prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The Buy American Act of 1933 was enacted during the Great Depression when there was a need to create and preserve jobs for American workers, and it established a preference for the federal government to buy domestic end products  Many of the products the federal government buys—including aircraft engines and medical supplies—are end products that may be subject to the requirements of the Buy American Act  Further, the Buy American Act does not apply to products that are purchased for use outside the United States or obtained through contracts under the micro-purchase threshold, which was generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017  end products manufactured in the United States provided that (a) the product is a commercially available off-the-shelf item; or (b) the cost of the components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of all components  End products that are not considered domestic under the Buy American Act are treated as foreign  This characterization is based on the origin of the end product—that is, where the product is manufactured or produced—and not the vendor’s location  For example, a vendor located in Finland may supply end products manufactured in the United States, in which case these products would be treated as domestic products  Conversely, a vendor located in the United States may supply end products manufactured in Finland  In this case, the end products would be considered foreign  Although the Buy American Act establishes a preference for domestic end products, there are situations in which agencies can procure foreign end products through established exceptions to the Buy American requirements  In addition, under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the United States has waived domestic purchasing requirements—including the Buy American Act—for certain acquisitions of foreign end products from countries that are party to international trade agreements or are considered designated countries by the U S  Trade Representative  In implementing the Buy American Act, the FAR sets forth several exceptions that permit federal agencies to buy foreign end products  These include situations when a domestic end product is not produced in sufficient quantities or cases where the cost would be unreasonable to buy a domestic end product  The steps that contracting officers must take to determine or document an exception will vary depending on the circumstances of the acquisition  For example, a written determination from the Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) or a delegate may be necessary to determine non-availability in some cases  However, a written determination may not be required when an acquisition is conducted through full and open competition, is synopsized, and no domestic offer is received  Other exceptions to the Buy American Act restrictions on the purchase of foreign products, such as the exception for commercial information technology, are blanket exceptions that do not require a written determination  In addition, some agencies have specified additional considerations that must precede a determination and what level of authority is appropriate for certain determinations  The five Buy American Act exceptions that apply government-wide and the corresponding determination standards in the FAR are listed in Table 1  Individual federal agencies may make blanket determinations of situations in which the Act’s restrictions should not apply to that agency’s procurements, when it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products  For example, over the years, DOD has entered into reciprocal procurement agreements with 27 foreign counterparts  DOD determined that it would be inconsistent with the public interest to apply the Buy American Act restrictions on products from these 27 qualifying countries  Thus, if an offer includes end products from a qualifying country, those products are not restricted by the Buy American Act and the acquisition of qualifying country end products does not require higher approval  This public interest exception for qualifying countries applies only to contracts awarded by DOD  Federal agencies can purchase eligible foreign end products from designated countries when the Buy American Act’s requirements are waived because of the terms of an international trade agreement or other criteria, such as a designation by the U S  Trade Representative as a least developed country  In accordance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the president has the authority to waive the Buy American Act  For eligible products that come from countries covered by the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement, Free Trade Agreements, and the Israeli Trade Act, the Buy American Act has been waived so that these items receive nondiscriminatory consideration and are on equal footing with domestic end products  In total, these agreements cover approximately 60 countries—overlapping with all but two of the DOD qualifying countries  Appendix II highlights the overlap  Unlike DOD’s blanket public interest exception for qualifying countries, the Buy American Act requirements are only waived under a trade agreement if the acquisition is of a certain value set by the U S  Trade Representative  Current trade agreement thresholds, at or above which the requirements are waived, range from $25,000 for contracts for eligible products from Canada to $180,000 for the 45 other parties to the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement  Table 2 lists the parties eligible for trade agreements and the associated threshold for supply contracts  The FAR specifies certain conditions in which trade agreements do not apply, even if the acquisition is above the requisite threshold value set by the U S  Trade Representative  In these cases, the Buy American Act would apply  These conditions include, but are not limited to: acquisitions that do not use full and open competition, when the limitation of competition would preclude the procedures applicable to acquisitions covered by trade agreements; certain sole-source acquisitions for commercial items using simplified acquisition procedures; acquisitions set aside for small businesses; acquisition of ammunition, arms, or war materials, or for purchases indispensable for national security or national defense purposes; and acquisitions from federal prison industries or nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or severely disabled  If the contracting officer determines that a trade agreement applies to a particular acquisition, which waives the Buy American restrictions, that determination does not require additional review at a higher level  This is similar to other circumstances where Buy American Act restrictions do not apply, such as for the acquisition of products for use outside the United States or contracts valued below the micro-purchase threshold  The Buy American Act’s applicability is based on the country of origin of the product being supplied, rather than the country of the vendor offering the product to the government  Vendors who propose to do business with the U S  government are required to certify as to where their products are manufactured or produced—whether in the United States or in a designated country covered by the Trade Agreements Act  Vendors can provide an annual certification applicable to all of their contracts through the federal government’s contractor registry, known as the System for Award Management (SAM)  Through SAM, a vendor identifies the country of origin for foreign products associated with a broad category of products  For example, a vendor could state that it provides aircraft components that originate in France and Mexico  Vendors also have the option not to certify the origin of their products in SAM, but instead provide information about foreign end products in their individual offers for contracts  Contracting officials include the relevant clauses in solicitations and contracts in accordance with regulation to require vendor certification  For example, the clause at FAR 52 225-2, Buy American Certificate, requires the offeror to certify that each end product is a domestic end product, or list any foreign end products and their country of origin  Once a contract is awarded, the awarding agency must enter certain information into FPDS-NG, a government-wide database for contract awards and obligations  The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget provides the overall direction for FPDS-NG, which is managed by the General Services Administration  FPDS-NG data can be populated through the individual systems agencies use to develop contracts  Agencies are responsible for the quality of the information transmitted to FPDS-NG, including data captured on the contract value and whether the foreign product acquisition is authorized by one of the Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement  This information is recorded at the contract level, or at the delivery order level for orders from indefinite delivery contracts  For certain product categories—essentially those that represent end products—FPDS-NG requires that contracting staff enter information in the “Place of Manufacture” drop-down data field, as shown in Figure 1  This field must be populated for all reported manufactured end products, including those valued under the micro-purchase threshold, which at the time of our review was generally $3,500  Options in this field include indicating that the product is made in the United States, or that it is made outside the United States and qualifies under one of the Buy American Act exceptions, or that it is subject to the requirements of a trade agreement instead of the Buy American Act requirements  In 2018, FPDS-NG data on agencies’ historical reporting of the use of Buy American exceptions were added to the website on which agencies post contracting opportunities (www fbo gov)  According to OFPP, this allows vendors selling domestic products to more easily see how agencies acquire foreign goods pursuant to Buy American Act exceptions  In fiscal year 2017, the federal government obligated approximately $7 8 billion for the acquisition of foreign end products, which accounts for less than 5 percent of total federal contract obligations for end products in that year  We observed differences in how civilian agencies and DOD apply Buy American Act exceptions and waivers  In our review of 38 contracts and orders from four agencies—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—we found 6 instances where the place of manufacture information was misreported in FPDS-NG  We further identified system limitations in how FPDS-NG captures information  Based on our analysis of FPDS-NG data, almost 40 percent of federal contract obligations in fiscal year 2017—totaling approximately $196 billion—were for domestic and foreign end products, such as aircraft parts, that may be subject to the Buy American Act  Less than 5 percent of these obligations—approximately $7 8 billion—were reported as foreign end products  This is consistent with the information agencies reported in FPDS-NG in the previous 4 years, with foreign end products accounting for approximately 3 to 8 percent of goods subject to Buy American Act restrictions between fiscal years 2013 through 2016  The foreign end products in fiscal year 2017 primarily came from South Korea, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Canada, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, which together accounted for almost half of the total foreign end products reported  Appendix III shows the federal government’s obligations for foreign end products from various countries for fiscal year 2017  The procurement of foreign end products is permitted by the flexibilities available under the Buy American Act’s exceptions and waivers  Agencies also procured foreign end products through means separate from the exceptions allowed under the Buy American Act, primarily in cases where the Act would not apply  Agencies reported obligating more than $700 million to procure foreign end products by applying one of the five government-wide Buy American Act exceptions—such as domestic non-availability or unreasonable cost—in FPDS-NG for fiscal year 2017  Agencies reported obligating approximately $550 million to procure foreign end products as permitted by the Trade Agreements Act, which waives the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements for US trading partners when eligible products are covered by trade agreements and are above certain dollar thresholds  DOD also obligated nearly $2 9 billion to procure foreign products from countries with which it has reciprocal procurement agreements, using what is referred to as the DOD qualifying country exception  This is an exercise of the authority available to agencies under the Buy American Act’s public interest exception  DOD determined that it is not in the public interest to restrict the purchase of foreign end products from 27 countries  All but two of these qualifying countries are also US trading partners, so some of these awards for eligible products may be authorized by a trade agreement  However, the qualifying country exception allows DOD to procure foreign end products without regard to dollar thresholds or other trade agreement eligibility limitations  Agencies also procured foreign end products, such as fuel, to be used outside the United States, in which circumstance the Buy American Act’s requirements do not apply  For fiscal year 2017, these obligations accounted for almost $3 7 billion—about 47 percent of all dollars obligated for foreign end products, as reported in FPDS-NG  Figure 2 highlights fiscal year 2017 obligations, including agencies’ reported spending on foreign end products under the Buy American Act exceptions and other means  DOD accounted for more than 80 percent—roughly $6 4 billion—of the total obligations for foreign end products in fiscal year 2017  Almost all of DOD purchases were either for use outside of the United States, so were not subject to Buy American Act restrictions, or were reported under the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries  In contrast, civilian agencies report a more varied mix of the exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act  The civilian agencies—which are unable to apply DOD’s qualifying country exception—were more likely to report buying foreign end products based on trade agreements or another exception to the Buy American Act requirements  Figure 3 shows how DOD and the civilian agencies acquired foreign end products authorized by the various exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act  From our review of FPDS-NG data, the civilian agencies are more likely to cite one of the five Buy American Act exceptions or a trade agreement waiver when buying foreign end products, and thus take corresponding actions to document or approve the authority cited  For example, in our review of contracts from four agencies, VA obligated $71,000 for medical imaging equipment from Canada, and had to consider whether a trade agreement waiver applied  The manufacturer was determined to be the only source available and the contracting officer determined the acquisition was authorized by a Buy American exception based on domestic non-availability, which can require additional review  In contrast, DOD may make a similar contract award for equipment from Canada based on the qualifying countries exception  DOD acquisitions, then, may be authorized by exceptions such as domestic non-availability when a required item does not come from a qualifying country  For example, we reviewed a $744,000 DOD award for vehicle equipment that was only available from South Africa—which is not one of the DOD qualifying countries and not covered by any of the trade agreements—so the acquisition was authorized by the domestic non-availability exception  In addition, the civilian agencies also reported buying foreign end products for use outside the United States but to a lesser extent than DOD  For example, this included one of the contracts we reviewed, an HHS award for Ebola vaccines manufactured in the Netherlands, with $44 7 million obligated in fiscal year 2017  This contract was reported as used outside the United States because it is primarily stored overseas  FPDS-NG is the primary means for capturing procurement data regarding the Buy American Act, but we found that agencies may not always input reliable information on the extent to which exceptions or waivers authorized the acquisition of foreign end products  In addition, some aspects of how FPDS-NG is structured could lead to additional data reporting errors  In the non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and orders we examined from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA, we found 6 awards where information related to the Buy American Act was incorrectly reported in FPDS-NG  In three of the six contracts, agencies recorded the wrong exception or waiver, most often because of an error when reporting the place of manufacture in FPDS-NG  For example, DOD reported a $22,000 contract for vehicle equipment from South Africa as a Buy American Act exception due to unreasonable cost  But the contract file indicated that the exception that applied was domestic non-availability  DOD officials acknowledged the error and corrected it in FPDS-NG during the course of our review  In the three remaining contracts, agencies misreported whether an end product came from the United States or another country  For example, DHS incorrectly recorded that an $18 million contract was for aircraft accessories and other parts manufactured in the United States, even though file documentation showed the contract was for Italian-produced spare parts from the original equipment manufacturer  The Italian- produced spare parts were available from existing inventory maintained by the manufacturer and were needed immediately to meet a mandatory operational requirement  Officials from DHS acknowledged the recording oversight, attributed it to a mistake when entering information in FPDS- NG, and have since corrected the error in response to our observation  Additionally, FPDS-NG has system limitations that could hinder complete and accurate reporting of Buy American Act information: DOD Qualifying Country Exceptions and Trade Agreement Waivers  FPDS-NG requires that information on the type of Buy American Act exception or waiver applied be provided when end products are reported as foreign  But FPDS-NG does not identify errors associated with this process  For example, we reviewed an $8 3 million DHS contract for engines manufactured in Germany that was recorded as a DOD qualifying country exception in FPDS-NG, although this exception is not available to civilian agencies  Contracting officials corrected the data in FPDS-NG during the course of our review  Further, FPDS-NG does not prevent agencies from reporting trade agreement waivers when the contracts are valued below applicable thresholds or waivers do not apply, such as for small business set asides  For example, in the fiscal year 2017 data we reviewed, more than 5 percent of contract obligations reported for trade agreement waivers were for awards set-aside for small businesses, which would not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act  OFPP officials noted that because of the various dollar thresholds applicable to different trade agreements, adding automatic thresholds in FPDS-NG to guide contracting staff in reporting an applicable trade agreement could lead to additional data errors in the procurement database  Awards under the Micro-purchase Threshold  Although the Buy American Act requirements do not apply to contract awards valued below the micro-purchase threshold—generally $3,500 in fiscal year 2017—the FPDS-NG ‘Place of Manufacture’ field does not have an option to indicate whether a contract is under the threshold  Instead, contracting officers entering information for awards under the micro- purchase amount must still state whether the product is domestic or foreign  If the product is foreign, the officials must select a Buy American Act exception authorizing the purchase, even though no exception is needed at these dollar levels  As a result, when agencies report in FPDS-NG that a Buy American Act exception or waiver applied for a procurement valued at less than $3,500, that information would not be accurate  Based on our review, this may have involved about $16 million in fiscal year 2017 obligations  Awards for both Foreign and Domestic Products  When reporting data for contracts that include multiple end products from both the United States and a foreign country, FPDS-NG only allows for one country of origin to be identified  Contracting officers told us that they typically will report a foreign end product in FPDS-NG when the foreign products account for the preponderance of the contract value  Thus, in cases where a contract includes foreign end products that do not account for the preponderance of the contract’s value, the value of these foreign end products would not be reported in FPDS-NG  We have previously reported that FPDS-NG has similar limitations in other fields, such the type of product or service provided, which prevent contracting officers from identifying more than one condition  According to OFPP, a recent change in the FAR requiring contract reporting at the line item level should provide greater transparency of all products included in a contract  Buy American Act Exceptions and Waivers under Indefinite Delivery Contracts  The way FPDS-NG captures data for Buy American Act exceptions and waivers for some indefinite-delivery contracts results in inaccurate data reporting  When an indefinite- delivery contract is initially awarded, FPDS-NG functionality does not give contracting staff the option to enter information for the ‘Place of Manufacture’ field  Instead, this information is typically captured once an order is placed on the contract  In our review of FPDS-NG data across the four agencies, however, we found that in some cases obligations are reported on the initial indefinite delivery contract so the Buy American Act exceptions or waivers are not recorded  This occurred with multiple agencies, but particularly at HHS, where information for almost 28 percent of HHS obligations for end products in fiscal year 2017 was not captured in FPDS-NG because the obligations were reported in the system through the initial contracts rather than orders  As a result, the applicability of the Buy American Act for HHS contracts totaling almost $1 9 billion in fiscal year 2017 was unreported in FPDS-NG  DOD, DHS, and VA officials told us they identified FPDS-NG reporting as an area of concern  GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government state that management should use quality information to support objectives, and that such data should be complete and accurate  In response to the 2017 Executive Order calling for federal agencies to assess their implementation of the Buy American Act requirement, OFPP officials told us they are identifying potential strategies for improving the information agencies submit to FPDS-NG  As OFPP weighs potential options for FPDS-NG reporting, implementing enhancements to reduce data entry errors and ensure that the data collected are complete and accurate would help enable the system to provide the most useful information possible  Ensuring information is correctly reported in FPDS- NG is critical because the data are used to inform procurement policy decisions and facilitate congressional oversight  The four agencies we reviewed—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—took different approaches to provide training and guidance for the Buy American Act requirements  Contracting officers faced challenges when procuring products subject to the Buy American Act  For example, we found instances in which contracting officers applied a waiver or exception to contracts where the waiver did not apply and did not have complete guidance for required determinations or reviews  There also were challenges in confirming product origin information when vendors did not provide consistent information  The four agencies we reviewed varied in the mix of training and guidance provided to aid contracting officers in implementing the requirements of the Buy American Act  Three of the four agencies—DOD, DHS and VA— supplemented the federal acquisition regulation, which implements the requirements of the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act, with their own acquisition regulations  In addition, DHS and DOD have recently updated existing training or added new training and guidance  VA issued policy memoranda in 2017, emphasizing the importance of meeting Buy American Act requirements, but has not added training or provided specific guidance  HHS does not provide department-level training or guidance related to the Buy American Act  Most of the DHS and DOD contracting officers we spoke to reported that they had attended training and several found the guidance provided by the training to be helpful  HHS and VA contracting officials described confusion due to the lack of resources available at their respective agencies  In 2017, in response to a series of recommendations from the DOD Inspector General to re-emphasize Buy American Act training and guidance, the Defense Acquisition University introduced an updated training course that specifically focuses on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act  While not mandatory, a June 2017 memo notified all DOD services and the defense agencies that members of their contracting workforce should complete this training as part of their professional development  At the current pace of enrollment, DOD officials anticipate approximately 18,000 people will have taken this course by the end of September 2018, which is a seven-fold increase over previous graduation rates  Incorporated into these trainings were supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements  One such tool is a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon the awarded contract’s total dollar value  DOD contracting officials we interviewed from Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) Land and Maritime division had completed the agency-level Buy American Act training and said it served as a good refresher, with some noting that most of the training they had received on the subject came when they were first hired  DOD provides regulations and guidance on Buy American Act requirements through both the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the accompanying Procedures, Guidance and Information  DOD contracting officers use the provisions and clauses in DFARS to address the public interest exception for DOD qualifying countries  In addition, as a part of the updated training, the Defense Pricing and Contracting Office developed two documents to provide additional Buy American Act guidance  One outlines a step-by-step approach contracting officers can follow to determine whether the Buy American Act applies to their particular procurement and, if so, whether the use of an exception or waiver is appropriate  The second assists contracting officers with evaluating all offers—foreign and domestic— when price is the determining factor  In addition, we found that DLA supplements the available Defense Acquisition University training and guidance with a robust level of support, including annual training and subject matter expertise  DLA contracting officers told us that while they found the updated training helpful, they also appreciated the training course internal to their agency, as it addresses the types of procurements they typically handle in their day-to- day work, such as buying spare parts  Further, DLA contracting officers noted that they use the job aid provided through the local training  DHS introduced training courses in 2017 that specifically focus on the requirements and implementation of the Buy American Act, including a mandatory training course for DHS contracting officers  DHS reported that 94 percent of contracting staff had taken the required course as of April 2018  DHS developed these courses in response to the 2017 Executive Order to ensure its staff was familiar with the Buy American Act requirements  Incorporated into these training courses are supplemental on-the-job tools to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts for end products subject to the Buy American Act requirements, such as a flowchart outlining applicable solicitation provisions or contract clauses based upon contract dollar value  Contracting officials generally view the training and tools they received as beneficial  For example, several DHS contracting officials we interviewed said that the agency’s new course provided a helpful review on the topic, while one contracting officer specifically noted that the course materials are useful to new staff, to help them understand the Act’s waivers and exceptions  DHS also revised its acquisition manual in December 2017 to add further detail regarding the Buy American Act requirements  Specifically, DHS updated its acquisition manual to provide contracting officers more explicit FPDS-NG reporting instructions for procurements subject to the Buy American Act, as well as discretion to purchase domestic end products at or below the micro-purchase threshold  Additional changes include increasing the documentation and level of managerial review required to use several of the exceptions to the Buy American Act  For example, prior to 2018—which includes the time period in which the DHS contracts and orders we reviewed were awarded—the head of individual contracting offices had the authority to approve domestic non-availability and unreasonable cost exceptions, with a notification made to the DHS Chief Procurement Officer  But under the new policy, the use of these exceptions must have the concurrence of the HCA—who is responsible for contracting activities within individual DHS components—and be approved by the department’s Chief Procurement Officer  Table 3 outlines these changes  In September 2017, VA issued guidance to reinforce existing Buy American Act requirements  The policy memorandum encourages the HCAs within VA to institute reviews of awarded contracts subject to the Buy American Act to ensure compliance  As of September 2018, policy officials did not know how many HCAs had taken this step  Further, the guidance emphasizes the importance of Buy American Act training for its acquisition workforce  VA policy officials explained that the Buy American Act is introduced in several VA training courses, but the agency does not have a specific course on implementing the Buy American Act requirements or provide additional instruction or tools  During the course of our review, VA officials said that some of the HCAs had added internal training on the Buy American Act  In addition, VA contracting staff has the option of taking training offered outside the agency, such as the updated Defense Acquisition University course on the Buy American Act  This training is not required  Contracting officials we spoke to at VA said they struggled with the details of awarding contracts subject to Buy American Act requirements because they are not provided sufficient agency-specific training and guidance on the topic  Moreover, several contracting staff noted an increased need for training due to recent changes in VA contracting practices  Specifically, in response to a 2016 Supreme Court decision, VA has increased contracting efforts with veteran-owned small businesses through the Veterans First Contracting Program  As a result, contracting officials explained they have reduced their use of schedule contracts, in which the determinations related to the Buy American Act requirements were made with the initial awards  As one contracting officer explained, prior to this change, more than 90 percent of her division’s procurements were through VA schedule contracts in which Buy American Act applicability had already been established  However, this shift in contracting practices means contracting officers will more frequently need to consider the applicability of the Buy American Act, but contracting officers have not received specific guidance or training to do so  Noting the significance of this change, one contracting officer stated she approached VA management to obtain Buy American Act training for her division, but such training was not available  Federal internal controls state that agencies should ensure that training is aimed at developing and retaining employee knowledge, skills, and abilities to meet changing organizational needs  In September 2018, we reported that VA was experiencing difficulties implementing multiple aspects of the Veterans First policy, and we recommended that VA provide more targeted implementation training  As VA moves forward to implement this training, incorporating the Buy American Act requirements will be important to provide greater assurance that staff has the knowledge and skills needed to navigate the changing procurement environment  HHS does not have agency-level Buy American training or guidance  The HHS Acquisition Regulation Supplement does not address foreign acquisitions  HHS officials told us that efforts to develop guidance that would address Buy American Act requirements are underway, but they do not know when they will be finalized and made available to contracting officers, and could not describe the extent to which they will address Buy American Act implementation  The HHS contracting officers we interviewed discussed informal Buy American Act training their divisions had developed because department-level training was not available  For example, at HHS’ National Institutes of Health, a contracting official told us about a training course she recently developed because her office was taking on the administration of additional contracts for which the Buy American Act requirements would apply  Contracting officers at HHS’ Office of Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority described informal training on the agency’s contract writing system— included as part of their weekly internal staff meetings—that provides additional guidance on how to appropriately complete certain data fields relevant to the Buy American Act  In our analysis of 38 contracts from across the four agencies, we found that agencies faced various levels of challenge in applying the Trade Agreements Act waivers and Buy American Act exceptions to acquire foreign end products  This was particularly apparent in cases where contracting officers had to determine if a trade agreement applied or cases which required a determination that a domestic end product was not sufficiently available, in accordance with the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act requirements  Contracting staff also had difficulty determining the origin of products in light of incomplete or conflicting information  Of the six contracts we reviewed reporting that a trade agreement applied to the foreign end products purchased, we found two cases in which this waiver did not apply to the contracts in question  The value of the contract is one determining factor for whether a trade agreement waives the Buy American Act requirements, although the FAR also states additional factors that would affect applicability under a trade agreement  The two contracts we found, both from VA, had total dollar values at award— $8,435 and $11,950, respectively—that were less than any of the thresholds at which trade agreement waivers of the Buy American Act are applicable  Both contracts were for products from countries that are party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, so the value of the acquisition would have to be equal to or exceed $191,000—the threshold that was in effect at the time of award—for waivers from Buy American requirements to apply  Contracting officials in both cases were generally unaware that the applicable threshold was not met, making the trade agreement waiver inapplicable  Although VA has added Buy American Act guidance since these contracts were awarded early in fiscal year 2017, the information currently available does not provide sufficient detail to assist contracting officers when awarding contracts in these situations  For example, the guidance VA provided contracting officers in September 2017 does not emphasize consideration of the applicable trade agreement thresholds or include information on how contracting officers should determine the applicable waiver or exception  When contracting officers procure foreign end products, the type of waiver or exception used to support the purchase matters—particularly when required additional steps and review are not completed because the wrong waiver or exception was applied  We found that the two VA contracts with foreign end products were incorrectly reported as the Trade Agreements Act waiver having applied  If one of the other Buy American Act exceptions permitting purchases of foreign end products had applied, contracting officers may have been required to obtain higher-level review or complete a written determination  In addition, we reviewed contracts that show some of the complexities contracting officers face beyond applying the dollar thresholds when determining if an award for foreign end products is eligible under the Trade Agreements Act waiver of the Buy American Act  Specifically, we found instances where DHS contracting officials took different approaches for non-competed awards for similar foreign-manufactured products  For example, we reviewed a non-competed $58 million DHS award for acquiring spare aircraft parts from an original equipment manufacturer located in a foreign country that is party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement  DHS reported in FPDS-NG that the procurement was waived by the Trade Agreements Act  However, we also reviewed two other sole-source awards from DHS for similar products—spare aircraft parts from two separate manufacturers in foreign countries that are also party to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement—that were instead reported as subject to the Buy American Act, but excepted due to the non-availability of domestic products  Contracting officers may come to different conclusions for similar products, in part, because of the multiple factors that have to be considered when determining whether an acquisition is subject to the Buy American Act and whether any waivers or exceptions apply  However, available guidance does not always address these complexities  For example, agencies need to decide if other conditions, such as the procurement of products deemed indispensable for national security or national defense purposes apply to an acquisition that would make a trade agreement inapplicable  Further, if the product’s country of origin is considered a designated country under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, officials need to determine that the product is eligible under that agreement  DHS updated its training and guidance for the Buy American Act, which includes a job aid outlining at what dollar values solicitation provisions and contract clauses under a trade agreement waiver are applicable  However, it does not address other situations in which contracts may not be eligible under the Trade Agreements Act, such as non-eligible products or products for national defense purposes  For the other agencies in our review, we found that DOD’s updated Buy American Act training and its acquisition supplement both address trade agreement eligibility, but HHS does not yet have Buy American guidance to address this topic  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select the appropriate methods of communication  When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure appropriate steps are taken to meet Buy American Act requirements  Our review of 38 contracts also included 8 contracts for foreign end products pursuant to the domestic non-availability exception  In certain situations, such as when contracts are awarded without full and open competition, this exception requires an approved written determination  The FAR establishes requirements for domestic non-availability determinations, but agencies can delegate the level of review required or specify information to be included in the determination  Three of the agencies we reviewed—DOD, DHS, and VA—provide supplemental guidance on the process for making determinations, including who must make the determination when applying a domestic non-availability exception  However, DHS policy officials told us that when the agency uses the domestic non-availability exception for a sole-source acquisition, the written justification that the FAR requires for non- competed awards should suffice as the documentation to support the non-availability determination as well  The practice of using sole-source justifications to support Buy American determinations is not addressed in DHS guidance  According to DHS policy updated in 2018, determinations of domestic non-availability must be concurred with by the HCA and approved by the Chief Procurement Officer  Federal and DHS acquisition regulations, however, state that some justifications can be approved at a lower level  In the absence of further guidance, this difference in approval levels could result in inconsistent application within the department  In addition, as previously noted HHS does not yet have Buy American Act guidance so the department does not provide information on how to make determinations  According to federal internal control standards, agencies should communicate quality information internally to achieve their objectives and that they should select appropriate communication methods  When written guidance is not available, agencies may miss opportunities to ensure that contracting officers take the steps needed to meet requirements when applying a domestic non-availability exception  Knowing the country of origin of the products the federal government buys is necessary to implement the Buy American Act, but contracting officers do not always have access to accurate information on originating countries  The FAR and the DFARS provide various clauses which, when incorporated into contracts, require vendors to certify that the end products they provide to the government are domestic and, if necessary, declare the foreign countries from which they provide products  Vendors frequently certify this information through the System for Award Management (SAM), the government-wide system used to collect vendors’ annual representations and certifications  Contracting officers may rely on the information vendors provide about their product origins, but they are generally expected to take actions to verify incomplete or conflicting information when they have reason to believe that a vendor will be providing a non-compliant product  We found that SAM certifications and offers did not always include accurate information on end products from foreign countries  In 6 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed—from DHS, HHS, and VA—the vendors certified that they only provided domestic end products although the end products provided were foreign  In all of these cases, the contracting officers knew that the acquisitions included foreign end products  For example, we reviewed two DHS awards for spare aircraft parts from an Italian-based company, one of which was reported in FPDS-NG under the domestic non-availability exception to the Buy American Act, and the other which was incorrectly reported as being manufactured in the United States but has since been corrected  Contracting officials said they knew the parts were made in Italy based on extensive experience contracting with the company and, in part, because they had visited the production location  Contracting officials—including some at HHS and VA—said they use SAM as their primary source to determine whether the vendor is offering domestic end products  Others reported some awareness of the limitations of SAM certifications  At all four agencies, contracting officials emphasized that it is important to ask questions when end product origin information is not readily available—or if there is conflicting information—but agency guidance that we reviewed does not address this need or provide information on how to do so  Only the local training offered by DOD’s DLA addresses other sources of information, which officials said was helpful because it is specific to the industries with which they work  Instead, some officials described how they rely on their experience to know how to verify products’ origins but this can be problematic, particularly with newer staff  For example, in one contract we reviewed VA contracting officials acknowledged that a new contracting specialist at VA did not follow-up when the product origin certification was not provided and assumed all of the items procured were domestic  During the course of our review, the contracting specialist’s supervisor said that she contacted the vendor and learned that some of the items provided were in fact foreign end products  The foreign products were not considered to account for the preponderance of the contract so were not reported in FPDS-NG, but the contracting officer was acting with incomplete information at the time of award  Further, in 4 of the 38 contracts that we reviewed, it is not clear how contracting staff took steps to obtain product origin information in situations where it was not provided in SAM  In these cases—which include contracts for both domestic and foreign end products—the vendors had opted not to certify their product origins in SAM, but instead said that they would provide the information with their individual proposals  However, based on the information in the contract files, the proposals did not include this information  For example: Three of the contracts we reviewed from HHS—all reported as purchasing end items manufactured in the United States—did not certify product origin in SAM  The supervising contracting officer for two of the awards explained that his contracting staff regularly check the vendor’s written representations and certifications provided in the offer, because the SAM certifications are general and do not always apply to the specific equipment they buy  However, the three contract files we reviewed did not include manufacturing or origin information  The vendor for a DHS contract that was reported as manufactured in the United States did not certify this information in SAM  The contracting officer said that he checks SAM for product origin information, but in the documents we reviewed there is no evidence of the information in the contract file  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should communicate the necessary quality information needed to achieve the agency’s objectives, thereby enabling personnel to address risks  Providing guidance regarding the situations in which contracting officers should verify product origin information with vendors may help agencies better meet the requirements of the Buy American Act  Although purchases for foreign end products account for less than 5 percent of federal procurement spending in fiscal year 2017, it is important that these purchases be consistent with the domestic- purchasing restrictions in the Buy American Act  This requires that Buy American Act exceptions and trade agreement waivers be used only when applicable, and that agencies report accurate data on the extent to which they are used  However, data reporting errors by contracting staff and FPDS-NG limitations mean that data on the use of exceptions and waivers are not fully captured  The federal agencies all have responsibilities to ensure Buy American Act data are accurate and complete  The lack of good data can hinder congressional oversight of the extent to which foreign end products are procured as authorized by one of the exceptions or waivers of the Buy American Act  Agencies have taken varied approaches for providing information to contracting officers that navigate the complexities and nuances associated with applying the different Buy American Act exceptions or trade agreement waivers  DOD has added such detailed information through its revised training course and policy guidance  Adding these types of targeted information to address challenging areas would help contracting officers at other agencies implement the Buy American Act’s domestic preferences, as well as related exceptions and waivers  Further, to accurately determine how exceptions and waivers apply requires complete product origin information  Although the responsibility to certify the origins of products supplied to the federal government rests with the contractors, contracting officers would benefit from resources that help them identify information that may be inconsistent, to ensure that accurate information is available  We are making four recommendations, one each to the Office of Management and Budget, DHS, VA, and HHS  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget should instruct the Office of Federal Procurement Policy: To facilitate additional training to improve the understanding of the contracting workforce regarding the Buy American Act requirements; and To facilitate clarifying revisions to FPDS-NG, where needed, and provide training and guidance for recording Buy American Act information in FPDS-NG to improve the accuracy of the Buy American data  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Homeland Security should clarify existing guidance in the Homeland Security Acquisition Manual or update training to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exception for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained, particularly when such determinations are evidenced through justifications for other than full and open competition; and Identify sources of information available for determining product origin and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clarify existing guidance, or provide training or other instruction, to help contracting officials: Address the applicability of the Buy American Act requirements and provide instruction on how to implement the requirements, including in any training developed to implement the Veterans First policy; Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services should provide guidance, training, or other instruction to help contracting officials: Identify the factors that should be considered in order to determine the applicability of the Trade Agreements Act and waiver of the Buy American Act; Document determinations of the use of Buy American exceptions for domestic non-availability and ensure the required approvals are obtained; and Identify sources of information available for determining products’ origins and the steps they should take to verify information that is inconsistent  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to DOD, HHS, DHS, VA, and the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  DOD reviewed the report, but did not offer comments  HHS, DHS, and VA provided written responses, which are reproduced in Appendices IV, V, and VI of this report, respectively  A senior official within the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at the Office of Management and Budget provided a response via email  In addition, HHS, DHS, and OFPP provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate  In their responses, HHS, DHS, VA agreed, and OFPP generally agreed, with our findings and recommendations  The written response from HHS and DHS included information on the steps each agency plans to take to address the recommendations  Specifically, HHS stated that the agency will evaluate ways to provide additional training and guidance to contracting officials  DHS stated that it will provide guidance on the applicability of the Buy American Act and the Trade Agreements Act in certain situations and the documentation and approvals required when awarding non-competed contracts that require an exception  Additionally, DHS plans to update training regarding actions contracting officers should take when there are discrepancies in product origin information  VA concurred with our three-part recommendation and described some of the actions the agency plans to take in response  However, VA’s comments do not fully address our recommendation  Specifically, we recommended that VA clarify guidance or provide training to identify factors that could help contracting officers determine the applicability of Trade Agreements Act waivers of the Buy American Act  The comments from VA, however, only restate the existing Buy American Act exceptions and make no mention of Trade Agreements Act waivers  Further, we recommended that VA identify sources of information regarding product origin and the steps to be taken to verify inconsistent product origin information  VA’s response only noted that contracting officers are responsible for conducting market research and ensuring that all product origin requirements are met  VA did not outline any additional steps the agency would take to help contracting officers navigate the complexities inherent in this area  Going forward, VA will need to develop a more robust and responsive approach in order to fully implement our recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII  The objectives of this report are to assess the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Buy American Act requirements  To address both of these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and policies, such as sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); the Buy American Act as amended; the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 as amended; federal acquisition regulation supplements from audited agencies such as the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); the Executive Order “Buy American, Hire American” of 2017; the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement; and memorandums, policy, guidance, and instructions related to the Buy American Act  To assess the federal government procurement of foreign products, including those procured through citing exceptions and waivers of the Buy American Act, we analyzed data from the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) for fiscal year 2017, which was the most recent and complete data available at the time of our review  We analyzed procurement data in FPDS-NG across the federal government in fields relevant to the Buy American Act’s domestic preference requirements, including the product service code, country of product origin, and place of manufacture, in addition to fields such as the contract value and dollars obligated  We reviewed the place of manufacture field in particular as it contains information on how the Buy American Act applies to the contract, including whether the preponderance of the obligations is for manufactured end products and, if so, whether they are manufactured in or outside of the United States  When manufactured outside of the United States, this field also captures the reason the purchase was permissible, which we analyzed to assess the dollar obligations associated with the various Buy American exceptions or trade agreement waiver reported, as well as when products were used outside of the United States  We also analyzed data from FPDS-NG to identify the countries where foreign end products were reported to be manufactured and the associated dollars obligated in fiscal year 2017  In addition, we met with officials from the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Procurement Policy to better understand ongoing reviews of the data in FPDS-NG that pertains to the Buy American Act  In our analysis of FPDS-NG data, we took steps to minimize issues that might affect data reliability  Specifically, we analyzed FPDS-NG data to identify potential errors and inconsistencies, such as non-eligible agencies reporting the use of exceptions for DOD qualifying countries, or reporting trade agreement waivers for contracts valued less than minimum thresholds for trade agreements  We made minor adjustments to minimize potential data reporting issues, including aggregating the exceptions reported, and where appropriate, limiting our analysis to one year of data, fiscal year 2017  Based on these steps, we determined that FPDS-NG data were sufficiently reliable to allow us to calculate the approximate extent of obligations for foreign end products and the use of the Buy American Act exceptions and the Trade Agreements Act waiver  However, we are unable to precisely determine the amount spent on foreign end products through the use of exceptions and waivers because of the reporting errors and data system limitations we identified in this report  Using FPDS-ND data, we identified four agencies—the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)—that had the highest fiscal year 2017 obligations in the product codes for manufactured products, which are potentially subject to the Buy American Act restrictions  In addition, to identify trends and determine if there were variations in reported obligations for foreign end products in the past, we reviewed FPDS-NG data on the Buy American exceptions and trade agreement waivers in fiscal years 2013 through 2017  To assess the extent to which selected agencies are providing training and guidance to implement the requirements of the Buy American Act, we reviewed training course materials and regulations, policies, and other guidance available at the four agencies in our review—DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—to determine the extent to which they address the Buy American Act requirements  In addition, we reviewed training materials available to government employees through sources such as the Federal Acquisition Institute  We interviewed policy officials from the four agencies to understand how training and guidance had been implemented  We further reviewed relevant inspector general reports from the DOD Inspector General issued between 2015 and 2018, which made several recommendations to improve compliance with the Buy American Act, among other requirements  Within the four agencies, we selected contracting offices that reported obligating fiscal year 2017 dollars for awards with foreign end products and awards with US-manufactured end products  We specifically focused on offices that reported a sufficient amount of foreign end product obligations and a sufficient number of contract awards to allow us to select multiple contracts  We also considered offices with a variety of Buy American exceptions and waiver types reported, in order to select a mix of contracts  The contracting offices selected were as follows: DOD: Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime HHS: National Institutes of Health and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response DHS: United States Coast Guard VA: Veterans Health Administration From these offices, we selected a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts and delivery orders awarded in fiscal year 2017  At each agency, we selected awards to include a mix of end items produced by domestic and foreign manufacturers and, when products were reported as foreign manufactured, a mix of the various exceptions and waivers cited  We also include awards across a range of value for dollars obligated above the micro purchase threshold—ranging from approximately $5,000 to more than $100 million—to ensure we reviewed awards both above and below the various thresholds at which the Trade Agreements Act waiver might apply  Additionally, our sample included awards for similar types of end products across agencies, including aircraft parts at DOD and DHS and medical supplies at HHS and VA, to compare practices in different agencies  We originally selected 40 awards for review—10 from each agency—but removed two awards from our sample  One was an HHS award that we determined was awarded using Other Transaction Authority and was not subject to the Buy American Act  The second excluded contract was from DHS, which was modified after award to reflect that it was an information technology service rather than a product  As a service, it would not be subject to the Buy American Act  We reviewed the contract files for each of the 38 awards in our sample, including documentation such as the contract and task order award, solicitations, vendors’ offers or response to proposals, determination and finding memos, and FPDS-NG output documents  In addition, we reviewed the certifications each vendor provided in the System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of contract award  We interviewed contracting officials responsible for each of the 38 contracts and task orders to understand how they addressed the Buy American Act requirements, including how they determined exception or waiver applicability and product origin  We also reviewed any agency-specific or local training and guidance, tools, or job aids available to assist contracting officers in implementing the Act’s requirements We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to December 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on audit objectives  The United States maintains trade relationships with other countries whose specific negotiated terms results in different levels and types of applicability for waivers and exceptions to the Buy American Act  Figure 4 depicts the range of relationships that the United States maintains with other nations that allow for less restrictive purchasing of foreign end products by the federal government  The federal government purchases foreign end products from various countries  Figure 5 highlights the different amounts of contract obligations for foreign end products from these countries for fiscal year 2017  The highest category, over $500 million, includes 4 countries that account for almost 40 percent of all federal procurement of foreign end products  Countries where the federal government obligated less than $5 million for the procurement of foreign end products are not included  In addition to the contact named above, Candice Wright, Assistant Director; and Jennifer Dougherty, Analyst-in-Charge, managed this review  Skip McClinton; Erin Stockdale; Adam Cowles; Stephanie Gustafson; Julia Kennon; Anne Louise Taylor; and Robin Wilson made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: The federal child nutrition programs provide assistance to schools and other institutions in the form of cash, commodity food, and administrative support (such as technical assistance and administrative funding) based on the provision of meals and snacks to children  In general, these programs were created (and amended over time) to both improve children's nutrition and provide support to the agriculture economy  Today, the child nutrition programs refer primarily to the following meal, snack, and milk reimbursement programs (these and other acronyms are listed in Appendix A ): National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U S C  1751 et seq )); School Breakfast Program (SBP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U S C  1773)); Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 17 (42 U S C  1766)); Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) (Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 13 (42 U S C  1761)); and Special Milk Program (SMP) (Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U S C  1772))  The programs provide financial support and/or foods to the institutions that prepare meals and snacks served outside of the home (unlike other food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) where benefits are used to purchase food for home consumption)  Though exact eligibility rules and pricing vary by program, in general the amount of federal reimbursement is greater for meals served to qualifying low-income individuals or at qualifying institutions, although most programs provide some subsidy for all food served  Participating children receive subsidized meals and snacks, which may be free or at reduced price  Forthcoming sections discuss how program-specific eligibility rules and funding operate  This report describes how each program operates under current law, focusing on eligibility rules, participation, and funding  This introductory section describes some of the background and principles that generally apply to all of the programs; subsequent sections go into further detail on the workings of each  Unless stated otherwise, participation and funding data come from USDA-FNS's "Keydata Reports " The child nutrition programs are most often dated back to the 1946 enactment of the National School Lunch Act, which created the National School Lunch Program, albeit in a different form than it operates today  Most of the child nutrition programs do not date back to 1946; they were added and amended in the decades to follow as policymakers expanded child nutrition programs' institutional settings and meals provided: The Special Milk Program was created in 1954, regularly extended, and made permanent in 1970  The School Breakfast Program was piloted in 1966, regularly extended, and eventually made permanent in 1975  A program for child care settings and summer programs was piloted in 1968, with separate programs authorized in 1975 and then made permanent in 1978  These are now the Child and Adult Care Food Program and Summer Food Service Program  The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program began as a pilot in 2002, was made permanent in 2004, and was expanded nationwide in 2008  The programs are now authorized under three major federal statutes: the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National School Lunch Act in 1946), the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U S C  612c)  Congressional jurisdiction over the underlying three laws has typically been exercised by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee; the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and, to a limited extent (relating to commodity food assistance and Section 32 issues), the House Agriculture Committee  Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws  The child nutrition programs were most recently reauthorized in 2010 through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P L  111-296 ); some of the authorities created or extended in that law expired on September 30, 2015  WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is also typically reauthorized with the child nutrition programs  WIC is not one of the child nutrition programs and is not discussed in this report  The 114 th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization (see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview )  There was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115 th Congress  The U S  Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) administers the programs at the federal level  The programs are operated by a wide variety of local public and private providers and the degree of direct state involvement differs by program and state  At the state level, education, health, social services, and agriculture departments all have roles; at a minimum, they are responsible for approving and overseeing local providers such as schools, summer program sponsors, and child care centers and day care homes, as well as making sure they receive the federal support they are due  At the local level, program benefits are provided to millions of children (e g , there were 30 0 million in the National School Lunch Program, the largest of the programs, in FY2017), through some 100,000 public and private schools and residential child care institutions, nearly 170,000 child care centers and family day care homes, and just over 50,000 summer program sites  All programs are available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia  Virtually all operate in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (and, in differing versions, in the Northern Marianas and American Samoa)  This section summarizes the nature and extent to which the programs' funding is mandatory and discretionary, including a discussion of appropriated entitlement status  Table 3 lists child nutrition program and related expenditures  Most spending for child nutrition programs is provided in annual appropriations acts to fulfill the legal financial obligation established by the authorizing laws  That is, the level of spending for such programs, referred to as appropriated mandatory spending, is not controlled through the annual appropriations process, but instead is derived from the benefit and eligibility criteria specified in the authorizing laws  The appropriated mandatory funding is treated as mandatory spending  Further, if Congress does not appropriate the funds necessary to fund the program, eligible entities may have legal recourse  Congress typically considers the Administration's forecast for program needs in its appropriations decisions  For the majority of funding discussed in this report, the formula that controls the funding is not capped and fluctuates based on the reimbursement rates and the number of meals/snacks served in the programs  In the meal service programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, summer programs, and assistance for child care centers and day care homes, federal aid is provided in the form of statutorily set subsidies (reimbursements) paid for each meal/snack served that meets federal nutrition guidelines  Although all (including full-price) meals/snacks served by participating providers are subsidized, those served free or at a reduced price to lower-income children are supported at higher rates  All federal meal/snack subsidy rates are indexed annually (each July) for inflation, as are the income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price meals/snacks  Subsequent sections discuss how a specific program's eligibility and reimbursements work  Most subsidies are cash payments to schools or other providers, but a smaller portion of aid is provided in the form of USDA-purchased commodity foods   Laws for three child nutrition programs (NSLP, CACFP, and SFSP) require the provision of commodity foods (or in some cases allow cash in lieu of commodity foods)  Meal and snack service entails nonfood costs  Federal child nutrition per-meal/snack subsidies may be used to cover local providers' administrative and operating costs  However, the separate direct federal payments for administrative/operating costs ("State Administrative Expenses," discussed in the " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities " section) are limited  In addition to the open-ended, appropriated entitlement funds summarized above, the child nutrition programs' funding also includes certain other mandatory funding and a limited amount of discretionary funding  Some of the activities discussed in " Related Programs, Initiatives, and Support Activities ," such as Team Nutrition, are provided for with discretionary funding  Aside from the annually appropriated funding, the child nutrition programs are also supported by certain permanent appropriations and transfers  Notably, funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program is funded by a transfer from USDA's Section 32 program, a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  Federal subsidies do not necessarily cover the full cost of the meals and snacks offered by providers  States and localities help cover program costs, as do children's families by paying charges for nonfree or reduced-price meals/snacks  There is a nonfederal cost-sharing requirement for the school meals programs (discussed below), and some states supplement school funding through additional state per-meal reimbursements or other prescribed financing arrangements  Subsequent sections of this report delve into the details of how each of the child nutrition programs support the service of meals and snacks in institutional settings; first, it is useful to take a broader perspective of primary program elements  Table 1 is a top-level look at the different programs that displays distinguishing characteristics (what meals are provided, in what settings, to what ages) and recent program spending  Other relevant CRS reports in this area include CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P L  111-296 (summarizes the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010) CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview CRS Report R44588, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2017 Appropriations CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food Support Under USDA's Section 32 Program Other relevant resources include USDA-FNS's website, https://www fns usda gov/school-meals/child-nutrition-programs USDA-FNS's Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act page, http://www fns usda gov/school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act The FNS page of the Federal Register , https://www federalregister gov/agencies/food-and-nutrition-service This section discusses the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP)  Principles and concepts common to both programs are discussed first; subsections then discuss features and data unique to the NSLP and SBP, respectively  The federal school meals programs provide federal support in the form of cash assistance and USDA commodity foods; both are provided according to statutory formulas based on the number of reimbursable meals served in schools  The subsidized meals are served by both public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools and residential child care institutions (RCCIs) that opt to enroll and guarantee to offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible low-income children  Both cash and commodity support to participating schools are calculated based on the number and price of meals served (e g , lunch or breakfast, free or full price), but once the aid is received by the school it is used to support the overall school meal service budget, as determined by the school  This report focuses on the federal reimbursements and funding, but it should be noted that some states have provided state financing through additional state-specific funding  Federal law does not require schools to participate in the school meals programs  However, some states have mandated that schools provide lunch and/or breakfast, and some of these states require that their schools do so through NSLP and/or SBP  The program is open to public and private schools  A reimbursable meal requires compliance with federal school nutrition standards, which have changed throughout the history of the program based on nutritional science and children's nutritional needs  Food items not served as a complete meal meeting nutrition standards (e g , a la carte offerings) are not reimbursable meals, and therefore are not eligible for federal per-meal, per-snack reimbursements  Following rulemaking to implement provisions in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P L  111-296 ), USDA updated the nutrition standards for reimbursable meals in January 2012 (see " Nutrition Standards " for more information)  Schools serving meals that meet the updated nutrition standards are eligible for an increased reimbursement of 6 cents per lunch  USDA-FNS administers the school meals programs federally, and state agencies (typically state departments of education) oversee and transmit reimbursements through agreements with school food authorities (SFAs) (typically local educational agencies (LEAs); usually these are school districts)  Figure 1 provides an overview of the roles and relationships between these levels of government  There is a cost-sharing requirement for the programs, which amounts to a contribution of approximately $200 million from the states  There also are states that choose to supplement federal reimbursements with their own state reimbursements  The school meals programs and related funding do not serve only low-income children  All students can receive a meal at a NSLP- or SBP-participating school, but how much the child pays for the meal and/or how much of a federal reimbursement the state receives will depend largely on whether the child qualifies for a "free," "reduced-price," or "paid" (i e , advertised price) meal  Both NSLP and SBP use the same household income eligibility criteria and categorical eligibility rules  States and schools receive the largest reimbursements for free meals, smaller reimbursements for reduced-price meals, and the smallest (but still some federal financial support) for the full-price meals  There are three pathways through which a child can become certified to receive a free or reduced-price meal: 1  Household income eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (information typically collected via household application), 2  Categorical (or automatic) eligibility for free meals (information collected via household application or a direct certification process), and 3  School-wide free meals under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) , an option for eligible schools that is based on the share of students identified as eligible for free meals  Each of these pathways is discussed in more detail below  The income eligibility thresholds (shown in Table 2 ) are based on multipliers of the federal poverty guidelines  As the poverty guidelines are updated every year, so are the eligibility thresholds for NSLP and SBP  Free Meals: Children receive free meals if they have household income at or below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive the highest subsidy rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $3 30 per lunch served, less for breakfast ) Reduced-Price Meals: Children may receive reduced-price meals (charges of no more than 40 cents for a lunch or 30 cents for a breakfast) if their household income is above 130% and less than or equal to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines; these meals receive a subsidy rate that is 40 cents (NSLP) or 30 cents (SBP) below the free meal rate  (Reimbursements are approximately $2 90 per lunch served ) Paid Meals: A comparatively small per-meal reimbursement is provided for full-price or paid meals served to children whose families do not apply for assistance or whose family income does not qualify them for free or reduced-price meals  The paid meal price is set by the school but must comply with federal regulations  (Reimbursements are approximately 30 cents per lunch served ) The above reimbursement rates are approximate; exact current-year federal reimbursement rates for NSLP and SBP are listed in Table B -1 and Table B -3 , respectively  Households complete paper or online applications that collect relevant income and household size data, so that the school district can determine if children in the household are eligible for free meals, reduced-price meals, or neither  Though these income guidelines primarily influence funding and administration of NSLP and SBP, they also affect the eligibility rules for the SFSP, CACFP, and SMP (described further in subsequent sections)  In addition to the eligibility thresholds listed above, the school meals programs also convey eligibility for free meals based on household participation in certain other need-tested programs or children's specified vulnerabilities (e g , foster children)  Per Section 12 of the National School Lunch Act, "a child shall be considered automatically eligible for a free lunch and breakfast     without further application or eligibility determination, if the child is" in a household receiving benefits through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program); FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, a program that operates in lieu of SNAP on some Indian reservations) benefits; or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) cash assistance; enrolled in Head Start; in foster care; a migrant; a runaway; or homeless  For meals served to students certified in the above categories, the state/school receive a reimbursement at the free meal amount and children receive a free meal  (See Table B -1 and Table B -3 for school year 2018-2019 rates ) Some school districts collect information for these categorical eligibility rules via paper application  Others conduct a process called direct certification —a proactive process where government agencies typically cross-check their program rolls and certify a household's children for free school meals without the household having to complete a school meals application  Prior to 2004, states had the option to conduct direct certification of SNAP (then, the Food Stamp Program), TANF, and FDPIR participants  In the 2004 child nutrition reauthorization ( P L  108-265 ), states were required under federal law to conduct direct certification for SNAP participants, with nationwide implementation taking effect in school year 2008-2009  Conducting direct certification for TANF and FDPIR remains at the state's discretion  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) made further policy changes to expand direct certification (discussed further in the next section)  One of those changes was the initiation of a demonstration project to look at expanding categorical eligibility and direct certification to some Medicaid households  The law also funded performance incentive grants for high-performing states and authorized correcting action planning for low-performing states in direct certification activities  Under SNAP direct certification rules generally, schools enter into agreements with SNAP agencies to certify children in SNAP households as eligible for free school meals without requiring a separate application from the family  Direct certification systems match student enrollment lists against SNAP agency records, eliminating the need for action by the child's parents or guardians  Direct certification allows schools to make use of SNAP's more in-depth eligibility certification process; this can reduce errors that may occur in school lunch application eligibility procedures that are otherwise used  From a program access perspective, direct certification also reduces the number of applications a household must complete  Figure 2 , created by GAO and published in a May 2014 report, provides an overview of how school districts certify students for free and reduced-price meals under the income-based and category-based rules, via applications and direct certification  A USDA-FNS study of school year 2014-2015 estimates that 11 1 million students receiving free meals were directly certified—68% of all categorically eligible students receiving free meals  HHFKA also authorized the school meals Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option in NSLP and SBP law that allows eligible schools and school districts to offer free meals to all enrolled students based on the percentage of their students who are identified as automatically eligible from nonhousehold application sources (primarily direct certification through other programs)  Based on the statutory parameters, USDA-FNS piloted CEP in various states over three school years and it expanded nationwide in school year 2014-2015  Eligible LEAs have until June 30 of each year to notify USDA-FNS if they will participate in CEP  According to a database maintained by the Food Research and Action Center, just over 20,700 schools in more than 3,500 school districts (LEAs) participated in CEP in SY2016-2017, an increase of approximately 2,500 schools compared to SY2015-2016  For a school (or school district, or group of schools within a district) to provide free meals to all children the school(s) must be eligible for CEP based on the share (40% or greater) of enrolled children that can be identified as categorically (or automatically) eligible for free meals, and the school must opt-in to CEP  Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, they are not reimbursed at the "free meal" rate for every meal  Instead, the law provides a funding formula: the percentage of students identified as automatically eligible (the "identified student percentage" or ISP) is multiplied by a factor of 1 6 to estimate the proportion of students who would be eligible for free or reduced-price meals had they been certified via application  The result is the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the free meal rate, with the remainder reimbursed at the far lower paid meal rate  For example, if a CEP school identifies that 40% of students are eligible for free meals, then 64% of the meals served will be reimbursed at the free meal rate and 36% at the paid meal rate  Schools that identify 62 5% or more students as eligible for free meals receive the free meal reimbursement for all meals served  Some of the considerations that may impact a school's decision to participate in CEP include whether the new funding formula would be beneficial for their school meal budget; an interest in reducing paperwork for families and schools; and an interest in providing more free meals, including meals to students who have not participated in the program before  The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P L  111-296 ) set in motion changes to the nutrition standards for school meals, requiring USDA to update the standards within a certain timeframe  The law required that the revised standards be based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (now the Health and Medicine Division) at the National Academy of Sciences  The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance related to implementation  USDA published the final regulations in January 2012  The final rule sought to align school meal patterns with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and, generally consistent with IOM's recommendations, increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free milk in school meals  The regulations also included calorie maximums and sodium limits to phase in over time, among other requirements  The nutrition standards largely took effect in SY2012-2013 for lunches and in SY2013-2014 for breakfasts  A few other requirements were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years  Some schools experienced difficulty implementing the new guidelines, and Congress and USDA have made changes to the 2012 final rule's whole grain, sodium, and milk requirements  For SY2019-2020 and onwards, schools are operating under a final rule published December 12, 2018  The HHFKA also gave USDA the authority to regulate other foods in the school nutrition environment  Sometimes called "competitive foods," these include foods and drinks sold in a la carte lines, vending machines, snack bars and concession stands, and fundraisers  Relying on recommendations made by a 2007 IOM report, USDA-FNS promulgated a proposed rule and then an interim final rule in June 2013, which went into effect for SY2014-2015  The interim final rule created nutrition guidelines for all non-meal foods and beverages that are sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal)  The final rule, published on July 29, 2016, maintained the interim final rules with minor modifications  Under the final standards, these foods must meet whole-grain requirements; have certain primary ingredients; and meet calorie, sodium, and fat limits, among other requirements  Schools are limited to a list of no- and low-calorie beverages they may sell (with larger portion sizes and caffeine allowed in high schools)  There are no limits on fundraisers selling foods that meet the interim final rule's guidelines  Fundraisers outside of the school day are not subject to the guidelines  HHFKA and the interim final rule provide states with discretion to exempt infrequent fundraisers selling foods or beverages that do not meet the nutrition standards  The rule does not limit foods brought from home, only foods sold at school during the school day  The federal standards are minimum standards; states and school districts are permitted to issue more stringent policies  In FY2017, NSLP subsidized 4 9 billion lunches to children in close to 96,000 schools and 3,200 residential child care institutions (RCCIs)  Average daily participation was 30 0 million students (58% of children enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  Of the participating students, 66 7% (20 0 million) received free lunches and 6 5% (2 0 million) received reduced-price lunches  The remainder were served full-price meals, though schools still receive a reimbursement for these meals  Figure 3 shows FY2017 participation data  FY2017 federal school lunch costs totaled approximately $13 6 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  The vast majority of this funding is for per-meal reimbursements for free and reduced-price lunches  The HHFKA also provided an additional 6-cent per-lunch reimbursement to schools that provide meals that meet the updated nutritional guidelines requirements

ground_truth: The Buy American Act of 1933, as amended, is the main U.S. law promoting domestic purchasing. The Act permits agencies to buy foreign end products only under certain exceptions, such as when domestic items are not available at a reasonable cost. Further, U.S. trade agreements waive the Buy American restrictions for certain products. GAO was asked to review implementation of the Buy American Act. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the federal government procures foreign products through Buy American Act exceptions and waivers; and (2) selected agencies provide training and guidance to implement the Act. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, and policies related to the Buy American Act and analyzed data for fiscal year 2017 from FPDS-NG. GAO also analyzed a non-generalizable sample of 38 contracts from DOD, HHS, DHS, and VA—the agencies with the most obligations for products in fiscal year 2017. The 38 awards selected include a mix of foreign and domestic products, as well as dollars obligated. Finally, GAO interviewed cognizant contracting and policy officials from the selected agencies. According to data reported in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) in fiscal year 2017, foreign end products accounted for less than 5 percent—about $7.8 billion—of federal obligations for products potentially subject to the Buy American Act. Federal agencies procured foreign products using exceptions to Buy American Act requirements, as well as through waivers or when the Buy American Act did not apply, as shown in the figure. The amount of foreign end products purchased could be greater than reported in FPDS-NG, however, due to reporting errors and system limitations. GAO found that 6 of the 38 contracts reviewed from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA) inaccurately recorded waiver or exception information. FPDS-NG system limitations compound these errors because it does not fully capture Buy American Act data. Among other things, the database does not always enable agencies to report the use of exceptions or waivers on contracts for both foreign and domestic products, reducing data accuracy. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considering strategies to improve Buy American Act data. The four agencies GAO reviewed varied in their approaches to Buy American Act training and guidance. DOD reports that it will have trained more than 18,000 personnel by the end of 2018. DHS reports training almost 1,400 people—approximately 94 percent of its contracting staff—as of April 2018. Some VA courses mention the Act, but none is focused specifically on implementing its requirements. HHS does not have agency-level training or guidance on the Act. GAO found that contracting officers for the contracts it reviewed face challenges implementing Buy American Act requirements. Having specific and targeted Buy American Act guidance and training can better ensure that agencies meet the Act's requirements. GAO is recommending that OMB take steps to improve Buy American Act data and that HHS, DHS, and VA improve agency guidance and training on implementing the Act. All of the agencies either concurred or generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  This bonus is not provided for breakfast, but funds may be used to support schools' breakfast programs  NSLP lunch reimbursement rates are listed in Table B -1   In addition to federal cash subsidies, schools participating in NSLP receive USDA-acquired commodity food s   Schools are entitled to a specific, inflation-indexed value of USDA commodity foods for each lunch they serve  Also, schools may receive donations of bonus commodities acquired by USDA in support of the farm economy  In FY2017, the value of federal commodity food aid to schools totaled nearly $1 4 billion  The per-meal rate for commodity food assistance is included in Table B-4   While the vast majority of NSLP funding is for lunches served during the school day, NSLP may also be used to support snack service during the school year and to serve meals during the summer  These features are discussed in subsequent sections, " Summer Meals " and " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " Reimbursement rates for snacks are listed in Table B -2   The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides per-meal cash subsidies for breakfasts served in schools  Participating schools receive subsidies based on their status as a severe need or nonsevere need institution  Schools can qualify as a severe need school if 40% or more of their lunches are served free or at reduced prices  See Table B -3 for SBP reimbursement rates  Figure 4 displays SBP participation data for FY2017  In that year, SBP subsidized over 2 4 billion breakfasts in over 88,000 schools and nearly 3,200 RCCIs  Average daily participation was 14 7 million children (30 1% of the students enrolled in participating schools and RCCIs)  The majority of meals served through SBP are free or reduced-price  Of the participating students, 79 1% (11 6 million) received free meals and 5 7% (835,000) purchased reduced-price meals  Federal school breakfast costs for the fiscal year totaled approximately $4 3 billion (see Table 3 for the various components of this total)  Significantly fewer schools and students participate in SBP than in NSLP  Participation in SBP tends to be lower for several reasons, including the traditionally required early arrival by students in order to receive a meal and eat before school starts  Some schools offer (and anti-hunger groups have encouraged) models of breakfast service that can result in greater SBP participation, such as Breakfast in the Classroom, where meals are delivered in the classroom; "grab and go" carts, where students receive a bagged breakfast that they bring to class, or serving breakfast later in the day in middle and high schools  Unlike NSLP, commodity food assistance is not a formal part of SBP funding; however, commodities provided through NSLP may be used for school breakfasts as well  In addition to the school meals programs discussed above, other federal child nutrition programs provide federal subsidies and commodity food assistance for schools and other institutions that offer meals and snacks to children in early childhood, summer, and after-school settings  This assistance is provided to (1) schools and other governmental institutions, (2) private for-profit and nonprofit child care centers, (3) family/group day care homes, and (4) nongovernmental institutions/organizations that offer outside-of-school programs for children  (Although this report focuses on the programs that serve children, one child nutrition program (CACFP) also serves day care centers for chronically impaired adults and elderly persons under the same general per-meal/snack subsidy terms ) The programs in the sections to follow serve comparatively fewer children and spend comparatively fewer federal funds than the school meal programs  CACFP subsidizes meals and snacks served in early childhood, day care, and after-school settings  CACFP provides subsidies for meals and snacks served at participating nonresidential child care centers, family day care homes, and (to a lesser extent) adult day care centers  The program also provides assistance for meals served at after-school programs  CACFP reimbursements are available for meals and snacks served to children age 12 or under, migrant children age 15 or under, children with disabilities of any age, and, in the case of adult care centers, chronically impaired and elderly adults  Children in early childhood settings are the overwhelming majority of those served by the program  CACFP provides federal reimbursements for breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks served in participating centers (facilities or institutions) or day care homes (private homes)  The eligibility and funding rules for CACFP meals and snacks depend first on whether the participating institution is a center or a day care home (the next two sections discuss the rules specific to centers and day care homes)  According to FY2017 CACFP data, child care centers have an average daily attendance of about 56 children per center, day care homes have an average daily attendance of approximately 7 children per home, and adult day care centers typically care for an average of 48 chronically ill or elderly adults per center  Providers must demonstrate that they comply with government-established standards for other child care programs  Like in school meals, federal assistance is made up overwhelmingly of cash reimbursements calculated based on the number of meals/snacks served and federal per-meal/snack reimbursements rates, but a far smaller share of federal aid (4 3% in FY2017) is in the form of federal USDA commodity foods (or cash in lieu of foods)  Federal CACFP reimbursements flow to individual providers either directly from the administering state agency (this is the case with many child/adult care centers able to handle their own CACFP administrative functions) or through "sponsors" who oversee and provide administrative support for a number of local providers (this is the case with some child/adult care centers and with all day care homes)  In FY2017, total CACFP spending was over $3 5 billion, including cash reimbursement, commodity food assistance, and costs for sponsor audits  (See Table 3 for a further breakdown of CACFP costs ) This total also includes the after-school meals and snacks provided through CACFP's "at-risk after-school" pathway; this aspect of the program is discussed later in " After-School Meals and Snacks: CACFP, NSLP Options  " As with school foods, the HHFKA required USDA to update CACFP's meal patterns  USDA's final rule revised the meal patterns for both meals served in child care centers and day care homes, as well as preschool meals served through the NSLP and SBP, effective October 1, 2017  For infants (under 12 months of age), the new meal patterns eliminated juice, supported breastfeeding, and set guidelines for the introduction of solid foods, among other changes  For children ages one and older, the new meal patterns increased whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and low-fat and fat-free milk; limited sugar in cereals and yogurts; and prohibited frying, among other requirements  Child care centers in CACFP can be (1) public or private nonprofit centers, (2) Head Start centers, (3) for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet certain requirements as to the proportion of low-income children they enroll), and (4) shelters for homeless families  Adult day care centers include public or private nonprofit centers and for-profit proprietary centers (if they meet minimum requirements related to serving low-income disabled and elderly adults)  In FY2017, over 65,000 child care centers with an average daily attendance of over 3 6 million children participated in CACFP  Over 2,700 adult care centers served nearly 132,000 adults through CACFP  Participating centers may receive daily reimbursements for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks for each participant, so long as the meals and snacks meet federal nutrition standards  The eligibility rules for CACFP centers largely track those of NSLP: children in households at or below 130% of the current poverty line qualify for free meals/snacks while those between 130% and 185% of poverty qualify for reduced-price meals/snacks (see Table 2 )  In addition, participation in the same categorical eligibility programs as NSLP as well as foster child status convey eligibility for free meals in CACFP  Like school meals, eligibility is determined through paper applications or direct certification processes  Like school meals, all meals and snacks served in the centers are federally subsidized to some degree, even those that are paid  Different reimbursement amounts are provided for breakfasts, lunches/suppers, and snacks, and reimbursement rates are set in law and indexed for inflation annually  The largest subsidies are paid for meals and snacks served to participants with family income below 130% of the federal poverty income guidelines (the income limit for free school meals), and the smallest to those who have not met a means test  See Table B -5 for current CACFP center reimbursement rates  Unlike school meals, CACFP institutions are less likely to collect per-meal payments  Although federal assistance for day care centers differentiates by household income, centers have discretion on their pricing of meals  Centers may adjust their regular fees (tuition) to account for federal payments, but CACFP itself does not regulate these fees  In addition, centers can charge families separately for meals/snacks, so long as there are no charges for children meeting free-meal/snack income tests and limited charges for those meeting reduced-price income tests  Independent centers are those without sponsors handling administrative responsibilities  These centers must pay for administrative costs associated with CACFP out of nonfederal funds or a portion of their meal subsidy payments  For centers with sponsors, the sponsors may retain a proportion of the meal reimbursement payments they receive on behalf of their centers to cover such costs  CACFP-supported day care homes serve a smaller number of children than CACFP-supported centers , both in terms of the total number of children served and the average number of children per facility  Roughly 17% of children in CACFP (approximately 757,000 in FY2017 average daily attendance) are served through day care homes  In FY2017, approximately 103,000 homes (with just over 700 sponsors) received CACFP support  As with centers, payments to day care homes are provided for up to either two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks a day for each child  Unlike centers, day care homes must participate under the auspices of a public or, more often, private nonprofit sponsor that typically has 100 or more homes under its supervision  CACFP day care home sponsors receive monthly administrative payments based on the number of homes for which they are responsible  Federal reimbursements for family day care homes differ by the home's status as "Tier I" or "Tier II " Unlike centers, day care homes receive cash reimbursements (but not commodity foods) that generally are not based on the child participants' household income  Instead, there are two distinct, annually indexed reimbursement rates that are based on area or operator eligibility criteria Tier I homes are located in low-income areas (defined as areas in which at least 50% of school-age and enrolled children qualify for free or reduced-price meals) or operated by low-income providers whose household income meets the free or reduced-price income standards  They receive higher subsidies for each meal/snack they serve  Tier II (lower) rates are by default those for homes that do not qualify for Tier I rates; however, Tier II providers may seek the higher Tier I subsidy rates for individual low-income children for whom financial information is collected and verified  (See Table B-6 for current Tier I and Tier II reimbursement rates ) Additionally, HHFKA introduced a number of additional ways (as compared to prior law) by which family day care homes can qualify as low-income and get Tier I rates for the entire home or for individual children  As with centers, there is no requirement that meals/snacks specifically identified as free or reduced-price be offered; however, unlike centers, federal rules prohibit any separate meal charges  Current law SFSP and the NSLP/SBP Seamless Summer Option provide meals in congregate settings nationwide; the related Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (SEBTC or Summer EBT) demonstration project is an alternative to congregate settings  SFSP supports meals for children during the summer months  The program provides assistance to local public institutions and private nonprofit service institutions running summer youth/recreation programs, summer feeding projects, and camps  Assistance is primarily in the form of cash reimbursements for each meal or snack served; however, federally donated commodity foods are also offered  Participating service institutions are often entities that provide ongoing year-round service to the community including schools, local governments, camps, colleges and universities in the National Youth Sports program, and private nonprofit organizations like churches  Similar to the CACFP model, sponsors are institutions that manage the food preparation, financial, and administrative responsibilities of SFSP  Sites are the places where food is served and eaten  At times, a sponsor may also be a site  State agencies authorize sponsors, monitor and inspect sponsors and sites, and implement USDA policy  Unlike CACFP, sponsors are required for an institution's participation in SFSP as a site  In FY2017, nearly 5,500 sponsors with 50,000 food service sites participated in the SFSP and served an average of approximately 2 7 million children daily (according to July data)  Participation of sites and children in SFSP has increased in recent years  Program costs for FY2017 totaled over $485 million, including cash assistance, commodity foods, administrative cost assistance, and health inspection costs  There are several options for eligibility and meal/snack service for SFSP sponsors (and their sites) Open sites provide summer food to all children in the community  These sites are certified based on area eligibility measures, where 50% or more of area children have family income that would make them eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (see Table 2 )  Closed or Enrolled sites provide summer meals/snacks free to all children enrolled at the site  The eligibility test for these sites is that 50% or more of the children enrolled in the sponsor's program must be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals based on household income  Closed/enrolled sites may also become eligible based on area eligibility measures noted above  Summer camps (that are not enrolled sites) receive subsidies only for those children with household eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals  Other programs specified in law , such as the National Youth Sports Program and centers for homeless or migrant children  Summer sponsors get operating cost (food, storage, labor) subsidies for all meals/snacks they serve—up to one meal and one snack, or two meals per child per day  In addition, sponsors receive payments for administrative costs, and states are provided with subsidies for administrative costs and health and meal-quality inspections  See Table B -7 for current SFSP reimbursement rates  Actual payments vary slightly (e g , by about 5 cents for lunches) depending on the location of the site (e g , rural vs  urban) and whether meals are prepared on-site or by a vendor  Although SFSP is the child nutrition program most associated with providing meals during summer months, it is not the only program option for providing these meals and snacks  The Seamless Summer Option, run through NSLP or SBP programs, is also a means through which food can be provided to students during summer months  Much like SFSP, Seamless Summer operates in summer sites (summer camps, sports programs, churches, private nonprofit organizations, etc ) and for a similar duration of time  Unlike SFSP, schools are the only eligible sponsors , although schools may operate the program at other sites  Reimbursement rates for Seamless Summer meals are the same as current NSLP/SBP rates  Beginning in summer 2011 and (as of the date of this report) each summer since, USDA-FNS has operated Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or "Summer EBT") demonstration projects in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs)  These Summer EBT projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals  Depending on the site and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided, through a WIC or SNAP EBT card model  In the demonstration projects, these benefits were provided as a supplement to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) meals available in congregate settings  Summer EBT and other alternatives to congregate meals through SFSP were first authorized and funded by the FY2010 appropriations law ( P L  111-80 )  Although a number of alternatives were tested and evaluated, findings from Summer EBT were among the most promising, and Congress provided subsequent funding  Summer EBT evaluations showed significant impacts on reducing child food insecurity and improving nutritional intake   Summer EBT was funded by P L  111-80 in the summers from 2011 to 2014  Projects have continued to operate and were annually funded by FY2015-FY2018 appropriations; most recently, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P L  115-141 ) provided $28 million  According to USDA-FNS, in summer 2016 Summer EBT served over 209,000 children in nine states and two tribal nations—an increase from the 11,400 children served when the demonstration began in summer 2011  Schools (and institutions like summer camps and child care facilities) that are not already participating in the other child nutrition programs can participate in the Special Milk Program  Schools may also administer SMP for their part-day sessions for kindergartners or pre-kindergartners  Under SMP, participating institutions provide milk to children for free and/or at a subsidized paid price, depending on how the enrolled institution opts to administer the program (see Table B -8 for current Special Milk reimbursement rates for each of these options) An institution that only sells milk will receive the same per-half pint federal reimbursement for each milk sold (approximately 20 cents)  An institution that sells milk and provides free milk to eligible children (income eligibility is the same as free school meals, see Table 2 ), receives a reimbursement for the milk sold (approximately 20 cents) and a higher reimbursement for the free milks  An institution that does not sell milk provides milk free to all children and receives the same reimbursement for all milk (approximately 20 cents)  This option is sometimes called nonpricing  In FY2017, over 41 million half-pints were subsidized, 9 5% of which were served free  Federal expenditures for this program were approximately $8 3 million in FY2017  States receive formula grants through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, under which state-selected schools receive funds to purchase and distribute fresh fruit and vegetable snacks to all children in attendance (regardless of family income)  Money is distributed by a formula under which about half the funding is distributed equally to each state and the remainder is allocated by state population  States select participating schools (with an emphasis on those with a higher proportion of low-income children) and set annual per-student grant amounts (between $50 and $75)  Funding is set by law at $150 million for school year 2011-2012 and inflation-indexed for every year after  In FY2017, states used approximately $184 million in FFVP funds  FFVP is funded by a mandatory transfer of funds from USDA's Section 32 program—a permanent appropriation of 30% of the previous year's customs receipts  This transfer is required by FFVP's authorizing laws (Section 19 of the Richard B  Russell National School Lunch Act and Section 4304 of P L  110-246 )  Up until FY2018's law, annual appropriations laws delayed a portion of the funds to the next fiscal year  After a pilot period, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 ( P L  108-265 ) permanently authorized and funded FFVP for a limited number of states and Indian reservations  In recent years, FFVP has been amended by omnibus farm bill laws rather than through child nutrition reauthorizations  The 2008 farm bill ( P L  110-246 ) expanded FFVP's mandatory funding, specifically providing funds through Section 32, and enabled all states to participate in the program  The 2014 farm bill ( P L  113-79 ) essentially made no changes to this program but did include, and fund at $5 million in FY2014, a pilot project that requires USDA to test offering frozen, dried, and canned fruits and vegetables and publish an evaluation of the pilot  Four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) participated in the pilot in SY2014-2015 and the evaluation was published in 2017  Other proposals to expand fruits and vegetables offered in FFVP have been introduced in both the 114 th and 115 th Congress  Two of the child nutrition programs discussed in previous sections, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), provide federal support for snacks and meals served during after-school programs  NSLP provides reimbursements for after-school snacks; however, this option is open only to schools that already participate in NSLP  These schools may operate after-school snack-only programs during the school year, and can do so in two ways: (1) if low-income area eligibility criteria are met, provide free snacks in lower-income areas; or (2) if area eligibility criteria are not met, offer free, reduced-price, or fully paid-for snacks, based on household income eligibility (like lunches in NSLP)  The vast majority of snacks provided through this program are through the first option  Through this program, approximately 206 million snacks were served in FY2017 (a daily average of nearly 1 3 million)  This compares with nearly 4 9 billion lunches served (a daily average of 27 8 million)  CACFP provides assistance for after-school food in two ways  First, centers and homes that participate in CACFP and provide after-school care may participate in traditional CACFP (the eligibility and administration described earlier)  Second, centers in areas where at least half the children in the community are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals can opt to participate in the CACFP At-Risk Afterschool program, which provides free snacks and suppers  Expansion of the At-Risk After-School meals program was a major policy change included in HHFKA  Prior to the law, 13 states were permitted to offer CACFP At-Risk After-School meals (instead of just a snack); the law allowed all CACFP state agencies to offer such meals  In FY2017, the At-Risk Afterschool program served a total of approximately 242 6 million free meals and snacks to a daily average of more than 1 7 million children  Federal child nutrition laws authorize and program funding supports a range of additional programs, initiatives, and activities  Through State Administrative Expenses funding, states are entitled to federal grants to help cover administrative and oversight/monitoring costs associated with child nutrition programs  The national amount each year is equal to about 2% of child nutrition reimbursements  The majority of this money is allocated to states based on their share of spending on the covered programs; about 15% is allocated under a discretionary formula granting each state additional amounts for CACFP, commodity distribution, and Administrative Review efforts  In addition, states receive payments for their role in overseeing summer programs (about 2 5% of their summer program aid)  States are free to apportion their federal administrative expense payments among child nutrition initiatives (including commodity distribution activities) as they see fit, and appropriated funding is available to states for two years  State Administrative Expense spending in FY2017 totaled approximately $279 million  Team Nutrition is a USDA-FNS program that includes a variety of school meals initiatives around nutrition education and the nutritional content of the foods children eat in schools  This includes Team Nutrition Training Grants, which provide funding to state agencies for training and technical assistance, such as help implementing USDA's nutrition requirements and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans  From 2004 to 2018, Team Nutrition also included the HealthierUS Schools Challenge (HUSSC), which originated in the 2004 reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act  HUSSC was a voluntary certification initiative designed to recognize schools that have created a healthy school environment through the promotion of nutrition and physical activity  Farm-to-school programs broadly refer to "efforts that bring regionally and locally produced foods into school cafeterias," with a focus on enhancing child nutrition  The goals of these efforts include increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education to school districts and farmers  HHFKA amended existing child nutrition programs to establish mandatory funding of $5 million per year for competitive farm-to-school grants that support schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs that improve a school's access to locally produced foods  The FY2018 appropriations law provided an additional $5 million in discretionary funding to remain available until expended  Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning, purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing farm-to-school programs  USDA's Office of Community Food Systems provides additional resources on farm-to-school issues  Through an Administrative Review process (formerly referred to as Coordinated Review Effort (CRE)), USDA-FNS, in cooperation with state agencies, conducts periodic on-site NSLP school compliance and accountability evaluations to improve management and identify administrative, subsidy claim, and meal quality problems  State agencies are required to conduct administrative reviews of all school food authorities (SFAs) that operate the NSLP under their jurisdiction at least once during a three-year review cycle  Federal Administrative Review expenditures were approximately $9 9 million in FY2017  USDA-FNS and state agencies conduct many other child nutrition program support activities for which dedicated funding is provided  Among other examples, there is the Institute of Child Nutrition (ICN), which provides technical assistance, instruction, and materials related to nutrition and food service management; it receives $5 million a year in mandatory funding appropriated in statute  ICN is located at the University of Mississippi  USDA-FNS provides training on food safety education  Funding is also provided for USDA-FNS to conduct studies, provide training and technical assistance, and oversee payment accuracy  Appendix A  Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix B  Per-meal or Per-snack Reimbursement Rates for Child Nutrition Programs This appendix lists the specific reimbursement rates discussed in the earlier sections of the report  Reimbursement rates are adjusted for inflation for each school or calendar year according to terms laid out in the programs' authorizing laws  Each year, the new rates are announced in the Federal Register   
Report 2: 8%) more than projected for FY2018, again setting aside FY2018 supplemental appropriations  H R  6776 would have provided $2 59 billion (6 7%) more than S  3019 , largely due to the House Appropriations Committee recommending $3 35 billion more than its Senate counterpart for CBP's Border Security Assets and Infrastructure activity  P L  116-6 included $40 00 billion in net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  The enacted annual appropriations were $1 59 billion (4 1%) more than requested, and $486 million (1 2%) more than the amount provided in FY2018  Setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding, FY2019 enacted net discretionary funding exceeded FY2018 levels by $1 55 billion (4 0%)  The total budgetary resources projected for components funded in this title were $47 82 billion, $704 million (1 5%) more than was formally requested by the Administration, and $1 75 billion (3 8%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside the FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 2 shows these comparisons in greater detail  Title III, Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, contains appropriations for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  It is the second largest of the component-specific titles  For FY2018, these components received $7 22 billion in net discretionary appropriations and $7 37 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief through the annual appropriations process  In addition to that annual funding, $58 23 billion was provided for FEMA in emergency supplemental appropriations in FY2018  Incorporating all these elements, the total net discretionary funding level for all Title III components was $72 61 billion for FY2018  The Trump Administration requested $6 19 billion in FY2019 net discretionary appropriations for components included in this title, and $6 65 billion in specially designated funding for disaster relief as part of a total net discretionary funding level for these components of $12 84 billion for FY2019  Setting aside the $58 23 billion in FY2018 supplemental appropriations, the appropriations request was $1 54 billion (10 7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018 in net discretionary funding  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $13 54 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $694 million (5 4%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $847 million (5 9%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected would be $718 million (3 8%) more than the Administration's request, but $1 29 billion (6 2%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The Senate committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6 65 billion, and offset $228 million in its Federal Assistance appropriation from unobligated DRF balances  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $13 70 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  This was $861 million (6 7%) more than requested by the Trump Administration and $681 million (4 7%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected would be $885 million (4 7%) more than the Administration's request, but $1 13 billion (5 4%) less than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  The House committee-reported bill included within these totals the requested disaster relief funding of $6 65 billion  P L  116-6 included $18 27 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  The enacted discretionary funding level was $5 43 billion (42 3%) more than requested, and $3 89 billion (27 1%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside the historically high level of supplemental appropriations  The total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 was $5 46 billion (29 0%) more than was requested, and $3 44 billion (16 5%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 3 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As some annually appropriated resources were provided for FEMA from outside Title III in FY2018, a separate line is included for FEMA showing a total for what is provided solely within Title III, then the non-Title III appropriation, followed by the total annual appropriation for FEMA  Title IV, Research and Development, Training, and Services, the second smallest of the component-specific titles, contains appropriations for the U S  Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), and the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)  In FY2018, these components received $1 57 billion in net discretionary funding, as part of a projected total budget of $5 92 billion  This included $10 million in supplemental appropriations for FLETC  The Trump Administration requested $1 53 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a total budget for these components of $6 11 billion for FY2018  The funding request was $36 million (2 3%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, setting aside supplemental appropriations, although the overall budget request was $201 million (3 3%) higher than the annual budget projected for FY2018 (again, setting aside supplemental funding)  This is due to changes in anticipated fee collections for USCIS and reorganization of most of the Office of Health Affairs and DNDO into the new CWMD component reflected in the request  Senate Appropriations Committee-reported S  3109 included $1 53 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6 23 billion  This was $115 million (7 5%) more than requested, and $79 million (5 0%) less than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected under S  3109 would have been $115 million (1 9%) more than the Administration's request, and $316 million (5 3%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  House Appropriations Committee-reported H R  6776 included $1 64 billion in net discretionary funding for components included in this title, as part of a projected total budget of $6 21 billion  This was $97 million (6 3%) more than requested, and $60 million (3 9%) more than the amount provided for FY2018, not including supplemental funding  The total budgetary resources projected under H R  6776 would have been $97 million (1 6%) more than the Administration's request, and $297 million (5 0%) more than projected for FY2018, setting aside supplemental funding  P L  116-6 included $1 62 billion in FY2019 net discretionary funding for the components funded in this title  Enacted FY2019 appropriations were $199 million (3 3%) more than was requested by the Administration, and $163 million (10 4%) more than was provided in FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Total budgetary resources projected for FY2019 are $199 million (3 3%) more than were requested by the Administration, and $400 million (6 8%) more than was projected for FY2018, setting aside FY2018 supplemental funding  Table 4 shows these comparisons in greater detail  As noted above, the fifth title of the FY2019 DHS appropriations act contains general provisions, the impact of which may reach across the entire department, affect multiple components, or focus on a single activity  Rescissions of prior-year appropriations—cancellations of budget authority that reduce the net funding level in the bill—are found in this title  For FY2018, Division F of P L  115-141 included $489 million in rescissions  For FY2019, the Administration proposed rescinding $300 million in prior-year funding from the DRF  S  3109 included $137 million in rescissions from other appropriations, but specifically directed the $300 million the Administration had proposed rescinding from the DRF to other activities within DHS  H R  6776 did not include any rescissions, although an amendment from Representative Palazzo was passed in full committee markup on a voice vote redirecting unobligated balances from the Science and Technology Directorate to the Coast Guard  Division A of P L  116-6 included $303 million in rescissions, and a provision directing that $300 million of DRF unobligated balances be used to offset new DRF appropriations  In FY2018, funding was also included in Title V for the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and a grant program for Presidential Residence Protection costs, which are reflected in the tables for Title I and Title III, respectively, as those titles fund the components that manage these resources  For FY2019, Title V of S  3109 only funded the Financial Systems Modernization initiative, and Title V of H R  6776 only funded Presidential Residence Protection costs  Title V of P L  116-6 , Division A, included funding for both the Financial Systems Modernization initiative and Presidential Residence Protection costs  The detail table in the back of H Rept  115-948 also notes the discretionary cost of several policy changes in H R  6776   Four amendments adopted in House Appropriations Committee markup resulted in a net $13 million increase in the score of the bill, which is reflected in the detail table, but not in the tables of this report  No such costs are reflected in the detail table of H Rept  116-9   For additional perspectives on FY2019 DHS appropriations, see the following: CRS Report R44604, Trends in the Timing and Size of DHS Appropriations: In Brief ; CRS Report R44052, DHS Budget v  DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet ; and CRS Report R45262, Comparing DHS Component Funding, FY2019: In Brief   Congressional clients also may wish to consult CRS's experts directly  The following table lists CRS analysts and specialists who have expertise in policy areas linked to DHS appropriations  Budget Authority, Obligations, and Outlays Federal government spending involves a multistep process that begins with the enactment of budget authority by Congress  Federal agencies then obligate funds from enacted budget authority to pay for their activities  Finally, payments are made to liquidate those obligations; the actual payment amounts are reflected in the budget as outlays  Budget authority is established through appropriations acts or direct spending legislation and determines the amounts that are available for federal agencies to spend  The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from obligating more funds than the budget authority enacted by Congress  Budget authority also may be indefinite in amount, as when Congress enacts language providing "such sums as may be necessary" to complete a project or purpose  Budget authority may be available on a one-year, multiyear, or no-year basis  One-year budget authority is available for obligation only during a specific fiscal year; any unobligated funds at the end of that year are no longer available for spending  Multiyear budget authority specifies a range of time during which funds may be obligated for spending, and no-year budget authority is available for obligation for an indefinite period of time  Obligations are incurred when federal agencies employ personnel, enter into contracts, receive services, and engage in similar transactions in a given fiscal year—which create a legal requirement for the government to pay  Outlays are the funds that are actually spent during the fiscal year  Because multiyear and no-year budget authorities may be obligated over a number of years, outlays do not always match the budget authority enacted in a given year  Additionally, budget authority may be obligated in one fiscal year but spent in a future fiscal year, especially with certain contracts  In sum, budget authority allows federal agencies to incur obligations and authorizes payments, or outlays, to be made from the Treasury  Discretionary funded agencies and programs, and appropriated entitlement programs, are funded each year in appropriations acts  Discretionary and Mandatory Spending Gross budget authority , or the total funds available for spending by a federal agency, may be composed of discretionary and mandatory spending  Discretionary spending is not mandated by existing law and is thus appropriated yearly by Congress through appropriations acts  The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 defines discretionary appropriations as budget authority provided in annual appropriations acts and the outlays derived from that authority, but it excludes appropriations for entitlements  Mandatory spending , also known as direct spending , consists of budget authority and resulting outlays provided in laws other than appropriations acts and is typically not appropriated each year  Some mandatory entitlement programs, however, must be appropriated each year and are included in appropriations acts  Within DHS, Coast Guard retirement pay is an example of appropriated mandatory spending  Offsetting Collections Offsetting funds are collected by the federal government, either from government accounts or the public, as part of a business-type transaction such as collection of a fee  These funds are not considered federal revenue  Instead, they are counted as negative outlays  DHS net discretionary budget authority , or the total funds appropriated by Congress each year, is composed of discretionary spending minus any fee or fund collections that offset discretionary spending  Some collections offset a portion of an agency's discretionary budget authority  Other collections offset an agency's mandatory spending  These mandatory spending elements are typically entitlement programs under which individuals, businesses, or units of government that meet the requirements or qualifications established by law are entitled to receive certain payments if they establish eligibility  The DHS budget features two mandatory entitlement programs: the Secret Service and the Coast Guard retired pay accounts (pensions)  Some entitlements are funded by permanent appropriations, and others are funded by annual appropriations  Secret Service retirement pay is a permanent appropriation and, as such, is not annually appropriated  In contrast, Coast Guard retirement pay is annually appropriated  In addition to these entitlements, the DHS budget contains offsetting Trust and Public Enterprise Funds  These funds are not appropriated by Congress  They are available for obligation and included in the President's budget to calculate the gross budget authority  302(a) and 302(b) Allocations In general practice, the maximum budget authority for annual appropriations (including DHS) is determined through a two-stage congressional budget process  In the first stage, Congress sets overall spending totals in the annual concurrent resolution on the budget  Subsequently, these totals are allocated among the appropriations committees, usually through the statement of managers for the conference report on the budget resolution  These amounts are known as the 302(a) allocations   They include discretionary totals available to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for enactment in annual appropriations bills through the subcommittees responsible for the development of the bills  In the second stage of the process, the appropriations committees allocate the 302(a) discretionary funds among their subcommittees for each of the appropriations bills  These amounts are known as the 302(b) allocations   These allocations must add up to no more than the 302(a) discretionary allocation and form the basis for enforcing budget discipline, since any bill reported with a total above the ceiling is subject to a point of order  The 302(b) allocations may be adjusted during the year by the respective appropriations committee issuing a report delineating the revised suballocations as the various appropriations bills progress toward final enactment  No subcommittee allocations are developed for conference reports or enacted appropriations bills  Table A-1 shows comparable figures for the 302(b) allocation for FY2018, based on the adjusted net discretionary budget authority included in Division F of P L  115-141 , the President's request for FY2019, and the House and Senate subcommittee allocations for the Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY2019  The Budget Control Act, Discretionary Spending Caps, and Adjustments The Budget Control Act established enforceable discretionary limits, or caps, for defense and nondefense spending for each fiscal year from FY2012 through FY2021  Subsequent legislation, including the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, amended those caps  Most of the budget for DHS is considered nondefense spending  In addition, the Budget Control Act allows for adjustments that would raise the statutory caps to cover funding for overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror, emergency spending, and, to a limited extent, disaster relief and appropriations for continuing disability reviews and control of health care fraud and abuse  Three of the four justifications outlined in the Budget Control Act for adjusting the caps on discretionary budget authority have played a role in DHS's appropriations process  Two of these—emergency spending and overseas contingency operations/Global War on Terror—are not limited  The third justification—disaster relief—is limited  Under the Budget Control Act, the allowable adjustment for disaster relief was determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), using the following formula until FY2019: Limit on disaster relief cap adjustment for the fiscal year = Rolling average of the disaster relief spending over the last ten fiscal years (throwing out the high and low years) + the unused amount of the potential adjustment for disaster relief from the previous fiscal year  The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 amended the above formula, increasing the allowable size of the adjustment by adding 5% of the amount of emergency-designated funding for major disasters under the Stafford Act, calculated by OMB as $6 296 billion  The act also extended the availability of unused adjustment capacity  In August 2018, OMB released a sequestration update report for FY2019 that provided a preview estimate of the allowable adjustment for FY2019 of $14 965 billion —the second-largest allowable adjustment for disaster relief in the history of the mechanism  $12 billion of that adjustment was exercised in P L  116-6 , Division A, in appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund  No other annual appropriations used the disaster relief adjustment for FY2019  

ground_truth: The "child nutrition programs" refer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in school or institutional settings. The best known programs, which serve the largest number of children, are the school meals programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). The child nutrition programs also include the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which provides meals and snacks in day care and after school settings; the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), which provides food during the summer months; the Special Milk Program (SMP), which supports milk for schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP; and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), which funds fruit and vegetable snacks in select elementary schools. Funding: The vast majority of the child nutrition programs account is considered mandatory spending, with trace amounts of discretionary funding for certain related activities. Referred to as open-ended, "appropriated entitlements," funding is provided through the annual appropriations process; however, the level of spending is controlled by benefit and eligibility criteria in federal law and dependent on the resulting levels of participation. Federal cash funding (in the form of per-meal reimbursements) and USDA commodity food support is guaranteed to schools and other providers based on the number of meals or snacks served and participant category (e.g., free meals for poor children get higher subsidies). Participation: The child nutrition programs serve children of varying ages and in different institutional settings. The NSLP and SBP have the broadest reach, serving qualifying children of all ages in school settings. Other child nutrition programs serve more-narrow populations. CACFP, for example, provides meals and snacks to children in early childhood and after-school settings among other venues. Programs generally provide some subsidy for all food served but a larger federal reimbursement for food served to children from low-income households. Administration: Responsibility for child nutrition programs is divided between the federal government, states, and localities. The state agency and type of local provider differs by program. In the NSLP and SBP, schools and school districts ("school food authorities") administer the program. Meanwhile, SFSP (and sometimes CACFP) uses a model in which sponsor organizations handle administrative responsibilities for a number of sites that serve meals. Reauthorization: The underlying laws covering the child nutrition programs were last reauthorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296, enacted December 13, 2010). This law made significant changes to child nutrition programs, including increasing federal financing for school lunches, expanding access to community eligibility and direct certification options for schools, and expanding eligibility options for home child care providers. The law also required an update to school meal nutrition guidelines as well as new guidelines for food served outside the meal programs (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines and cafeteria a la carte lines). Current Issues: The 114th Congress began but did not complete a 2016 child nutrition reauthorization, and there was no significant legislative activity with regard to reauthorization in the 115th Congress. However, the vast majority of operations and activities continue with funding provided by appropriations laws. Current issues in the child nutrition programs are discussed in CRS Report R45486, Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues.