugee needs in the Syria Region, thus stemming the flow of refugees to
other areas.
 IDA is the way the U.S. responds to natural and man-made disasters so that migration is stabilized
and human needs are met. It is also how the U.S. provides assistance to allies in times of crisis.
o Global food security programs promote self-reliance and are an engine of economic growth so that
communities can feed themselves.
 S.1252 will enhance and improve existing investments in global food security without increasing
spending. This will build new markets for U.S. trade, and ultimately reduce reliance on foreign aid.
 S.1252 requires transparency, accountability, and a prioritization of self-reliance and graduation.
 Reduce duplication and waste by prioritizing transparency and accountability and fostering greater
coordination and collaboration between the various Federal departments and agencies that implement
global food security programs.
 Protect our National Security by promoting sustainable global food security.
o Communities can be tipped into conflict when food insecurity sets in and/or prices spike. Food price
related protests toppled governments in Haiti and Madagascar in 2007 and 2008. In 2010 and 2011,
food insecurity due to prices was one of the major drivers of the Arab Spring.
o In addition, we often see migration, which can contribute to tensions, when daily food needs cannot
be met.
o The 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment specifically cited food insecurity as a "destabilizing" threat
to U.S. national security.
 It will not increase spending.
Similarities and Differences between the House and Senate Bills
The House and Senate versions of the Global Food Security Act are nearly identical. This similarity is a reflection
of a strong, bipartisan, bicameral commitment. Due to calendar constraints in the Senate and timing constraints
pertaining to the bill, the path forward for the bill will be for the House to take up the Senate bill.
The Senate bill pulls very heavily from the House bill and much of the language is House language. As such, the
bill was drafted and advanced under the leadership of Sub-Committee Chairman Chris Smith, Chairman Ed
Royce, Sen. Johnny Isakson, and Chairman Bob Corker with input and language from both majority and minority
leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.
Similarities:
● Both the House and the Senate bills seek to promote food security and self-reliance, which will serve U.S.
national security interests, open new markets for U.S, trade, and ultimately reduce reliance on foreign aid.
● Both the House and the Senate bills provide an authorizing framework that will enhance and improve
existing investments in food security – currently being made through the Feed the Future Initiative –
without increasing spending.
● Both bills prioritize transparency and accountability. They both foster greater coordination and
collaboration between the various Federal departments and agencies that implement food security
programs, thereby reducing duplication and waste.
● Both bills have the same inclusion of evidence based approaches, including a focus on smallholder farmers
and women farmers who are often on the frontlines of hunger.
● Neither the House nor the Senate bill will affect U.S. farmers or shippers, other than to create substantial
new opportunities for commercial activity in emerging markets. Efforts to reform U.S. international food
aid provided through the Food for Peace Act are being managed separately.
Differences:
There are three main differences between these bills. Apart from these changes, the other language in the bill is
essentially the same as the House version.
● Senate bill offers a strongly desired two-year authorization, rather than a single year authorization as it
appears in the House bill. This 2 year authorization of the Senate bill will ensure continuity of effort and
congressional oversight well into the next administration. CBO has found that even with a two year
authorization, this bill will not increase spending.
● Senate bill also includes an authorization of appropriations for existing International Disaster Assistance
activities, including the Emergency Food Security Program. This is NOT the Food for Peace program. This
is the disaster assistance program that is feeding Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon; it is the program
that enabled the US to be the first on the ground with life-saving aid in the Philippines and Nepal. It does
not replace Food for Peace, it is filling the gaps and is critical to our national security.
● Senate bill includes an OMB cross-cutting reporting requirement that will provide even greater
transparency about the use of foreign assistance funding.
Note: The House Foreign Affairs Committee strongly supports this provision but was unable to add it after its
markup on April 23, 2015 for technical reasons.