	Introduction

The United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and improve food security. Current food assistance programs originated in 1954 with the passage of what is now named the Food for Peace Act (FFPA, P.L. 83-480). This legislation, commonly referred to as "P.L. 480," established the Food for Peace program (FFP). For most of its existence, U.S. international food assistance provided exclusively i n-kind aid —commodities sourced in the United States and shipped to recipient countries. In recent decades, U.S. food assistance programs have shifted from exclusively in-kind to a combination of in-kind and cash-based assistance, such as locally procured food, cash transfers, or vouchers. U.S. law requires federal international food assistance to be provided primarily through in-kind aid. First, the FFPA authorizes traditional food assistance programs based primarily on in-kind aid. 87-195 ) in the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA, P.L. 114-195 ). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) implement international food assistance programs. The U.S. government provides food assistance through two distinct methods:
1. Cash-based assistance provides direct cash transfers or food vouchers to beneficiaries. The Obama Administration created Feed the Future (FTF) in 2010. USDA administers the McGovern-Dole program, and Congress funds the program through annual agriculture appropriations bills. Congress first authorized the Food for Progress program in the 1985 farm bill ( P.L. Emergency Food Security Program

Unlike FFP Title II, EFSP is a cash-based program. It can complement Title II when significant barriers exist to providing in-kind aid—for example, when in-kind food would not arrive soon enough or could potentially disrupt local markets or when it is unsafe to operate in zones of civil conflict. While FFP Title II has comprised the bulk of food assistance outlays since the mid-1980s, cash-based EFSP assistance has grown from approximately 10% of total international food assistance in FY2010 to 30% in FY2016. FFP Title II assistance also has specific requirements in addition to the requirements that apply to all international food assistance programs. According to the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD), the main purpose of cargo preference laws is to sustain a privately owned, U.S.-flag merchant marine to provide sealift capability in wartime and national emergencies and to protect U.S. ocean commerce from foreign control. ACP applies to all in-kind aid provided under international food aid programs. Since 2014, 202(e) funds can be used to fund cash-based assistance that enhances existing FFP Title II in-kind assistance. Issues for Congress

		In-Kind vs. Cash-Based Food Assistance

Historically, the United States provided international food aid exclusively via in-kind commodities. Lack of reliable suppliers and poor infrastructure can also limit the efficiency of LRP. Critics of cash-based assistance contend that in poorly controlled settings, cash transfers or food vouchers could be stolen or used to purchase nonfood items. Shipping on U.S.-flag vessels typically costs more than on foreign-flag vessels. USA Maritime maintains that a primary reason for the higher cost is that U.S.-flag ships have better working conditions and pay higher wages than foreign-flag ships. Administrative Proposals and Legislation

The Trump Administration and some Members of Congress proposed changes to the structure and intent of U.S. international food assistance programs during the 115 th Congress. Some Members of Congress proposed changes in the House and Senate 2018 farm bills ( H.R. 2 ). 2 ). U.S. International Food Assistance Programs
The United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and improve food security. U.S. international food assistance programs provide support through two distinct methods: (1) in-kind aid, which ships U.S. commodities to regions in need, and (2) cash-based assistance, which provides recipients with vouchers, direct cash transfers, or locally procured foods.
The current suite of international food assistance programs began with the Food for Peace Act (P.L. 83-480), commonly referred to as "P.L. 480," which established the Food for Peace program (FFP). Congress authorizes most food assistance programs in periodic farm bills. However, Congress authorized the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP)—a newer, cash-based food assistance program—in the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-195). Congress funds international food assistance programs through annual agriculture appropriations and state and foreign operations (SFOPS) appropriations bills. Since 2007, annual international food assistance outlays averaged $2.6 billion. In FY2016, FFP Title II and EFSP accounted for 87% of total international food assistance outlays. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administer U.S. international food assistance programs.
Historically, the United States provided international food assistance exclusively through in-kind aid. Since the mid-1980s, FFP Title II, which provides in-kind donations, has been the dominant U.S. food aid program. (The name "FFP Title II" refers to Title II of the Food for Peace Act, in which Congress first authorized the program.) In the late 2000s, U.S. international food assistance began to shift toward a combination of in-kind and cash-based assistance. This is largely due to the Obama Administration creating the cash-based EFSP in 2010 to complement FFP Title II emergency aid. EFSP is used in conditions when in-kind aid cannot arrive soon enough or could potentially disrupt local markets or when it is unsafe to operate in conflict zones.
Despite the growth in cash-based assistance, U.S. international food assistance still relies predominantly on in-kind aid. Many other countries with international food assistance programs have converted primarily to cash-based assistance. U.S. reliance on in-kind aid has become controversial due to its potential to disrupt local markets and cost more than procuring food locally. At the same time, lack of reliable suppliers and poor infrastructure in recipient countries may limit the efficacy and efficiency of cash-based assistance. Also, in poorly controlled settings, cash transfers or food vouchers could be stolen or used by recipients to purchase nonfood items. Agricultural cargo preference (ACP)—the requirement that 50% of all in-kind aid be shipped on U.S.-flag ships—has also become controversial due to findings that it can lead to higher transportation costs and longer delivery times. Higher costs may be partially due to higher wages and better working conditions on U.S.-flag vessels compared to foreign-flag vessels. ACP may also contribute to maintaining a U.S.-flag merchant marine to provide sealift capacity during wartime or national emergencies.
The Trump Administration and certain Members of Congress have proposed changes to the structure and intent of international food assistance programs. Some Members of Congress proposed changes in the House and Senate 2018 farm bills (H.R. 2). These proposed changes include amending requirements for some international food assistance programs and expanding flexibility to use cash-based assistance. Other proposed legislation would address ACP, expand flexibility to use cash-based assistance, and consolidate and alter funding for most international food assistance programs.