T he Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ), which was signed into law on August 2, 2011, includes statutory limits on discretionary spending for FY2012-FY2021, often referred to as "spending caps." There are currently separate annual limits for defense discretionary and nondefense discretionary spending. (The defense category consists only of discretionary spending in budget function 050, "national defense." The nondefense category includes discretionary spending in all other budget functions. ) Each discretionary spending limit is enforced separately through sequestration. Discretionary spending that is provided for certain purposes is effectively exempt from the spending limits. This means that when compliance with the discretionary spending limits is evaluated, these special types of spending are treated differently: Adjustments . The law specifies that spending for certain activities, such as responding to a national emergency or fighting terrorism, will receive special budgetary treatment. This spending is most easily thought of as being exempt from, or an exception to, the spending limits. Formally, however, the BCA states that the enactment of such spending allows for a subsequent upward adjustment of the discretionary limits to accommodate the spending. As a result, these types of spending are referred to as "adjustments." (The reference here to "adjustments to the limits" should be distinguished from statutory changes that have been enacted since 2011 increasing the spending limits.) These adjustments are not formally made until after the spending legislation has been enacted. Therefore, references to the discretionary spending limits typically refer to the spending limit level before the permitted adjustments have been included. 21 st Century Cures Act spending exempt from the limits . In addition to the adjustments specified in the BCA, the 21 st Century Cures Act (Division A of P.L. 114-255 ), enacted on December 13, 2016, provided that a limited amount of appropriations for specified purposes (at the National Institutes for Health and the Food and Drug Administration and for certain grants to respond to the opioid crisis) are to be subtracted from any cost estimate provided for the purpose of enforcing the discretionary spending limits. As of the date of this report, the Cures Act is unique in providing a statutory exemption of this kind. These adjustments and the Cures Act exemptions complicate conversations and information related to overall discretionary spending amounts. When references are made to total discretionary spending, those figures may include spending that is provided under the adjustments authority as well as the Cures Act exemptions. However, when references are made to the discretionary spending limits, typically they do not include the spending that occurs as part of the adjustments or the Cures Act exemptions. More information is provided below on each adjustment and the Cures Act. Spending Not Subject to the Limits, Formally Referred to as Adjustments While the categories of spending described below are often thought of as being exempt from the spending limits, in fact the enactment of such spending allows for a subsequent upward adjustment of the discretionary limits to accommodate the spending. For this reason, we refer to these categories of spending as "adjustments." Permissible adjustments to the discretionary spending limits are specified in Section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Title II of P.L. 99-177 (2)), unless otherwise noted. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for evaluating compliance with the discretionary spending limits. To provide transparency to the process of evaluating such compliance, OMB is required to submit sequestration reports to Congress. In these reports, and in the President's annual budget submission, OMB is required to calculate the permissible adjustments and to specify the discretionary spending limits for the fiscal year and each succeeding year. The sections below provide more detailed information on the adjustments. These adjustments vary greatly. Two adjustmentsâOverseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and emergency spendingâhave made up the vast majority of the spending. These adjustments are uncapped and can be used for broad purposes. Five other adjustments are capped and can be used for specific programs or purposes. Two additional adjustments address potential technical issues that can arise in enforcing the spending limits. Spending Under the BCA Limits and Adjustments, FY2012-FY2018 The most recent adjustment totals provided by OMB can be seen in Figure 1 and are detailed in Table A-1 . Trends in adjustments amounts can be seen in Figure 2 . According to OMB, in the seven fiscal years since the discretionary spending limits were instituted, approximately $891 billion of spending has been provided under these adjustments. (This does not include levels for FY2019, which has not yet concluded.) Spending for OCO totaled approximately $646 billion during the period, making up 73% of the total spending permitted under the adjustments. Spending for OCO ranged from a low of approximately $74 billion (FY2015 and FY2016) to a high of approximately $104 billion (FY2017). Spending provided under the emergency spending designation totaled approximately $178 billion during the period, making up 20% of total spending provided under the adjustments. Most of this amount was provided for a single fiscal year (approximately $110 billion in FY2018). The other seven adjustments made up about 7% of total spending occurring under the adjustments. Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) Adjustments are made to the spending limits to accommodate enacted spending that has been designated as being for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (referred to in this report as OCO). There is no statutory limit on the amount of spending that may be designated for OCO, meaning that Congress and the President can together designate any amount they agree upon. There is no statutory definition of what activities are eligible to be designated for OCO. The only requirements associated with this designation are that (1) the legislation must specify that the spending is for OCO, (2) each account within an appropriations bill that will be for OCO must be designated separatelyâmeaning that an entire bill that includes several separate accounts cannot have a "blanket" OCO designationâand (3) the President must also designate the spending as being for an OCO requirement. It is not unusual for Congress to include language stating that spending designated for OCO is available only if the President also designates it as being for OCO. Further, the language typically states that the President designate "all such amounts" or none. For example, in March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) of 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ) included OCO designations for many accounts. Two such accounts are included below: Military Personnel , Army For an additional amount for "Military Personnel, Army", $2,683,694,000: Provided , That such amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Military Personnel, Navy For an additional amount for "Military Personnel, Navy", $377,857,000: Provided , That such amount is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. In addition, Section 6 of the act stated: Each amount designated in this Act by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall be available (or rescinded, if applicable) only if the President subsequently so designates all such amounts and transmits such designations to the Congress. The President then formally designated the spending as being for OCO: In accordance with section 6 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625; the "Act"), I hereby designate for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism all funding (including the rescission of funds) and contributions from foreign governments so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as outlined in the enclosed list of accounts. The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Not all of OCO spending falls within the statutory definition of defense (050). For example, in FY2017, of the approximate $104 billion of discretionary spending designated as OCO, $21 billion was in the nondefense category. Likewise, while a majority of OCO spending appears in the Department of Defense appropriations bill, it also commonly appears in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill as well as the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Emergency Requirements Adjustments may also be made to the spending limits to accommodate enacted spending that has been designated as being an "emergency requirement." There is no statutory limit on the amount of spending that may be designated for emergencies, meaning that Congress and the President can together designate any amount they agree upon. Likewise, there is no statutory classification of what activities are eligible to be designated as an emergency requirement. The only statutory requirements are that (1) the legislation must specify that the spending is for an emergency requirement, (2) each account within an appropriations bill that will be for "emergency requirements" must be designated separatelyâmeaning that an entire bill that includes several separate accounts cannot have a "blanket" emergency requirement designationâand (3) the President must also designate the spending as being for an emergency requirement. It is not unusual for Congress to include language stating that the spending designated for emergency is available only if the President also designates it as being for an emergency. Further, the language typically states that the President designate "all such amounts" or none. For example, in October 2017, the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-72 ), was enacted, which included emergency requirement designations for several accounts. One such account is included below: For an additional amount for "Wildland Fire Management", $184,500,000, to remain available through September 30, 2021, for urgent wildland fire suppression operations: Provided, That such funds shall be solely available to be transferred to and merged with other appropriations accounts from which funds were previously transferred for wildland fire suppression in fiscal year 2017 to fully repay those amounts: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. In addition, Title II of the act states: Sec. 304. Each amount designated in this division by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall be available only if the President subsequently so designates all such amounts and transmits such designations to the Congress. After this legislation was enacted, the President formally designated the spending as an emergency requirement. In accordance with section 304 of division A of the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 (H.R. 2266; the "Act"), I hereby designate as emergency requirements all funding (including the repurposing of funds and cancellation of debt) so designated by the Congress in the Act pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as outlined in the enclosed list of accounts. The details of this action are set forth in the enclosed memorandum from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Disaster Relief Adjustments may also be made to the spending limits to accommodate certain enacted spending that has been designated as being for disaster relief. The BCA defines disaster relief as activities carried out pursuant to a determination under Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Adjustment amounts permitted under the disaster relief designation are limited and are calculated pursuant to a statutory formula. Not all spending that is enacted to provide for disaster relief includes this designation. Congress may provide funds for the purpose of disaster relief but allow the spending to count against the discretionary spending limits, or it may designate the spending as an emergency requirement, particularly when the level of disaster relief being provided would exceed the amount permitted under the disaster relief adjustment. For example, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 included appropriations related to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria of $23.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund for major disasters declared pursuant to the Stafford Act. However, that spending was designated as an emergency requirement and therefore employed the emergency adjustment described above, as opposed to the disaster relief adjustment, which is capped. The formula used to determine the maximum amount permitted under the disaster relief adjustment was amended by the CAA of 2018, and, as described below, the new formula is to apply to FY2019 and beyond. OMB is required by law to include in its Sequestration Update Report a preview estimate of the adjustment for disaster relief for the upcoming fiscal year. For example, OMB included a preview estimate of $7.366 billion as the cap for disaster relief adjustment in its Sequestration Update Report for 2018 (released on August 18, 2017). Subsequently, appropriations were enacted in the CAA of 2018 providing $7.366 billion for FY2018 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund in the FY2018 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (division F of the CAA of 2018). Formula Used for FY2012-FY2018 The formula used to calculate the limit for the disaster relief adjustment for FY2018 and earlier required that the annual adjustment for disaster relief not exceed "the average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest years," plus the amount by which appropriations in the previous fiscal year was less than the average funding level, often referred to as carryover. Under this formula, if the carryover from one year was not used in the subsequent year, it could not carry forward for a subsequent year. According to OMB, this "led to a precipitous decline in the funding ceiling as higher disaster funding years began to fall out of the 10-year average formula." According to OMB, the limit for the adjustment fell from a high of $18.43 billion in 2015 to a low of $7.366 billion in 2018. Formula for FY2019-FY2021 The CAA of 2018 altered the formula for the disaster relief adjustment in ways "that will ultimately increase the funding ceiling," according to OMB. The formula for FY2019 and beyond comprises the total of the average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest years; 5% of the total appropriations provided either (1) since FY2012 or (2) in the previous 10 yearsâwhichever is lessâsubtracting any amount of budget authority that was rescinded in that period with respect to amounts provided for major disasters declared pursuant to the Stafford Act and designated by the Congress and the President as being for emergency requirements (as described above); and the cumulative net total of the unused carryover for FY2018, as well as unused carryover for any subsequent fiscal years. OMB has stated that under this formula, the potential adjustment limit for disaster relief for FY2019 would be capped at $14.965 billion. Wildfire Suppression The CAA of 2018 included a new adjustment that applies to FY2020-FY2027 for wildfire suppression. Adjustments may be made to the spending limits to accommodate enacted spending that provides an amount for wildfire suppression operations in the Wildland Fire Management accounts at the Departments of Agriculture or Interior. The law states that the adjustments may not exceed the amounts shown below for each of FY2020-FY2027. However, the law allows such an adjustment to accommodate "additional new budget authority" for wildfire suppression in excess of the average costs for wildfire suppression operations as reported in the President's budget request for FY2015, which is $1.394 billion. Unlike some of the adjustments described above, this adjustment does not require a separate ad ditional designation from the President. Program Integrity Adjustments The BCA includes two separate adjustments to accommodate spending related to ensuring that certain program funding is spent appropriately, safeguarding against waste, fraud, and abuse. While these two adjustments are separate under the law, they are often grouped together in budget totals, as in Table A-1 . Continuing Disability Reviews and Redeterminations21 As originally enacted, the BCA permits adjustments to the spending limits to accommodate enacted spending for two types of program integrity activities conducted by the Social Security Administration: (1) continuing disability reviews, which are periodic medical reviews of Social Security disability beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients under the age of 65; and (2) redeterminations, which are periodic financial reviews of SSI recipients. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-74 ) expanded the types of program integrity activities for which the adjustments are permitted. The expanded definition may also accommodate spending for (3) cooperative disability investigation units, which investigate cases of suspected disability fraud; (4) fraud prosecutions by Special Assistant United States Attorneys; and (5) work-related continuing disability reviews, which are periodic earnings reviews of Social Security disability beneficiaries. The adjustments may not exceed the amounts shown below for each of FY2012-FY2021. However, the law allows such an adjustment to accommodate "additional new budget authority" for program integrity activities in excess of $273 million. Unlike some of the adjustments described above, this adjustment does not require a separate additional designation from the President. As an example, in March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ), included related spending for continuing disability reviews, redeterminations, and other specified activities: Of the total amount made available under this heading, not more than $1,735,000,000, to remain available through March 31, 2019, is for the costs associated with continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, including work-related continuing disability reviews to determine whether earnings derived from services demonstrate an individual's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity, for the cost associated with conducting redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of the Social Security Act, for the cost of co-operative disability investigation units, and for the cost associated with the prosecution of fraud in the programs and operations of the Social Security Administration by Special Assistant United States Attorneys: Provided , That, of such amount, $273,000,000 is provided to meet the terms of section 251(b)(2)(B)(ii)(III) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and $1,462,000,000 is additional new budget authority specified for purposes of section 251(b)(2)(B) of such Act. Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Adjustments are made to the spending limits to accommodate enacted spending that specifies an amount for health care fraud and abuse control, but the adjustment may not exceed an amount specified in statute. The law states that the appropriations act must specify an amount for the health care fraud and abuse control program at the Department of Health and Human Services. The law states further that the adjustments may not exceed the amounts shown below for each of FY2012-FY2021. However, the law allows such an adjustment to accommodate "additional new budget authority" for health care fraud and abuse control in excess of $311 million. Unlike some of the adjustments described above, this adjustment does not require a separate additional designation from the President. As an example, in March 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ), included related spending for health care fraud and abuse control: In addition to amounts otherwise available for program integrity and program management, $745,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2019â¦. Provided further, That of the amount provided under this heading, $311,000,000 is provided to meet the terms of section 251(b)(2)(C)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and $434,000,000 is additional new budget authority specified for purposes of section 251(b)(2)(C) of such Act. Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123 ), enacted in February 2018, included a new adjustment for FY2019-FY2021. Adjustments may be made to the spending limits to accommodate enacted spending that specifies an amount for grants to states under Section 306 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Â§506). The law states further that the adjustments may not exceed the amounts shown below for each of FY2019-FY2021. However, the law allows such an adjustment to accommodate "additional new budget authority" for reemployment services and eligibility assessments in excess of $117 million. Unlike some of the adjustments described above, this adjustment does not require a separate additional designation from the President. Changes in Concepts and Definitions The BCA provided that adjustments may be made to the spending limits to address changes in concepts and definitions. The law requires that OMB calculate such an adjustment when the President submits the budget request and that such changes may be made only after consultation with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the House and Senate Budget Committees. Further, the law states that such consultation with the committees shall include written communication that affords the committees an opportunity to comment before official action is taken. The law states that such changes "shall equal the baseline levels of new budget authority and outlays using up-to-date concepts and definitions, minus those levels using the concepts and definitions in effect before such changes." It appears that no adjustments have been made to accommodate changes in concepts and definitions since enactment of the BCA in 2011. However, the discretionary spending limits in effect between 1991 and 2002 similarly permitted adjustments to accommodate changes in concepts and definitions. During that period, such adjustments were made as a result of a reclassification that shifted programs between the mandatory and the discretionary categories. Other adjustments were made for accounting changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 and changes in budgetary treatment and estimating methodologies. Technical Adjustment (Allowance) for Estimating Differences It is common for legislation to be enacted each year that permits an adjustment to the discretionary spending limits for that fiscal year in the event that the limits would be breached as a result of estimating differences between the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and OMB. For example, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations act for FY2018 included this provision: If, for fiscal year 2018, new budget authority provided in appropriations Acts exceeds the discretionary spending limit for any category set forth in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 due to estimating differences with the Congressional Budget Office, an adjustment to the discretionary spending limit in such category for fiscal year 2018 shall be made by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the amount of the excess but the total of all such adjustments shall not exceed 0.2 percent of the sum of the adjusted discretionary spending limits for all categories for that fiscal year. For that particular fiscal year, OMB had estimating differences with CBO, which OMB stated "would cause OMB estimates to exceed both caps." These estimating differences were $4 million for the defense category and $554 million for the nondefense category. OMB stated that the maximum allowable adjustment for estimating differences for FY2018 was $2.81 billion and that the amount of estimating differences ($558 million) was within the allowable adjustment. OMB adjusted the caps upward by the amounts of the estimating differences noted. 21st Century Cures Act Spending Not Subject to the Limits Title I in Division A of the 21 st Century Cures Act ( P.L. 114-255 ), enacted in December 2016, authorized appropriations for programs and activities related to health care, research, and opioid abuse. The act also established a distinctive budgetary mechanism related to certain authorizations that is different from the adjustments described above but has a similar effect. Specifically, the act established three accounts: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Innovation Account, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Innovation Account, and the Account for the State Response to the Opioid Crisis. The act then transferred funds from the General Fund of the Treasury to these accounts and authorized those funds to be appropriated for specific dollar amounts in specific fiscal years. Those funds were not to be available for obligation until they were appropriated in appropriations acts each fiscal year. The act further stated that when appropriations are enacted for such authorized activitiesâup to the authorized amount each fiscal yearâthose appropriations are to be subtracted from any cost estimate provided for the purpose of enforcing the discretionary spending limits. This effectively exempts any spending provided for these activities between FY2017 and FY2026 from the spending caps. Specifically, the bill provides such exceptions for the accounts and amounts shown in below. In each case, the exemptions apply only to the years included in the respective table. Appendix. Discretionary Spending Limits and Adjustments Under the BCA


T he Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) has served as the financial institution for carrying out federal farm commodity price support and production programs since 1933. It is a wholly government-owned entity that exists solely to finance authorized programs that support U.S. agriculture. It is subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The CCC mission was conceived mostly as one of commodity support, but over time it has expanded to include an increasingly broad array of programs, including export and commodity programs, resource conservation, disaster assistance, agricultural research, and bioenergy development. While CCC operates according to a large number of statutory authorities, its broad powers allow it to carry out almost any operation required to meet the objectives of supporting U.S. agriculture. This broad mandate, and its significant borrowing authority, has traditionally drawn little attention. For most of its history, CCC's responsibilities have been expanded through legislative directives such as the farm bill. In past years, Congress took actions to limit the discretional uses of CCC funds through restrictions in appropriations language. These restrictions highlight a tension between authorizers and appropriators when it comes to the use of the CCC (see "Tension Between Authorizers and Appropriators" box). While these restrictions are no longer included, questions remain about what the CCC is, how it operates, what its current uses are, and what it may be used for in the future. This report provides a brief review of CCC's unique history, funding structure, general operation, and recent issues associated with its use. Other CRS reports cover in detail programs and activities authorized through CCC. Origin of the CCC For over a decade prior to the creation of CCC in 1933, the farm economy struggled with low levels of income from depressed commodity prices and increasing costs for needed supplies and services. The first major federal effort to boost commodity prices was through the Federal Farm Board, established by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929. An inadequate and ultimately failed effort to eliminate surpluses was attempted by making loans to cooperative associations for the purpose of carrying out surplus purchase operations. Without the ability to control production, it was impossible to eliminate surplus stocks. This led to proposals to regulate the harvested acreage of farm commodities and quantities sold. The concept of acreage and marketing controls was incorporated in to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA). The AAA sought to reduce production by paying producers to participate in acreage control programs. Funding came from a tax on companies that processed farm products. Additional provisions of the law dealt with fair marketing practices and voluntary agreements between producers and handlers of commodities to regulate marketing. A financial institution was needed to carry out the newly authorized farm legislation, and this was accomplished with the creation of the Commodity Credit Corporation. Executive Order 6340 of October 17, 1933, directed the incorporation of CCC in the state of Delaware. The Delaware charter authorized CCC, among other things, to buy and sell farm commodities; lend; undertake activities for the purpose of increasing production, stabilizing prices, and insuring adequate supplies; and facilitate the efficient distribution of agricultural commodities. It was originally capitalized with $3 million appropriated by Congress. In 1936, sufficient stock was acquired to raise the capitalization to $100 million. Its capital stock remains at this level today. In 1939, Executive Order 8219 ordered that all rights of the United States arising out of the ownership of CCC be transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture. At that time, low prices became so critical for cotton and corn producers that waiting for another season for supply controls to impact the market was judged to be untenable. With the establishment of CCC, it became possible to make nonrecourse loans so that farmers would have funds to hold their products off the market until prices improve. The first loans were made to cotton farmers at the rate of 10 cents per pound, while the average market price was between eight and nine cents per pound. Since loans were higher than the market price and were nonrecourse, they could be satisfied by forfeiting the cotton pledged as collateral against the loan, they served as a form of price support and set the floor for the domestic market. Funding for these first loan operations came from a tax on commodity processing and from CCC's $3 million capital account, which was appropriated under authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Fourth Deficiency Act. Constitutional difficulties with some provisions of the AAA, and practical shortcomings with elements of the law, led to additional legislation in the 1930s that continues today as permanent authority for many USDA activities. Subsequent omnibus "farm bills" now set most of the policy goals and program constraints for farm price and income support operations that are funded through CCC . CCC Charter Act The Government Corporation Control Act of 1945 (GCCA) required all wholly owned government corporations to be reincorporated as agencies or instrumentalities of the United States. Accordingly, Congress passed the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948 (Charter Act). All CCC rights, duties, assets, and liabilities were assumed by the federal corporation, and the Delaware corporation was dissolved. According to the Charter Act, the purpose of CCC is to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices; assist in maintaining balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities; and facilitate the orderly distribution of commodities. A list of some of CCC's authorities (paraphrased from Section 5 of the Charter Act, 15 U.S.C. Â§714(c)) conveys a sense of its broadly stated powers: Support agricultural commodity prices through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations. Make available materials and facilities in connection with the production and marketing of agricultural products. Procure commodities for sale to other government agencies; foreign governments; and domestic, foreign, or international relief or rehabilitation agencies and for domestic requirements. Remove and dispose of surplus agricultural commodities. Increase the domestic consumption of commodities by expanding markets or developing new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for commodities. Export, or cause to be exported, or aid in the development of foreign markets for commodities. Carry out authorized conservation or environmental programs. Over time, Congress has authorized CCC to fund an increasing number of diverse programs and activities related to its charter (see text box below). In carrying out operations, CCC is directed, to the maximum extent practicable, to use the usual and customary channels, facilities, and arrangements of trade and commerce. Management of CCC The Charter Act makes CCC an agency and instrumentality of the United States within USDA, subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. A board of directors appointed by the President, consisting of the Secretary and seven other USDA officials, is responsible for the management of CCC. CCC officers and advisorsâalso USDA officialsâare charged with maintaining liaisons with other governmental and private trade operations on the CCC's behalf. The CCC has no personnel of its own. Rather, USDA employees and facilities carry out all of its activities. Administrative functions generally fall to the USDA agencies directed to administer the various CCC programs. The majority of its functions are administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), which operates most of the commodity and income support programs. Other agencies that administer CCC programs include the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). CCC reimburses other agencies for their administrative costs. CCC cannot acquire property or interest in property unless it is related to providing storage for program implementation or protecting CCC's financial interests. CCC is allowed to rent or lease space necessary to conduct business (e.g., warehousing of commodities). Financing CCC CCC is responsible for the direct spending and credit guarantees used to finance the federal government's agricultural commodity price support and related activities that are undertaken by authority of agricultural legislation (such as farm bills) or the Charter Act itself. It is, in brief, a broadly empowered financial institution. The money CCC needs comes from its own funds (including its $100 million capital stock, appropriations from Congress, and its earnings) and from borrowings. In accordance with government accounting statutes and regulations, CCC is required to submit an annual business-type budget statement to Congress. This is typically released annually with the President's budget request. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also plays a role in how CCC funds are administered through an apportionment process, which allows OMB to set a limit on the funds available for obligation and subsequent outlay. OMB apportions funds for select CCC programs and operating expenditures. OMB is precluded, however, from apportioning funds "for price support and surplus removal of agricultural commodities." Borrowing Authority Most CCC-funded programs are classified as mandatory spending programs and therefore do not require annual appropriations in order to operate. CCC instead borrows from the U.S. Treasury to finance its programs. CCC has permanent indefinite authority to borrow from the Treasury (and also private lending institutions) within limits set by Congress. As the amount of money needed to carry out its activities has grown over time, the borrowing limit has been steadily increased ( Figure 1 ). At present, CCC's borrowing authority is limited to $30 billion, an amount that has not been increased since 1987. CCC activity is often described using two similar but different measures. The first is net expenditures , which is a combination of outlays and receipts. The second is net realized losses , which are expenditures that will never be recovered. Net Expenditures CCC recoups some money from authorized activities (e.g., sale of commodity stocks, loan repayments, and fees), though not nearly as much money as it spends, resulting in net expenditures. Net expenditures include all cash outlays minus all cash receipts, commonly referred to as "cash flow." CCC outlays or expenditures represent the total cash outlays of the CCC-funded programs (e.g., loans made, conservation program payments, commodity purchases, and disaster payments). Outlays are offset by receipts (e.g., loan repayment, sale of commodities, and fees). In practice a portion of these net expenditures may be recovered in future years (e.g., through loan repayments). Net Realized Losses CCC also has net realized losses, also referred to as nonrecoverable losses. These refer to the outlays that CCC will never recover, such as the cost of commodities sold or donated, uncollectible loans, storage and transportation costs, interest paid to the Treasury, program payments, and operating expenses. The net realized loss is the amount that CCC, by law, is authorized to receive through appropriations to replenish the CCC's borrowing authority (see Figure 2 ). The annual appropriation for CCC varies each year based on the net realized loss of the previous year. For example, the FY2019 appropriation ( P.L. 116-6 ) continues to provide an indefinite appropriation, covering the net realized loss for FY2018, which was $15.41 billion, 8% more than the net realized loss in FY2017 of $14.28 billion. The increase does not indicate any action by Congress to change program support but rather changes in farm program payments and other CCC activities that fluctuate based on economic circumstances and weather conditions. Also, CCC's assets, which include loans and commodity inventories, are not considered to be "losses" until CCC ultimately disposes of the asset (e.g., by sales, exports, or donations). At that time, the total cost is realized and added to other program expenses less any other program income. Non-Borrowing Authority Appropriations Some CCC operations are financed through appropriated funds and are unrelated to the permanent indefinite borrowing authority described above. These activities include a specific statutory authority for separate reimbursementâfor example, export credit guarantee programs, foreign donations, concessional sales under the Food for Peace Program (P.L. 83-480, also known as P.L. 480), and disaster aid. CCC has what it refers to as a "parent/child" account relationship with USAID. CCC allocates funds (as the parent) to USAID (as the child) to fund P.L. 480 Title II and Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust transportation costs and other administrative costs in connection with foreign commodity donations. CCC then reports USAID's budgetary and proprietary activities in its financial statements. Issues for Congress Expansion of CCC Activities Over time, a number of new activities have been added to CCC's original mission, including conservation, specialty crop support, and bioenergy development. Some have suggested adding other agriculture-related activities to CCC. The idea of expanding CCC's activities generates both concern and support. Some consider this expansion to be beyond CCC's chartered purpose. Others, however, prefer the stability and consistency of mandatory funding to that of the annual appropriations process. Any expansion of mandatory funding authority, however, would require a spending or revenue offset under current budgetary rules. Although Congress as a whole makes final funding decisions, the rise in the number of agricultural programs with mandatory budget authority from the authorizing committees has not gone unnoticed or untouched by appropriators. In previous years, appropriations bills have reduced mandatory program spending below authorized levels. These reductions, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, are commonly referred to as changes in mandatory program spending (CHIMPS). CHIMPS can be used to offset increases in discretionary spending that are above discretionary budget caps. Restrictions on Use From FY2012 to FY2017, annual appropriation acts limited USDA's discretion to use CCC's authority to remove surplus commodities and support prices (see text box below). The FY2018 omnibus appropriation did not include this limitation, effectively allowing USDA to use CCC's full authority, including its discretion for surplus removal and price support activities, along with other authorized uses. USDA's ability to use its administrative powers in the Charter Act, however, may be restricted by executive budgetary rules such as "administrative PAYGO"ââthat is, the need to offset additional spending created by administrative action. Administrative PAYGO has been cited as a potential roadblock to undertaking certain CCC actions but has also been waived or not raised as an issue in other cases involving CCC. Administrative Discretion The majority of CCC operations are directed by statutory authorities that specifically direct USDA on how to administer CCC activities and in what amounts to fund them. The broad CCC authorities, however, also allow USDA a level of discretion to carry out effectively any operation that supports U.S. agriculture. This discretion has been used throughout CCC's history for a number of different purposes, including responses to natural disasters, economic conditions, and administrative priorities. The scope and scale of this discretion has traditionally been targeted to specific events, crops, or domestic needs. In the decade before FY2018, administrative discretion was partially restricted (see " Restrictions on Use "). USDA's use of the unrestricted portion of CCC's authority during this period totaled in the hundreds of millions of dollars (see examples below). This changed in summer 2018, when USDA announced that it would be taking several actions to assist farmers in response to trade damage from retaliatory tariffs targeting various U.S. products. USDA used its administrative discretion to authorize up to $12 billion in assistanceâreferred to as the "trade aid" packageâfor certain agricultural commodities. This authority was then used again in summer 2019, when USDA announced a second trade aid package authorizing up to an additional $16 billion in assistance. Congressional support for discretionary use of CCC typically varies depending on purpose. Some in Congress have questioned how USDA has used CCC, but few have advocated for a restriction or repeal of the discretionary authority in the last two years. Some Members have called on USDA to use CCC for similar assistance to industries within their states and districts. Congress did require USDA to expand payments under the trade aid program in the FY2019 supplemental appropriations. This expansion could be viewed as congressional support for the trade aid package. Conclusion CCC is a government-owned and broadly empowered financial institution that has a mandate to support U.S. agriculture. Its activities are derived from authorities granted by Congress. While it is the primary funding mechanism used in omnibus farm bills, its existence, use, and operations are frequently misunderstood and often confused with USDA itself. One reason for this confusion may be because much of CCC's functional operations support USDA's program activitiesââCCC has no staff of its own; rather, it operates through USDA agencies. These broad authorities that Congress has granted to CCC allow it to carry out almost any operation that is consistent with the objective of supporting U.S. agriculture. It is these same broad powers that make CCC the object of attention from various interest groups and from Congress. The mandatory funding nature of CCC activities makes it an attractive funding mechanism. Any expansion of mandatory funding authority by Congress, however, may require a spending/revenue offset or an amendment to current budgetary rules. Recent congressional action restoring CCC's authority have allowed for the Trump Administration's use of CCC to mitigate commodity price declines from retaliatory tariffs on a variety of U.S. agricultural products. The use of CCC's discretionary authority for the FY2018 and FY2019 trade aid packages is perhaps less controversial than the total amount authorized. Each package is close to the total amount expended by CCC annually in recent fiscal years, effectively doubling the annual net realized loss. This increase in spending brings CCC close to its borrowing authority limit of $30 billion. If the borrowing authority limit were reached before Congress appropriates the net realized loss reimbursement, all functions and operations of CCC would be suspended, including those authorized in the recently enacted 2018 farm bill. Additionally, since the two trade aid packages were undertaken using CCC's discretionary authority, no congressional budget offset was required, and administrative PAYGO was not raised. The corporation's permanent, indefinite funding authority means that trade aid expenditures are reimbursed annually as a net realized loss, thus increasing total federal spending.


T he Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) was enacted on February 15, 2019.This omnibus bill included appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), of which USDA's domestic food assistance is a part. Prior to its enactment, the government had continued to operate for the first six months of the fiscal year under continuing resolutions (CRs). USDA experienced a 35-day lapse in FY2019 funding and partial government shutdown prior to the enactment of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-5 ), a continuing resolution enacted prior to the Omnibus bill. (See the Appendix .) This report focuses on USDA's domestic food assistance programs; their funding; and, in some instances, policy changes provided by the enacted FY2018 appropriations law. USDA's domestic food assistance programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the child nutrition programs (such as the National School Lunch Program). The domestic food assistance funding is, for the most part, administered by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). CRS Report R45230, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2019 Appropriations provides an overview of the entire FY2019 Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations law as well as a review of the reported bills and CRs preceding its enactment. With its focus on appropriations, this report discusses programs' eligibility requirements and operations minimally. See CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs for more background. Overview of FY2019 USDA-FNS Funding Domestic food assistance—SNAP and child nutrition programs in the mandatory spending accounts, and WIC and other programs in the discretionary spending accounts—represents over two-thirds of the FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act ( Figure 1 ). The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently. Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget resolution process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary. Mandatory spending —though carried in the appropriation—is controlled by budget rules during the authorization process. Appropriations acts then provide funding to match the parameters required by the mandatory programs' authorizing laws. For the domestic food assistance programs, these laws are typically reauthorized in farm bill and child nutrition reauthorizations. Domestic food assistance funding ( Table 1 ) largely consists of open-ended, appropriated mandatory programs—that is, it varies with program participation (and in some cases inflation) under the terms of the underlying authorization law. The largest mandatory programs include SNAP and the child nutrition programs (including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program). Though their funding levels are dictated by the authorizing law, in most cases appropriations are needed to make funds available. The three largest discretionary budget items are WIC, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and federal nutrition program administration. The enacted FY2019 appropriation would provide over $103 billion for domestic food assistance ( Table 1 ). This is a decrease of approximately $1.7 billion from FY2018. Declining participation in SNAP is responsible for most of the difference. Over 95% of the FY2019 appropriations are for mandatory spending. Table 1 summarizes funding for the domestic food assistance programs, comparing FY2019 levels to those of prior years. In addition to the accounts' appropriations language, the enacted appropriation's general provisions include additional funding, rescissions, and/or policy changes. These are summarized in this report. President's FY2019 Budget Request Table 1 compares the enacted funding to the House- and Senate-reported bills, prior years' enacted funding, and the President's FY2019 budget request. The President's budget request includes the Administration's forecast for programs with open-ended funding such as SNAP and the child nutrition programs; this assists the appropriations committees in providing funding levels expected to meet obligations. The budget also includes the Administration's requests for discretionary programs. Additionally, it is a place for the Administration to include legislative requests. The FY2019 request did include SNAP legislative proposals. Most significantly for the FNS programs, the President's FY2019 budget request did the following: It included 14 legislative proposals pertaining to SNAP. The majority of these would have restricted SNAP eligibility and made changes to the benefit calculation. This request also proposed to replace a portion of the SNAP benefit with a box of USDA-purchased foods and to limit federal funding for states' administrative costs, nutrition education, and performance bonuses. Together, these proposals were estimated by both the Administration and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reduce program spending in FY2019 and over the 10-year budget window. None of these policies were enacted as part of the FY2019 appropriation. Some of these policies were debated in the formulation of the 2018 farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334 ), but ultimately only the elimination of performance bonus funding was enacted in the December 2018 law. It requested no funding for a number of discretionary spending programs, including the following: school meals equipment grants, which have received discretionary funding since FY2009; the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), which has received annual discretionary funding since 1992; and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which has received annual discretionary funding since 1969. Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations Accounts and Related General Provisions Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services For the Under Secretary's office, the enacted FY2019 appropriation provides approximately $0.8 million. This office received approximately equal funding in FY2018. The enacted appropriation (§734) continues to require the coordination of FNS research efforts with USDA's Research, Education and Economics mission area. This is to include a research and evaluation plan submitted to Congress. SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1) SNAP (and related grants); (2) a nutrition assistance block grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (all in lieu of SNAP); (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); (4) the cost of commodities for TEFAP, but not administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance Program budget account; and (5) Community Food Projects. The enacted appropriation provides approximately $73.5 billion for programs under the Food and Nutrition Act. This FY2019 level is approximately $540 million less than FY2018 appropriations. This difference is largely due to a forecasted reduction in SNAP participation. The enacted appropriation provides $3 billion for the SNAP contingency reserve fund. The SNAP account also includes mandatory funding for TEFAP commodities. The enacted appropriation provides nearly $295 million, according to the terms of the Food and Nutrition Act. This is an increase ($5.0 million, 1.7%) over $289.5 million provided in FY2018. (TEFAP also receives discretionary funding for storage and distribution costs, as discussed later in " Commodity Assistance Program .") SNAP Account: Other General Provisions and Committee Report Language SNAP-Authorized Retailers. The FY2017 and FY2018 appropriations law limited USDA's implementation of December 2016 regulations regarding SNAP retailers' inventory requirements, and the enacted FY2019 appropriation (§727) continues those limits. Only SNAP-authorized retailers may accept SNAP benefits. On December 15, 2016, FNS published a final rule to change retailer requirements for SNAP authorization. The final rule would have implemented the 2014 farm bill's changes to inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized retailers ( P.L. 113-79 , §4002). Namely, the 2014 farm bill increased both the varieties of "staple foods" and the perishable items within those varieties that SNAP retailers must stock. In addition to codifying the farm bill's changes, the final rule would have changed how staple foods are defined, clarified limitations on retailers' sale of hot foods, and increased the minimum number of stocking units. Section 727 in the enacted appropriation continues to require that USDA amend its final rule to define "variety" more expansively and that USDA "apply the requirements regarding acceptable varieties and breadth of stock" that were in place prior to P.L. 113-79 until such regulatory amendments are made. In the meantime, USDA-FNS implemented other aspects of the 2016 final rule, such as increased stocking units. On April 5, 2019, USDA did publish a proposed rule, proposing amendments to the definition of "variety". Child Nutrition Programs16 Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These include the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program (SMP), assistance for state administrative expenses, procurement of commodities (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations ("Administrative Reviews"), "Team Nutrition" and education initiatives to improve meal quality and food safety, and support activities such as technical assistance to providers and studies/evaluations. (Child nutrition efforts are also supported by permanent mandatory appropriations and other funding sources discussed in the section " Other Nutrition Funding Support .") The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides approximately $23.1 billion for child nutrition programs. This is approximately $1.1 billion less (-4.6%) than the amount provided in FY2018, and reflects a transfer of more than $9.1 billion from the Section 32 account. The enacted appropriation funds certain child nutrition discretionary grants. These include the following: School Meals Equipment Grants. The law provides $30 million, the same amount as FY2018. Summer EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) Demonstration Projects. These projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children in order to make up for school meals that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to Summer Food Service Program meals. The projects were originally authorized and funded in the FY2010 appropriations law ( P.L. 111-80 ). The enacted appropriation provides $28 million, the same amount as FY2018. The child nutrition programs and WIC were up for reauthorization in 2016, but it was not completed. Many provisions of the operating law nominally expired at the end of FY2015, but nearly all operations continued via funding provided in appropriations laws since that time, including the enacted FY2018 appropriation. The enacted appropriation also continued to extend, through September 30, 2019, two expiring provisions: mandatory funding for an Information Clearinghouse and food safety audits. (See the Appendix for information about the child nutrition programs during the partial government shutdown.) Child Nutrition Programs: General Provisions One general provision in the enacted FY2019 appropriation included additional funding for child nutrition programs: Farm to School Grants. Section 754 of the enacted appropriation provides $5 million for competitive grants to assist schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs. The same amount was provided in FY2018. This is in addition to $5 million in permanent mandatory funding (provided annually by Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act), for a total of $10 million available in FY2019. FY2019 general provisions also included policy provisions : Processed Poultry from China. The enacted appropriation includes a policy provision (§749) to prevent any processed poultry imported from China from being included in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program. This policy has been included in enacted appropriations laws since FY2015. Paid Lunch Pricing . For school year 2019-2020, Section 760 of the enacted appropriation changes federal policy on the pricing of paid (full-price) meals. Included in the 2010 child nutrition reauthorization, and first implemented in the 2011-2012 school year, this policy required schools annually to review their revenue from paid lunches and to determine, using a calculation specified in law and regulation, whether paid prices had to be increased. The purpose of the calculation was to ensure that federal funding intended for F/RP meals was not instead subsidizing full-price meals. For school year 2019-2020, the enacted appropriation requires a smaller subset of schools—only those with a negative balance in their nonprofit school food service account as of December 31, 2018—to be subject to this calculation and potentially to be required to raise prices. The same provision was included in the FY2018 enacted appropriation for school year 2018-2019. Vegetables in School Breakfasts. Section 768 of the enacted appropriation increases the frequency with which starchy vegetables can be substituted for fruits in the School Breakfast Program. Under current regulations, schools are allowed to substitute vegetables for the required servings of fruits (at least one cup daily, and at least five cups weekly) in school breakfasts. The regulations also specify that, "the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or 'Other vegetables' subgroups." This excludes the starchy vegetable subgroup, which includes corn, plantains, and white potatoes. The enacted appropriation specifies that FY2019 funds cannot be used to enforce this requirement, thereby allowing schools to substitute any type of vegetables for any or all of the required daily and weekly servings of fruits. Child Nutrition Program Commodities. Section 775 of the enacted appropriation changes the calculation of commodity assistance in child nutrition programs. Under current law, commodity assistance in child nutrition programs must comprise at least 12% of total funding provided under Sections 4 and 11 (reimbursements for school lunches) and Section 6 (commodity assistance) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Section 775 eliminates the inclusion of bonus commodities in this calculation as of September 30, 2018, thereby ensuring that only appropriated funds inform the required level of commodity assistance. WIC Program24 Although WIC is a discretionary funded program, since the late 1990s the practice of the appropriations committees has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all projected participants. The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides $6.075 billion for WIC; however, the law also rescinds available carryover funds from past years. This funding level is $175 million less than the FY2018 appropriation. The enacted appropriation also includes set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer counselors and related activities ("not less than $60 million") and infrastructure ($19.0 million). The peer counselor set-aside is equal to FY2018 levels. The infrastructure set-aside is an increase of $5 million from FY2018, and further sets aside $5 million for telehealth competitive grants to increase WIC access as specified in the law. The enacted law (§723) rescinds $500 million in prior-year (or carryover) WIC funds. The House-reported and Senate-passed bills also would have rescinded carryover funds: H.R. 5961 (§723) would have rescinded $300 million; H.R. 6147 (§724) would have rescinded $400 million. Commodity Assistance Program The Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary programs and activities: (1) Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the Marshall Islands) and areas affected by natural disasters. The enacted appropriation provides over $322 million for this account, no change from FY2018. Within the account, CSFP receives just below $223 million (a decrease of approximately $15 million or 6.8%); TEFAP Administrative Costs receives nearly $110 million—this includes $79.6 million in FY2019 funding (+$15.2 million compared to FY2018) as well as a transfer of $30.0 million in prior-year (carryover) CSFP funds; in addition to this discretionary TEFAP funding, the law allows the conversion of up to 15% of TEFAP entitlement commodity funding (included in the SNAP account discussed above) to administrative and distribution costs; and WIC FMNP receives $18.5 million, the same level as FY2018. Nutrition Programs Administration This budget account funds federal administration of all the USDA domestic food assistance program areas noted previously; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which provides nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides). The enacted appropriation provides nearly $165 million for this account, an increase of approximately $11 million from FY2018. As in FY2018 and prior years, the law sets aside $2 million for the fellowship programs administered by the Congressional Hunger Center. Other Nutrition Funding Support Domestic food assistance programs also receive funds from sources other than appropriations: In addition to appropriated funds from the child nutrition account for commodity foods (which provides over $1.4 billion), USDA purchases commodity foods for the child nutrition programs using "Section 32" funds—a permanent appropriation. For FY2019, the enacted appropriation specifies that up to $485 million from Section 32 is to be available for child nutrition entitlement commodities, compared to $465 million in FY2018. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) for selected elementary schools nationwide is financed with permanent, mandatory funding from Section 32. The underlying law (Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act) provides funds at the beginning of every school year (July). For FY2019, there is $171.5 million available for FFVP, which is consistent with the FY2018 base amount adjusted for inflation. The Food Service Management Institute (technical assistance to child nutrition providers, also known as the Institute of Child Nutrition) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $5 million. The Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition program receives nearly $21 million of mandatory funding per year (FY2002-FY2023) outside of the regular appropriations process. Appendix. USDA-FNS Programs during the FY2019 Partial Government Shutdown USDA was one of the departments affected by a lapse in FY2019 funding and the resulting 35-day partial government shutdown (during parts of December 2018 and January 2019). Most of USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs, whether mandatory or discretionary, rely on funding provided in appropriations acts. As a result, the lapse in FY2019 appropriations required the execution of contingency plans, including staff furloughs, and at times the operating status of programs was in flux. FNS program operations during a government shutdown vary based on the different programs' available resources, determined by factors such as contingency or carryover funds and terms of the expired appropriations acts as well as USDA's decisionmaking. Beginning in late December 2018, FNS released program-specific memoranda to states and program operators describing the status of different nutrition assistance programs during the funding lapse. In addition to the impact on programs' funding discussed below, furloughs of FNS staff during this time period may have affected program operations (for example, the availability of technical assistance) on a case-by-case basis. This appendix summarizes some of the key issues and impacts on the SNAP, Child Nutrition, and WIC programs during this partial government shutdown. Further detail can be found in the FNS documents referenced above. It is important to note that because circumstances during a lapse in appropriations and executive-branch decisionmaking can vary, operations during this partial shutdown are not necessarily how a future shutdown would proceed. SNAP Benefits States issue SNAP benefits on a monthly basis. As in the FY2019 appropriations law, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P.L. 115-141 ) provided one year of SNAP funding as well as a contingency fund of $3 billion that can be spent in FY2018 or FY2019. The $3 billion is less than the cost of one month of SNAP benefits, so the contingency fund alone would not fund a month of SNAP benefits in the case of a lapse of funding. At the start of the partial shutdown, when a continuing resolution ( P.L. 115-298 ) expired after December 21, 2018, December 2018 benefits had already been provided. In addition, during the shutdown period, a provision of the continuing resolution allowed for payments to be made 30 days after the continuing resolution's expiration; this allowed states to issue January 2019 benefits. On January 8, 2019, USDA interpreted the provision to authorize issuance of February 2019 benefits as well, so long as states conducted early issuance—before January 20, 2019. By the end of the partial shutdown, recipients had received their December 2018, January 2019, and February 2019 benefits. However, at the beginning of the shutdown, it was not clear that benefits would be provided for these months. USDA-FNS provided a series of memoranda to states during the shutdown that included answers to frequently asked questions. Child Nutrition and WIC Unlike SNAP, the appropriations language for the child nutrition programs (National School Lunch Program and others) and WIC accounts provides funding that can be obligated over a two-year period. WIC also has a contingency fund. In addition, the child nutrition programs may have more flexibility to continue operating during a shutdown because federal funds are generally provided retroactively (on a reimbursement basis). During the FY2019 lapse in funding, the Administration had carryover and contingency funds to maintain program operations. This includes FY2018 appropriations that are available for spending through FY2019 and contingency funds (in the case of WIC). Programs with this source of funding potentially available are those with two-year funding from the Child Nutrition Programs account and the WIC account. How long these operations could continue would depend on (1) the funding lapse's duration and (2) the amount of carryover or contingency funding available. Ultimately, for child nutrition and WIC programs, USDA continued operating the child nutrition programs "with funding provided under the terms and conditions of the prior continuing resolution [P.L. 115-245]"; USDA stated that the programs had enough funding to continue operating at least through March 2019 if the shutdown were to continue; and USDA continued WIC and WIC FMNP operations using funding that had already been allocated to states and, for WIC, prior-year carryover funding.