Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV): Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program due to poor reliability demonstrated during operational testing and excessive cost growth. Because the EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a "more affordable and sustainable" vehicle to replace the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner. In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Both vehicles were intended to play central roles in future Marine amphibious operations. On June 14, 2013, Marine leadership put the MPC program "on ice" due to budgetary pressures but suggested the program might be resurrected some 10 years down the road when budgetary resources might be more favorable.

Summary: In what was described as a "drastic shift," the Marines decided to "resurrect" the MPC in March 2014. The Marines designated the MPC as ACV Increment 1.1 and planned to acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked, fully amphibious version, and at the time planned to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 is to have a swim capability, another mode of transport (ship or aircraft) would be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore. The Marines are reportedly exploring the possibility of developing a high water speed ACV 2.0, which could accompany tanks and light armored vehicles into combat.

Summary: On November 5, 2014, the Marines released a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.1. On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE's contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC's for $121.5 million, and each company was to build 16 prototypes to be tested over the next two years. Both BAE and SAIC delivered their prototypes early, and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) testing began mid-March 2017. In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

Summary: On June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. The initial contract—valued at $198 million—was for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership announced that during the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions and, in doing so, met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. As a result, ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 were to be consolidated into a single variant—the ACV—which is intended to replace all AAVs.

Summary: Potential issues for Congress include the potential ramifications of the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 programs and how the possible adoption of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept could affect the ACV program.

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 5063, United States Marine Corps: Composition and Functions, dated October 1, 1986, states the following:

The Marine Corps will be organized, trained and equipped to provide an amphibious and land operations capability to seize advanced naval bases and to conduct naval land campaigns.

In this regard, the Marines are required by law to have the necessary equipment to conduct amphibious operations and land operations. The ACV and MPC were considered integral systems by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Marine Corps to meet this legal requirement, as well as providing critical capabilities to execute the nation's military strategy.

On January 6, 2011, after spending approximately $3 billion in developmental funding, the Marine Corps—with "encouragement" from DOD—cancelled the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. The EFV was intended to replace the 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV), which currently transports Marines from ships to shore under hostile conditions. The Marine Corps cancelled the EFV due to excessive cost growth and poor performance in operational testing. Recognizing the need to replace the AAV, the Pentagon pledged to move quickly to develop a "more affordable and sustainable" vehicle to take the place of the EFV. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) is intended to replace the AAV, incorporating some EFV capabilities but in a more practical and cost-efficient manner.

In concert with the ACV, the Marines were developing the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) to serve as a survivable and mobile platform to transport Marines when ashore. At present, the Marines do not have a wheeled armored fighting vehicle that can operate as a dedicated infantry carrier with Marine maneuver forces inland. The MPC was not intended to be amphibious like an AAV, EFV, or the ACV but instead would be required to have a swim capability for inland waterways such as rivers, lakes, and other water obstacles such as shore-to-shore operations in the littorals. Because of a perceived amphibious "redundancy," some have questioned the need for both the ACV and MPC. In June 2013, citing budgetary pressures, the Marines reportedly put the MPC program "on ice" and suggested that it might not be resurrected for about 10 years. Although some have questioned why the Marines cannot simply "adopt" a U.S. Army personnel carrier, Marine requirements for a personnel carrier reflect the need for this vehicle to be compatible with amphibious assault craft, as well as to have an enhanced amphibious capability, which is not necessarily an Army requirement.

With the Marines involved in decades-long land conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and proliferating anti-access technologies such as guided missiles, some analysts questioned whether the Marines would ever again be called on to conduct a large-scale amphibious assault operation. In response to these questions and the perceived need to examine the post-Iraq and Afghanistan Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy and DOD studied the requirement to conduct large-scale amphibious operations and in early 2012 released a strategic vision for how amphibious operations will be conducted in the future. The primary assertion of this study is that the Marine Corps' and Navy's amphibious capabilities serve a central role in the defense of the global interests of a maritime nation. The need to maintain an amphibious assault capability is viewed by Marine Corps leadership as establishing the requirement for the ACV and MPC (as discussed in greater detail below).

Congress is responsible for authorizing and appropriating funds for all weapon systems programs, including the ACV. In its oversight role, Congress could be concerned about how the ACV enables the Marines to conduct not only amphibious operations but also operations ashore. Another possible congressional concern is to what extent a robust amphibious assault capability is a necessary component of U.S. national security. Cost is another issue of interest to Congress.

The Marines' Justification for the ACV and MPC

At present, the Marines use the AAV-7A1 series amphibious assault vehicle to move Marines from ship to shore. The Marines have used the AAV since 1971 and expect to continue to use it until replaced by the ACV or a similar vehicle. Over the years, the Marines have claimed the AAV has become increasingly difficult to operate, maintain, and sustain. As weapons technology and threat capabilities have evolved since the early 1970s, the AAV—despite upgrades—is viewed as having capabilities shortfalls in the areas of water and land mobility performance, lethality, protection, and network capability. The AAV's two-mile ship-to-shore range is viewed by many as a significant survivability issue not only for the vehicle itself but also for naval amphibious forces.

Although the AAV has some armor protection and can operate inland to a limited extent, it is not intended for use as an infantry combat vehicle. The Marines do have the LAV-25, Light Armored Vehicle-25, an eight-wheeled armored vehicle that carries a crew of three and six additional marines. The LAV-25 is armed with a 25 mm chain gun and a 7.62 mm machine gun but is not fully amphibious, as it cannot cross a surf zone and would get to the beach via some type of connector such as the Landing Craft, Air Cushioned (LCAC). The LAV-25 has been in service since 1983. According to the Marine Program Executive Office (PEO) Land Systems, the LAV is not employed as an armored personnel carrier and usually carries a four-person Marine scout/reconnaissance team in addition to its crew. In this regard, the MPC was viewed as necessary by Marine leadership for the transport and enhanced armor protection of Marine infantry forces.

The Marines' 2011 Request for Information (RFI) to industry provides an overview of the operational requirements for the ACV. These requirements include the following:

The proposed vehicle must be able to self-deploy from amphibious shipping and deliver a reinforced Marine infantry squad (17 marines) from a launch distance at or beyond 12 miles with a speed of not less than 8 knots in seas with 1-foot significant wave height and must be able to operate in seas up to 3-foot significant wave height. The vehicle must be able to maneuver with the mechanized task force for sustained operations ashore in all types of terrain. The vehicle's road and cross-country speed as well as its range should be greater than or equal to the M-1A1. The vehicle's protection characteristics should be able to protect against direct and indirect fire and mines and improvised explosive device (IED) threats. The vehicle should be able to accommodate command and control (C2) systems that permit it to operate both at sea and on land. The vehicle, at a minimum, should have a stabilized machine gun in order to engage enemy infantry and light vehicles.

The Marine Corps' 2011 Request for Information (RFI) to industry provided an overview of the operational requirements for the MPC. These requirements included the following:

The vehicle must accommodate nine marines and two crew members and have a "robust tactical swim capability (shore-to-shore [not designed to embark from an amphibious ship]) and be capable of operating at 6 knots in a fully developed sea." The vehicle must be able to operate on land with M-1A1s in mechanized task forces across the Marine Corps' mission profile. The vehicle shall provide protection for the occupants from the blasts, fragments, and incapacitating effects of attack from kinetic threats, indirect fire, and improvised explosive devices and mines. The vehicle shall be capable of firing existing Marine anti-structure and anti-armor missiles and should be able to accommodate existing command and control (C2) systems.

Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO)

Defense officials have noted the Marine Corps is "not currently organized, trained and equipped to face a peer adversary in the year 2025" and enemies with advanced air and shore defense will make amphibious operations even riskier. To counter this, the Navy is developing the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) operational concept to address these concerns. EABO is described as follows:

Expeditionary Advance Base Operations is a naval operational concept that anticipates the requirements of the next paradigm of US Joint expeditionary operations. The concept is adversary based, cost informed and advantage focused. EABO calls for an alternative, difficult to target forward basing infrastructure that will enable US naval and joint forces to create a more resilient forward based posture to persist, partner and operate within range of adversary long range precision fires. The alternative forward posture enabled by Expeditionary Advance Bases (EABs) is designed to mitigate the growing threat posed by the abundant quantity, expanded range and enhanced precision of potential adversary weaponry—particularly ballistic and cruise missiles designed to attack critical joint fixed forward infrastructure and large platforms. EABs provide a dispersed and largely mobile forward basing infrastructure that enables a persistent alternative force capability set that is similarly designed to be difficult to target and inherently resilient. The resilient, reduced signature infrastructure of EABs, combined with naval forces designed and structured to persist and operate within the arc of adversary anti-access/aerial denial (A2AD) capabilities enables naval commanders to conduct Expeditionary Advance Base Operations to support Joint Force Maritime Component Commander (JFMCC), and Fleet Commanders in the fight for sea control, by exploiting the opportunities afforded by key maritime terrain, particularly in close and confined seas. EABO advances, sustains and maintains the naval and joint sensor, shooter and sustainment capabilities of dispersed forces to leverage the decisive massed capabilities of the larger joint force with enhanced situational awareness, augmented fires and logistical support. The EABO Concept enables US naval forces to exercise 21 st Century naval operational art, meet new enemy A2AD threats with new capabilities and operate and thrive in and around close and confined seas.

In terms of Marine Corps amphibious assault operations, the adoption of EABO could reportedly result in "an entirely different approach to amphibious assaults as well as new weapon systems." Noting that "missiles can now hit ships and landing craft while they are hundreds of miles from shore, making it far too dangerous for Marines to storm a beach with current capabilities," Marine officials are reportedly exploring ways to create temporary "bubbles" where Marines can get ashore. In response to these challenges, current and planned weapons systems might need to be modified to accommodate EABO operational concepts.

As previously noted, in June 2013, citing budgetary pressures, the Marines reportedly put the MPC program "on ice" and suggested it might not be resurrected for about 10 years. At the time of the decision, the Marines' acquisition priorities were refocused to the ACV as well as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV). Although the Marines refocused budgetary resources to the ACV, difficulties in developing an affordable high water speed capability for the ACV continued to confront Marine leadership.

In what was described as a "drastic shift," the Marines decided in March 2014 to "resurrect" the MPC and designate it as ACV Increment 1.1 and initially acquire about 200 vehicles. The Marines also plan to develop ACV Increment 1.2, a tracked version, and to acquire about 470 vehicles and fund an ongoing high water speed study. Although ACV Increment 1.1 will have a swim capability, a connector will be required to get the vehicles from ship to shore.

Plans called for ACV Increment 1.1 to enter the acquisition cycle at Milestone B (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) in FY2016, award prototype contracts leading to a down select to one vendor in FY2018, and enter low-rate initial production.

Marines Release Request for Information (RFI) for ACV Increment 1.116

On April 23, 2014, the Marines released an RFI for ACV Increment 1.1. Some of the required capabilities included the following:

... operate in a significant wave height of two feet and sufficient reserve buoyancy to enable safe operations; a high level of survivability and force protection; operate in four to six feet plunging surf with ship-to-shore operations and launch from amphibious ships as an objective; land mobility, operate on 30 percent improved surfaces and 70 percent unimproved surfaces; ability to integrate a .50 calibre remote weapon station (RWS) with growth potential to a dual mount 40 mm/.50 calibre RWS or a 30 mm cannon RWS; carrying capacity to include three crew and 10 embarked troops as the threshold, 13 embarked troops as the objective, carry mission essential equipment and vehicle ammunition; and the ability to integrate a command, control and communications suite provided as government furnished equipment ...

The RFI included a requirement for industry to deliver 16 prototype vehicles nine months after contract award in April 2016 at a rate of 4 vehicles per month. The Marines estimated ACV Increment 1.1 would cost about $5 million to $6 million per vehicle, about $10 million less than what the previous ACV version was expected to cost.

Marines Release Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for ACV Increment 1.120

On November 5, 2014, the Marines reportedly released a draft RFP for ACV Increment 1.1. The Marines were looking for information from industry regarding program milestones, delivery schedules, and where in the program cost savings could be achieved. Plans were for two companies to build 16 prototype vehicles each for testing. Companies who competed for the two contracts included BAE Systems, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), Lockheed Martin, and Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

Additional Details on 2015 ACV 1.1 RFP22

Under the provisions of the RFP, the ACV 1.1 was envisioned as an eight-wheeled vehicle capable of carrying 10 Marines and a crew of 3 that would cost between $4 million to $7.5 million per copy—a change from the RFI estimate of $5 million to $6 million per vehicle. In terms of mobility, the ACV 1.1 would need to be able to travel at least 3 nautical miles from ship to shore, negotiate waves up to at least 2 feet, travel 5 to 6 knots in calm seas, and be able to keep up with the M-1 Abrams tank once ashore.

Proposals were due in April 2016 and the Marines reportedly planned to award two EMD contracts for 16 vehicles each to be delivered in November 2016. In 2018, the Marines would then down select to one vendor and start full production.

The Marines reportedly plan to acquire 204 ACV 1.1s, to be allocated as follows:

1 st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA— 67 ; 2 nd Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC— 46 ; 3 rd Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan— 21 ; Assault Amphibian School, Camp Pendleton, CA— 25 ; Exercise Support Division, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twenty Nine Palms, CA— 25 ; and Program Manager, Quantico, VA, and Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch, Camp Pendleton, CA— 20 .

In April 2016 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration testified that the Marines' Acquisition Objective for the ACV 1.1 remained at 204 vehicles, which would provide lift for two infantry battalions. Full Operational Capability (FOC) for ACV 1.1 is planned for FY2020.

On November 24, 2015, the Marine Corps awarded BAE Systems and SAIC contracts to develop ACV 1.1 prototypes for evaluation. BAE's contract was for $103.8 million and SAIC's for $121.5 million, and each company is to build 16 prototypes. The Marines expect to down select to a single vendor in 2018. Initial operational capability (IOC) was expected by the end of 2020, and all ACV 1.1 vehicles are planned to be fielded by summer 2023. Plans are to equip six battalions with ACV 1.1s and 392 existing upgraded AAVs.

Both BAE and SAIC reportedly have a long history related to amphibious vehicles, as BAE built the Marines' original AAV and SAIC has built hundreds of Terrex 1 vehicles used by Singapore, and both companies had Marine Corps contracts to modernize AAVs.

ACV 1.1 is intended to have some amphibious capability but would rely on ship-to-shore connectors. ACV 1.2 is intended to have greater amphibious capability, including greater water speed and the ability to self-deploy from amphibious ships.

BAE planned to team with Italian manufacturer Iveco (which owns Chrysler and Ferrari). BAE's prototype would accommodate 13 Marines and travel 11.5 miles at about 7 miles per hour (mph) in surf and 65 mph on land. BAE's version would incorporate a V hull design intended to protect passengers from underside blasts and have external fuel tanks for increased safety. BAE intends to produce its prototypes at its York, PA, facility.

SAIC planned to team with Singapore Technology Kinetics to develop its prototype based on an existing design called Terrex. SAIC's version is said to travel 7 mph in water and incorporates a V hull design as well as blast-mitigating seats. It would carry a crew of 3 and can accommodate 11 Marines. SAIC's version plans for a Common Remote Weapons System (CROWS) (.50 calibre machine gun and a 30 mm cannon), which could be operated from inside the vehicle while buttoned up, therefore not exposing crewmen to hostile fire.

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) Protests Contract Awards to the Government Accountability Office (GAO)27

On December 7, 2015, it was reported that GDLS would protest the award of the ACV 1.1 contract to BAE and SAIC, claiming the Marines asked for particular capabilities and then evaluated vendors by a different set of standards.

On March 15, 2016, GAO denied GDLS's protest, noting that "the Marine Corps' evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation." The Marines reportedly stated that the protest put the ACV 1.1 program about 45 days behind schedule but anticipated the ACV 1.1 would still be fielded on time.

BAE Systems and SAIC Deliver ACV 1.1 Prototypes Early and EMD Testing Begins31

BAE and SAIC reportedly delivered their ACV 1.1 prototypes, with BAE delivering its first prototype in December 2016 and SAIC delivering its prototype in February 2017. This early delivery could potentially result in an unspecified incentive fee award for both companies. EMD testing began the week of March 13 and was scheduled to last eight months.

Marine Corps Down Select Final Proposals32

In early December 2017, the Marines reportedly sent the ACV 1.1 down select request for proposals to BAE and SAIC. Plans called for operational testing to start in January 2018, with the Marines anticipating announcing a contract winner in June 2018 for the delivery of 204 ACV 1.1s over a four-year period.

Annual Required GAO Report on the ACV Program33

In accordance with the provisions of the FY2014 National Defence Authorization Act ( P.L. 113-66 ) Section 251, GAO submitted its annual report to Congress on the ACV program in April 2018. GAO reviewed program cost estimates, updated schedules, and program assessments of test results and production readiness, and compared ACV acquisition efforts to DOD guidance and GAO-identified best practices. GAO found the following:

The first version of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV 1.1) is on track to meet development cost goals with no additional anticipated delays for major acquisition milestones. With regard to costs, the development phase of ACV 1.1 is on pace to not exceed cost goals that were established at the start of development, based on a recent Navy estimate, the ACV program office, and reporting from the contractors.

GAO recommended that the Marine Corps (1) not enter the second year of low rate production for ACV 1.1 until after the contractor has achieved an overall Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 8 and (2) not enter full-rate production until achieving an overall MRL of 9. DOD partially concurred with this recommendation but noted that it was "reasonable to proceed at lower MRL levels if steps are taken to mitigate risks."

On June 19, 2018, the Marine Corps selected BAE Systems to produce the ACV. Reportedly, the initial contract—valued at $198 million—will be for low-rate production of 30 vehicles to be delivered by the autumn of 2019. Eventually, 204 vehicles are to be delivered under the ACV 1.1 phase of the project. BAE will also produce the ACV 1.2 variant and, all told, the entire ACV 1.1 and 1.2 project is expected to deliver 700 vehicles, and, if all options are exercised, the total contract will reportedly be worth $1.2 billion.

Navy Awards BAE Contract for ACV Lot 239

In December 2018, the Navy reportedly awarded BAE Systems a $140 million contract modification to build 30 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) ACVs as part of Lot 2, with the first vehicles expected to be delivered in the summer of 2020. Lot 1 is reportedly still scheduled to start delivery in the summer of 2019.

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) FY2018 Annual Report40

In DOT&E's December 2018 FY2018 Annual Report, it was noted

During the operational evaluation (OA), the ACV-equipped unit demonstrated the ability to maneuver to an objective, conduct immediate action drills, and provide suppressive fires in support of dismounted infantry maneuver in a desert environment. The ACV-equipped unit was able to maneuver in the littorals; embark aboard a landing craft air cushioned (LCAC), transit the open ocean and surf zone, and debark from the LCAC. The ACV demonstrated water mobility and the ability to self-deploy from the beach, cross the surf zone, enter the ocean, swim, and return to the beach. Based on data from the OA, reliability is below the program reliability growth curve (58 hours Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failures [MTBOMF]). BAE vehicles demonstrated 24.9 hours MTBOMF. There were no systemic problems identified that indicate a major redesign is required. The ACV section was successful in 15 of 16 missions and demonstrated the capability to negotiate terrain in the desert and littorals, operate with tanks and light armored vehicles, and maneuver to achieve tactical advantage over the opposing threat force. ACV crews, supported infantry, and the opposing force noted that the vehicles performed better than the legacy vehicle in a wide variety of areas.

In terms of recommendations, DOT&E noted the Program Manager, Advanced Amphibious Assault should do the following:

Modify the infantry troop commander's station to make it easier to move between the hatch and seat. Assess the capability of all existing Marine Corps recovery assets to recover the ACV. Investigate options for preventing damage to steering/suspension when encountering battlefield debris, such as concertina wire.

Ship-to-Shore Requirements for the Next ACV Version43

According to reports, the Marines envisioned that the successor to ACV 1.1—the ACV 1.2—would have a threshold requirement of 12 miles from ship-to-shore. If this threshold can be achieved, it could help to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. naval vessels supporting Marine amphibious operations to enemy shore fire.

On April 10, 2019, during testimony to the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy and Marine Corps leadership noted

During the fall of 2018, ACV 1.1 prototypes demonstrated satisfactory water mobility performance in high surf conditions, and in doing so met the full water mobility transition requirement for ACV 1.2 capability. Subsequently, the Milestone Decision Authority Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN (RD&A)) approved the consolidation of increments one and two into a single program to enable continuous production of ACVs to completely replace the AAV. The next key acquisition event is the Full Rate Production decision scheduled for the third quarter of FY 2020 following Initial Operational Test & Evaluation. ACV remains on schedule to achieve Initial Operational Capability in the fourth quarter of FY 2020.

With the consolidation of ACV variants into a single variant, there will likely be a number of programmatic changes and potential ramifications for the ACV and ACV 2.0 programs.

Reportedly, the Marines plan to develop an ACV 2.0, capable of carrying 10 to 13 Marines plus crew, capable of high water speeds and deployment from ships far from the coast. ACV 2.0 is planned to be capable of operating on land alongside tanks and light armored vehicles. According to the Marines

ACV 2.0 serves as a conceptual placeholder for a future Decision Point (~ 2025, or sooner) at which time knowledge gained in the fielding and employment of the first phase of ACV (1.1 and 1.2), the state of the naval connector strategy, and science & technology work towards a high water speed capable self-deploying vehicle will support an informed decision.

Department of Defense FY2020 Budget Request47

The FY2020 presidential budget request includes RDT&E and Procurement funding requests in the Base Budget, as well as FY2020 requested quantities. The Marines did not request ACV Overseas Contingency operations (OCO) funding in FY2020.

According to DOD, the FY2020 ACV budget request will fund

The ACV 1.1 Full Rate Production (FRP) Lot 3 of 56 vehicles, plus procurement of related items such as production support, systems engineering, program management, Engineering Change Orders (ECOs), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and integrated logistics support. Research and Development efforts include the procurement of ACV 1.2 MRV test articles, associated GFE, and initiation of a Vehicle Protective System trade study and integration efforts.

The Consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 Programs

While from an overall programmatic perspective, the consolidation of the ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 variants could be viewed as a favourable programmatic outcome, there are likely ramifications that might be of interest to policymakers. Potential issues include the following:

Will the consolidation of ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 result in an overall cost savings? Will this consolidation permit the acquisition of additional ACVs because of potential cost savings? With the consolidation and the stated intent to replace AAVs, what is the revised timeline for the replacement of AAVs and will this result in cost savings from not having to upgrade and maintain AAVs longer than previously intended? How will the consolidation of ACV 1.1 and ACV 1.2 affect the ACV 2.0 program?

Expeditionary Advance Base Operations and the ACV

If the Navy and Marine Corps decide to adopt Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) as an operational concept, it could possibly have implications for the ACV program, including the following:

At the weapon systems level, would EABO require any changes to the vehicles themselves, such as enhanced survivability, lethality, or Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) features? If changes are required to facilitate EABO, how would this affect the program's overall acquisition timeline and cost? If EABO does not require any technical changes in the ACV program, would the adoption of EABO modify the Marines' current procurement quantities of ACVs? If EABO requires different procurement quantities for the different ACV versions (more or fewer), how might this affect program timelines and program costs?


Debt Limit Legislation: The House “Gephardt Rule”

Summary: At the beginning of the 116th Congress, the House adopted a standing rule that would provide for legislation suspending the statutory debt limit to be considered as passed by the House, without a separate vote, when the House adopts the budget resolution for a fiscal year. This House rule is similar to a previous one related to the debt limit (commonly referred to as the "Gephardt rule," named after its original sponsor, former Representative Richard Gephardt), which was first adopted in 1979 but was repealed at the beginning of the 112th Congress in 2011.

Summary: The House may also consider debt limit legislation without resorting to the new debt limit rule (and also did so under the former Gephardt rule) either as freestanding legislation, as part of another measure, or as part of a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate does not have (and has never had) a comparable procedure. If it chooses under the new rule to consider such debt-limit legislation, it would do so under its regular legislative process.

Summary: This report first explains the current House debt limit rule, particularly in relation to the former Gephardt rule. Then, it describes the legislative history of the former rule and reviews how the former rule operated before it was repealed at the beginning of the 112th Congress.

Summary: Under the former Gephardt rule, in 11 of the 31 years between 1980 and 2010, the rule was either suspended (1988, 1990-1991, 1994-1997, and 1999-2000) or repealed (2001-2002) by the House. In most years in which the rule was suspended, legislation changing the statutory limit was not necessary—that is, at the time, the existing public debt limit was expected to be sufficient.

Summary: During the years in which the rule applied (i.e., in the remaining 20 of the 31 years between 1980 and 2010), the rule led to the automatic engrossment of 20 House joint resolutions increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. In effect, under the rule, in these cases, the House was able to initiate legislation increasing the level of the public debt limit without a separate, direct vote on the legislation. Of these 20 joint resolutions, 15 became law. In 10 of these 15 cases, the Senate passed the measure without change, allowing it to be sent to the President for his signature without any further action by the House. In the remaining 5 cases, the Senate amended the rule-initiated legislation, requiring the House to vote on the amended legislation before it could be sent to the President.

Summary: During this period, the House also originated and considered debt limit legislation without resorting to the Gephardt rule either as freestanding legislation, as part of another measure, or as part of a budget reconciliation bill. Of the 47 public debt limit changes enacted into law during the period 1980-2010, 32 were enacted without resorting to the Gephardt rule, each requiring the House to vote on such legislation.

Summary: In total, between 1980 and 2010, the rule effectively allowed the House to avoid a separate, direct vote on 10 of the 47 measures changing the debt limit that were ultimately enacted into law.

Summary: This report updates the previous one (dated July 27, 2015) with a description of the changes to the former rule.

Essentially all of the outstanding debt of the federal government is subject to a statutory limit, which is set forth as a dollar limitation in 31 U.S.C. 3101(b). From time to time, Congress considers and passes legislation to adjust or suspend this limit. Legislation adjusting the debt limit takes the form of an amendment to 31 U.S.C. 3101(b), usually striking the current dollar limitation and inserting a new one. In recent years, such legislation has taken the form of suspending the debt limit through a date certain with an increase to the dollar limit made administratively at the end of the suspension period.

At the beginning of the 116 th Congress, the House adopted a standing rule that would provide for legislation suspending the statutory debt limit to be considered as passed by the House, without a separate vote, when the House adopts the budget resolution for a fiscal year. This House rule is similar to a previous one related to the debt limit (commonly referred to as the "Gephardt rule," named after its original sponsor, former Representative Richard Gephardt), which was first adopted in 1979 but was repealed at the beginning of the 112 th Congress in 2011.

The House may also consider debt limit legislation without resorting to the new debt limit rule (and also did so under the former Gephardt rule) either as freestanding legislation, as part of another measure, or as part of a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate does not have (and has never had) a comparable procedure. If it chooses under the new rule to consider such debt limit legislation, it would do so under its regular legislative process.

This report first explains the current House debt limit rule, particularly in relation to the former Gephardt rule. Then, it describes the legislative history of the former rule and reviews how the former rule operated before it was repealed at the beginning of the 112 th Congress.

House Rule XXVIII requires that the House clerk, when the House adopts the budget resolution for a fiscal year, automatically engross and transmit to the Senate a joint resolution suspending the public debt limit through the end of that year. In other words, such legislation suspending the debt limit would be passed by the House without a separate vote on the debt limit legislation. Instead of a separate vote, the rule stipulates that the vote on the budget resolution is to be considered as the vote on the debt legislation.

The new House debt limit rule differs from the former rule in two respects. First, under the new rule, the debt limit legislation is passed and sent to the Senate when the House adopts the budget resolution, not when the House and Senate agree to the budget resolution. Second, the debt legislation would suspend the debt limit, not explicitly set a new debt limit. Under the former rule, the debt limit legislation would provide for a specific new debt limit, indicating the amount by which the debt limit would be increased. In contrast, as a suspension of the debt limit, the new rule would provide for legislation that accommodates the variability of federal collections and past obligations but retain the ability of Congress to revisit the effects of such revenues and existing obligations.

The current rule, as well as the former rule, does not affect the House Ways and Means Committee's exclusive jurisdiction over debt limit legislation.

The full text of the current debt limit rule is provided in the Appendix .

Legislative History of the Gephardt Rule

The Gephardt rule, initially codified as Rule XLIX of the Standing Rules of the House of Representatives, was established by P.L. 96-78 (93 Stat. 589-591), an act to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit. The House adopted the legislation ( H.R. 5369 ) by a vote of 219-198 on September 26, 1979.

During consideration of the measure, Representative Gephardt explained that the purpose of the new House rule was to place the consideration of the public debt limit within the context of the overall budget policies contained in the annual budget resolution. In addition, it was intended to reduce the amount of time spent and the number of votes in the House and in committees on the issue of raising the public debt limit.

One of the aggregate amounts required to be included in the annual budget resolution is the appropriate level of the public debt. The budget resolution, however, does not become law. Therefore, the enactment of subsequent legislation is necessary in order to change the statutory limit on the public debt. The Gephardt rule enables the House to combine the finalization of the budget resolution and the origination of debt limit legislation into a single step.

Representative Gephardt stated that the new automatic engrossment process

puts the consideration of the appropriate level for the debt ceiling where it legitimately and logically belongs. That is in the context of when we vote for the spending that creates the need to change the debt ceiling.

In its original form, the rule required the engrossment of a joint resolution changing the temporary public debt limit. In 1983, the separate temporary and permanent statutory limits on the public debt were combined into one permanent statutory limit ( P.L. 98-34 ). Subsequently, the House amended the Gephardt rule to reflect this change by agreeing to H.Res. 241 (98 th Congress) by voice vote on June 23, 1983. Under the modified rule, the automatically engrossed joint resolution would contain a change to the permanent statutory limit. In addition to this modification, the rules change

also provided that where a budget resolution contains more than one public debt limit figure (for the current and the next fiscal year), only one joint resolution be engrossed, containing the debt limit figure for the current fiscal year with a time limitation, and the debt limit figure for the following fiscal year as the permanent limit.

During consideration of H.Res. 241 , Representative Butler C. Derrick explained the limitation of a single joint resolution by stating the following:

The Committee on Rules ... believes that it is unnecessary and confusing to have ... a single concurrent resolution on the budget trigger the engrossment and passage of two separate joint resolutions to increase or decrease the public debt [limit].

At the beginning of the 106 th Congress (1999-2000), the House recodified the rule as House Rule XXIII. Certain language was deleted and modified from the existing rule, but the revisions were intended to continue the automatic engrossment process "without substantive change."

The House repealed the rule at the beginning of the 107 th Congress (2001-2002). On the opening day of the 108 th Congress (2003-2004), however, the House reinstated this automatic engrossing process as a new rule, Rule XXVII. The reinstated rule contained the same language as Rule XXIII of the 106 th Congress.

The rule was redesignated (without change) as Rule XXVIII during the 110 th Congress upon the enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 ( S. 1 , P.L. 110-81 , September 14, 2007, see Section 301(a)).

Finally, as noted above, the House repealed the previous rule at the beginning of the 112 th Congress (2011-2012). More recently, the House restored and revised the rule at the beginning of the 116 th Congress.

Table 1 provides information on the joint resolutions changing the public debt limit that were engrossed and deemed passed by the House pursuant to the Gephardt rule during calendar years 1980-2010.

The rule, however, did not operate in all of these years. In 11 of the 31 years between 1980 and 2010, the rule was either suspended (1988, 1990-1991, 1994-1997, and 1999-2000) or repealed (2001-2002) by the House. In most cases, the House suspended the rule because legislation changing the statutory limit was not necessary. At the time, the existing public debt limit was expected to be sufficient. In three cases, the House passed or was expected to pass separate legislation to increase the statutory limit. As noted above, the rule was repealed at the beginning of the 107 th Congress and therefore did not apply in 2001 and 2002.

During the remaining 20 years, when the rule was in effect, the House originated 20 joint resolutions under this procedure. The first seven of these 20 joint resolutions were generated under the Gephardt rule in its original form. As mentioned above, the rule was modified in 1983. It generally remained in this form through 2010. The subsequent 13 joint resolutions were generated under this modified language. In four years (calendar years 1998, 2004, 2006, and 2010), while the rule was in effect, the House and Senate did not agree to a conference report on the budget resolution, and therefore the automatic engrossment process under the Gephardt rule was not used.

As Table 1 shows, although budget resolutions adopted during this period contained debt limit amounts for between three and 11 different fiscal years—as the time frame of each budget resolution dictated—the joint resolutions automatically engrossed under the Gephardt rule contained debt limit amounts for only one or two fiscal years, depending on the requirements of the rule at the time. The 1983 modification, as noted above, provided that the automatically engrossed joint resolution could include multiple debt limit increases—one temporary and another permanent. The first three of the 11 joint resolutions automatically engrossed pursuant to this modified version of the rule contained two different public debt limits, and the other eight contained a single public debt limit.

The Senate passed 16 of the 20 joint resolutions automatically engrossed pursuant to the Gephardt rule, passing 10 without amendment and six with amendments. The 10 joint resolutions passed without amendment were sent to the President and signed into law. The six joint resolutions amended by the Senate required a vote of the House before being sent to the President. Five of these ultimately became law. Of the remaining four joint resolutions, the Senate began consideration on one but came to no resolution on it, and it took no action on three.

Between 1980 and 2010, a total of 47 public debt limit changes were signed into law as independent measures or as part of other legislation. The Gephardt rule originated less than a third of these changes. That is, over two-thirds of the 47 public debt limit changes enacted into law during this period originated by procedures other than the House rule, each requiring the House to vote on such legislation. However, the rule effectively allowed the House to avoid a separate, direct vote on 10 (or 21%) of the 47 measures changing the debt limit that were ultimately enacted into law.

Appendix. Text of Current House Debt Limit Rule

1. Upon adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on the budget under section 301 or 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Clerk shall prepare an engrossment of a joint resolution suspending the statutory limit on the public debt in the form prescribed in clause 2. Upon engrossment of the joint resolution, the vote by which the concurrent resolution on the budget was adopted by the House shall also be considered as a vote on passage of the joint resolution in the House, and the joint resolution shall be considered as passed by the House and duly certified and examined. The engrossed copy shall be signed by the Clerk and transmitted to the Senate for further legislative action.

2. The matter after the resolving clause in a joint resolution described in clause 1 shall be as follows: 'Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply for the period beginning on the date of enactment and ending on September 30, .' with the blank being filled with the budget year for the concurrent resolution.

3. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as limiting or otherwise affecting—

(a) the power of the House or the Senate to consider and pass bills or joint resolutions, without regard to the procedures under clause 1, that would change the statutory limit on the public debt; or

(b) the rights of Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, or committees with respect to the introduction, consideration, and reporting of such bills or joint resolutions.

4. In this rule the term 'statutory limit on the public debt' means the maximum face amount of obligations issued under authority of chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and obligations guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States (except such guaranteed obligations as may be held by the Secretary of the Treasury), as determined under section 3101(b) of such title after the application of section 3101(a) of such title, that may be outstanding at any one time.


Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues

Summary: The term child nutrition programs refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in institutional settings. These include the school meals programs—the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program—as well as the Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.

Summary: The most recent child nutrition reauthorization, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), made a number of changes to the child nutrition programs. In some cases, these changes spurred debate during the law's implementation, particularly in regard to updated nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created by the HHFKA expired. Efforts to reauthorize the child nutrition programs in the 114th Congress, while not completed, considered several related issues and prompted further discussion about the programs. There were no substantial reauthorization attempts in the 115th Congress.

Summary: Current issues discussed in this report include the following:

Summary: Nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. The HHFKA required USDA to update the nutrition standards for school meals and other foods sold in schools. USDA issued final rules on these standards in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Some schools had difficulty implementing the nutrition standards, and USDA and Congress have taken actions to change certain parts of the standards related to whole grains, sodium, and milk.

Summary: Offerings in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). There have been debates recently over whether the FFVP should include processed and preserved fruits and vegetables, including canned, dried, and frozen items. Currently, statute permits only fresh offerings.

Summary: "Buy American" requirements for school meals. The school meals programs' authorizing laws require schools to source foods domestically, with some exceptions, under Buy American requirements. Efforts both to tighten and loosen these requirements have been made in recent years. The enacted 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) instructed USDA to "enforce full compliance" with the Buy American requirements and report to Congress within 180 days of enactment.

Summary: Congregate feeding in summer meals. Under current law, children must consume summer meals on-site. This is known as the "congregate feeding" requirement. Starting in 2010, Congress funded demonstration projects, including the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration, to test alternatives to congregate feeding in summer meals. Congress has increased funding for Summer EBT in recent appropriations cycles and there have been discussions about whether to continue or expand the program.

Summary: Implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). The HHFKA created CEP, an option for qualifying schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all students. Because income-based applications for school meals are no longer required in schools adopting CEP, its implementation has created data issues for federal and state programs relying on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data.

Summary: Unpaid meal costs and "lunch shaming." The issue of students not paying for meals and schools' handling of these situations has received increasing attention. Some schools have adopted what some term as "lunch shaming" practices, including throwing away a student's selected hot meal and providing a cold meal alternative when a student does not pay. Congress and USDA have taken actions recently to reduce instances of student nonpayment and stigmatization.

Summary: Paid lunch pricing. One result of new requirements in the HHFKA was price increases for paid (full price) lunches in many schools. Attempts have been made—some successfully—to loosen these "paid lunch equity" requirements in recent years.

The term child nutrition programs refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food to children in institutional settings. The largest are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP), which subsidize free, reduced-price, and full-price meals in participating schools. Also operating in schools, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funding for fruit and vegetable snacks in participating elementary schools, and the Special Milk Program provides support for milk in schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP. Other child nutrition programs include the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals and snacks in child care and after-school settings, and the Summer Food Service Program, which provides food during the summer months.

The child nutrition programs were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296 ). On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created or extended by the HHFKA expired. However, these expirations had a minimal impact on program operations, as the child nutrition programs have continued with funding provided by annual appropriations acts.

In the 114 th Congress, lawmakers began but did not complete child nutrition reauthorization, which refers to the process of reauthorizing and potentially making changes to multiple permanent statutes—the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, and sometimes Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. Both committees of jurisdiction—the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce—reported reauthorization legislation ( S. 3136 and H.R. 5003 , respectively). This legislation died at the end of the 114 th Congress, as is the case for any bill that has not yet passed both chambers and been sent to the President at the end of a Congress. There were no significant child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the 115 th Congress; however, 2018 farm bill proposals and the final enacted bill included a few provisions related to child nutrition programs.

The implementation of the HHFKA, child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the 114 th Congress, and the child nutrition-related topics raised during 2018 farm bill negotiations have raised issues that may be relevant for Congress in future reauthorization efforts or other policymaking opportunities. These issues often relate to the content and type of foods served in schools: for example, the nutritional quality of foods and whether foods are domestically sourced. Other issues relate to access, including alternatives to on-site consumption in summer meals and implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision, an option to provide free meals to all students in certain schools. Stakeholders in these issues commonly include school food authorities (SFAs; school food service departments that generally operate at the school district level), hunger and nutrition-focused advocacy organizations, and food industry organizations, among others.

This report provides an overview of these and other current issues in the child nutrition programs. It does not cover every issue, but rather provides a high-level review of some recent issues raised by Congress and/or program stakeholders, drawing examples from legislative proposals in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses . References to CRS reports with more detailed information or analysis on specific issues are provided where applicable, including the following:

For an overview of the structure and functions of the child nutrition programs, see CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer . For more information on the child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the 114 th Congress, see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview . For a summary of the HHFKA, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296 .

Nutrition Standards for School Meals and Snacks

School meals must meet certain requirements to be eligible for federal reimbursement, including nutritional requirements. These nutrition standards were last updated following the enactment of the HHFKA, which required USDA to update the standards for school meals and create new nutrition standards for "competitive" foods (e.g., foods sold in vending machines, a la carte lines, and snack bars) within a specified timeframe. Specifically, the law required USDA to issue proposed regulations for competitive foods nutrition standards within one year after enactment and for school meals nutrition standards within 18 months after enactment. The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance. The nutrition standards in the HHFKA were championed by a variety of organizations and stakeholders, including nutrition and public health advocacy organizations, food and beverage companies, school nutrition officials, retired military leaders, and then-First Lady Michelle Obama.

The precise nutritional requirements were largely written in the subsequent regulations, not the HHFKA. USDA-FNS published the final rule for school meals in January 2012 and the final rule for competitive foods in July 2016. As required by law, the nutrition standards were based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (now the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies). For school meals, the updated standards increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school lunches and breakfasts. They also instituted limits on calories, sodium, whole grains, and proteins in meals and restricted milk to low-fat (unflavored) and fat-free (flavored or unflavored) varieties. Other requirements included a provision that senior high school students must select a half-serving of fruits or vegetables with a reimbursable meal. Similarly, the nutrition standards for competitive foods limited calories, sodium, and fat in foods sold outside of meals, among other requirements. The standards applied only to non-meal foods and beverages sold during the school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal) and include some exceptions for fundraisers.

The meal standards began phasing in during school year (SY) 2012-2013, and the competitive foods standards took effect in SY2014-2015. However, sodium limits and certain whole grain requirements for school meals were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years. Some schools experienced challenges implementing the changes, reporting difficulty obtaining whole grain and low-sodium products, issues with student acceptance of foods, reduced participation, increased costs, and increased food waste. These accounts were shared in news stories and by the School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national, nonprofit professional and advocacy organization representing school nutrition professionals. Studies by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and USDA confirmed that many of these issues were present in SY2012-2013 and SY2013-2014, the first two years of implementation. SNA advocated for certain changes to the standards, while other groups called for maintaining the standards, arguing that they were necessary for children's health and that implementation challenges were easing with time.

In January 2014, USDA removed weekly limits on grains and protein. Then, in the FY2015, FY2016, and FY2017 appropriations laws, Congress enacted provisions that loosened the milk, whole grain, and/or sodium requirements from SY2015-2016 through SY2017-2018. USDA implemented similar changes for SY2018-2019 in an interim final rule. In December 2018, USDA published a final rule that indefinitely changes these three aspects of the standards starting in SY2019-2020. Specifically, the rule

allows all SFAs to offer flavored, low-fat (1%) milk as part of school meals and as beverages sold in schools, and requires unflavored milk to be offered alongside flavored milk in school meals; requires SFAs to adhere to a 50% whole grain-rich requirement (the original regulations required 100% whole grain-rich starting in SY2014-2015); states may make exemptions to allow SFAs to offer nonwhole grain-rich products; and maintains Target 1 sodium limits from SY2019-2020 through SY2023-2024, implements Target 2 limits starting in SY2024-2025 and thereafter, and eliminates Target 3 limits (the strictest target).

Table 2 provides a timeline from the 2012 final rule to the 2018 final rule, showing the ways in which milk, whole grain, and sodium requirements have been modified over time. Apart from these changes, the nutrition standards for school meals remain largely intact. The changes to the milk requirements also affect other beverages sold in schools; otherwise, the nutrition standards for competitive foods have not been changed substantially.

Legislative proposals related to the nutrition standards were considered in the 115 th Congress. For example, the House-passed version of 2018 farm bill (one version of H.R. 2 ) would have required USDA to review and revise the nutrition standards for school meals and competitive foods. According to the bill, the revisions would have had to ensure that the standards, particularly those related to milk, "(1) are based on research based on school-age children; (2) do not add costs in addition to the reimbursements required to carry out the school lunch program … and (3) maintain healthy meals for students." This provision was not included in the enacted bill.

Child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the House and Senate during the 114 th Congress also would have altered the nutrition standards. The House committee's proposal ( H.R. 5003 ) would have required USDA to review the school meal standards at least once every three years and revise them as necessary, following certain criteria. In addition, under the proposal, fundraisers by student groups/organizations would no longer have had to meet the competitive food standards and any foods served as part of a federally reimbursable meal would have been allowed to be sold a la carte. The Senate committee's proposal ( S. 3136 ) would have required USDA to revise the whole grain and sodium requirements for school meals within 90 days after enactment. Although not included in the proposal itself, negotiations between the Senate committee, the White House, USDA, and the School Nutrition Association resulted in an agreement that these revisions, if enacted, would have reduced the 100% whole grain-rich requirement to 80% and delayed the Target 2 sodium requirement for two years.

"Fresh" in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP)

Under current law, fruit and vegetable snacks served in FFVP must be fresh. According to USDA guidance, fresh refers to foods "in their natural state and without additives." In recent years, some have advocated for the inclusion of frozen, dried, canned, and other types of fruits and vegetables in the program, while others have advocated for continuing to maintain only fresh products. Stakeholders on both sides include agricultural producers and processors.

The 2014 farm bill (Section 4214 of P.L. 113-79 ) funded a pilot project that incorporated canned, dried, and frozen (CDF) fruits and vegetables in FFVP in a limited number of states. USDA selected schools in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) that reported difficulty obtaining, storing, and/or preparing fresh fruits and vegetables. According to the final (2017) evaluation, 56% of the pilot schools chose to incorporate CDF fruits and vegetables during an average week of the demonstration. Schools most often introduced dried and canned fruits, which resulted in decreased vegetable offerings and increased fruit offerings in the FFVP. However, there was no significant impact on students' vegetable consumption, while fruit consumption declined on FFVP snack days (likely because students consumed a smaller quantity of fruit when it was dried or canned). There was also no significant impact on student participation. Student satisfaction with FFVP decreased slightly during the pilot, parents' responses to the pilot were mixed, and school administrators (who opted into the pilot) generally favored the changes.

Legislative proposals to change FFVP offerings on a more permanent basis have also been considered. For example, in the 115 th Congress, the House version of H.R. 2 would have allowed CDF and puréed forms of fruits and vegetables in FFVP and removed "fresh" from the program name. This provision was not included in the enacted bill. In the 114 th Congress, child nutrition reauthorization legislation in the House ( H.R. 5003 ) included a similar proposal to allow participating schools to serve "all forms" of fruits and vegetables as well as tree nuts. The Senate committee's proposal ( S. 3136 ) would have provided temporary hardship exemptions for schools with limited storage and preparation facilities or limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables that would have allowed them to serve CDF fruits and vegetables in FFVP. Such schools would have to transition to 100% fresh products over time.

Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Program (SBP) must comply with federal requirements related to sourcing foods domestically. These requirements are outlined in the school meals programs' authorizing laws and clarified in USDA guidance.

Under the Buy American requirements, schools participating in the NSLP and/or SBP in the 48 contiguous states must purchase "domestic commodities or products … to the maximum extent practicable." Statute defines "domestic commodities or products" as those that are both produced and processed substantially in the United States. Accompanying conference report language elaborated that "processed substantially" means the product is processed in the United States and contains over 51% domestically grown ingredients, and this definition is also included in USDA guidance (discussed below). USDA regulations essentially restate the statutory requirement.

USDA has issued guidance on how SFAs and state agencies should implement the Buy American requirements. The most recent guidance (as of the date of this report) was published in a June 2017 memorandum. According to USDA-FNS guidance, the Buy American requirements apply to any foods purchased with funds from the nonprofit school food service account, whether or not they are federal funds (children's paid lunch fees, for example, also go into the nonprofit school food service account). The guidance encourages SFAs to integrate Buy American into their procurement processes; for example, by monitoring the USDA catalog for appropriate products and placing Buy American language in solicitations, contracts, and other procurement documents. The guidance explains that SFAs are permitted to make exceptions to the Buy American requirements on a limited basis when a product "is not produced or manufactured in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory quality" or when "competitive bids reveal the costs of a U.S. product are significantly higher than the non-domestic product." SFAs must interpret when this is the case and document any exceptions they make. SFAs may also request a waiver from the requirements for a product that does not meet these criteria. State agencies must review SFAs' compliance with the Buy American requirements, including any exceptions an SFA has made, and take corrective action when necessary.

The enacted 2018 farm bill (Section 4207 of P.L. 115-334 ) included a provision requiring USDA to "enforce full compliance" with the Buy American requirements and "ensure that States and school food authorities fully understand their responsibilities" within 180 days of enactment. In addition, the bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress by the 180-day deadline on actions taken and plans to comply with the provision. The provision clarifies the definition of domestic products for the purposes of USDA's enforcement, stating that domestic products are those that are "processed in the United States and substantially contain … meats, vegetables, fruits, and other agricultural commodities" produced in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or "fish harvested" in the Exclusive Economic Zone or by a U.S.-flagged vessel. The provision in the enacted bill amended a related provision in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill.

Proponents of stricter requirements have cited economic and food safety reasons for domestic sourcing and expressed particular concern over sourcing from China. Others have argued for maintaining or increasing schools' discretion in food procurement, arguing that high-quality domestic options are not always available or cost-effective.

Alternatives to Congregate Feeding in Summer Meals

Under current law, summer meals are generally provided in "congregate" or group settings where children come to eat while supervised. These meals are provided through the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch Program's Summer Seamless Option (SSO). In recent years, policymakers have weighed different proposals and tested alternatives to congregate meals in SFSP and SSO. Some of these alternatives focus on rural areas, which may face particular barriers to onsite consumption of summer meals. According to a May 2018 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, states commonly reported that reaching children in rural areas was "very" or "extremely" challenging in SFSP.

The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P.L. 111-80 ) provided $85 million in discretionary funding for "demonstration projects to develop and test methods of providing access to food for children in urban and rural areas during the summer months." One of these is the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or Summer EBT) project, which began in summer 2011 and has continued each summer since (as of the date of this report) in a limited number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations. The project provides electronic food benefits 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 on an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Participants in jurisdictions providing benefits through SNAP can redeem benefits for SNAP-eligible foods at any SNAP-authorized retailer, while participants in the WIC EBT jurisdictions are limited to the smaller set of WIC-eligible foods at WIC-authorized retailers.

An evaluation of Summer EBT was conducted from FY2011 through FY2013. The study, which used a random assignment design, found a significant decline in the prevalence of very low food security among participants (9.5% of control group children experienced very low food security compared to 6.4% in the Summer EBT group). It also showed improvements in children's consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Both the WIC and SNAP models showed increased consumption, but increases were greater at sites operating the WIC model.

Congress has provided subsequent funding for Summer EBT projects (see Table 3 ). Most recently, the third FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 116-6 ) provided $28 million for the Summer EBT demonstration. Awardees for summer 2017 were Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations. For summer 2018, USDA also awarded grants to Tennessee and Texas. Many of these jurisdictions participated in Summer EBT in previous summers as well. In October 2018, USDA-FNS announced a new strategy for determining grant recipients in FY2019, stating that the agency will prioritize new states that have not participated before, statewide projects, and projects that can operate in the summers of 2019 through 2021.

There were proposals in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses to expand Summer EBT. For example, the Senate committee's child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the 114 th Congress ( S. 3136 ) would have allowed a portion of SFSP's mandatory funding to cover Summer EBT and authorized up to $50 million in discretionary funding for the program. In addition, in its FY2017 budget proposal, the Obama Administration recommended expansion of Summer EBT nationwide with a phase-in over 10 years. Freestanding bills in the 114 th and 115 th Congresses had similar objectives.

Funding from the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P.L. 111-80 ) was also used for other demonstration projects. One of these, the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP), took place during the summers of 2010 through 2012 in eight states. It included four initiatives: (1) incentives for SFSP sites to lengthen operations to 40 or more days, (2) funding to add recreational or educational activities at meal sites, (3) meal delivery for children in rural areas, and (4) food backpacks that children could take home on weekends and holidays.

Evaluations of eSFSP were published from 2011 to 2014. Summer meal participation rates rose during the demonstration periods for all four initiatives. In addition, children in the meal delivery and backpack demonstrations had consistent rates of food insecurity from summer to fall (this was not measured for the other initiatives). However, the results from these evaluations should be interpreted with caution due to a small sample size, the lack of a comparison group, and potential confounding factors.

Another demonstration project, also operating under authority provided by the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act, provided exemptions from the congregate feeding requirement to SFSP and SSO outdoor meal sites experiencing excessive heat each summer since 2015 (as of the date of this report). Exempted sites must continue to serve children in congregate settings on days when heat is not excessive, and provide meals in another form (e.g., a take-home form) on days of excessive heat. USDA also offers exemptions on a case-by-case basis for other extreme weather conditions. This demonstration has not been evaluated.

There were other proposals and hearings related to congregate feeding in SFSP in recent years. For example, in the 114 th Congress, committee-reported child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the Senate and the House ( S. 3136 and H.R. 5003 , respectively) would have enabled some rural meal sites to provide SFSP meals for consumption offsite. Specifically, both proposals would have allowed offsite consumption for children (1) in rural areas ( H.R. 5003 to a more limited extent than S. 3136 ) and (2) in nonrural areas in which more than 80% of students are certified as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The bills would have also permitted congregate feeding sites to provide meals to be consumed offsite episodically under certain conditions such as extreme weather or public safety concerns.

The HHFKA created the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option to provide free meals (lunches and breakfasts) to all students in schools with high proportions of students who automatically qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. CEP became available to schools nationwide starting in SY2014-2015, and participation has increased since then. As of SY2016-2017, more than 20,700 schools participated in CEP, according to data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a nonprofit advocacy organization. This is roughly 22% of NSLP schools.

Several groups have expressed support for CEP during its implementation, arguing that the provision improves access to meals, reduces stigma associated with receiving free or reduced-price meals, and reduces schools' administrative costs. Others have sought to change the option. For example, in the 114 th Congress, the House's committee-reported child nutrition reauthorization bill ( H.R. 5003 ) would have restricted schools' eligibility for CEP, which the committee majority argued was "to better target resources to those students in need, while also ensuring all students who are eligible for assistance continue to receive assistance."

One secondary effect of CEP is that it has created data issues for other nonnutrition federal and state programs. Many programs, most notably the federal Title I-A program (the primary source of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools), use free and reduced-price lunch data to determine eligibility and/or funding allocations. These data come from school meal applications, which are no longer collected under CEP's automatic eligibility determination process. For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44568, Overview of ESEA Title I-A and the School Meals' Community Eligibility Provision .

Students may qualify for free meals, or they may have to pay for reduced-price or full-price meals. In recent years, the issue of students owing and not paying their meal costs, and schools' responses to such situations, has received increased attention. In many cases, schools serve students a regular meal, charging the unpaid meal cost and creating a debt that they may try to collect later from the family. In other cases, schools respond with what some have called "lunch shaming" practices—most commonly, taking or throwing away a student's selected hot foods and providing an alternative cold meal or, less commonly, barring children from participation in school events until debt is repaid or having children wear a visual indicator of meal debt (e.g., a stamp or sticker). Lunch shaming instances have largely been reported in news articles from different states, and there are limited national data available on the prevalence of such practices (available data are discussed in the text box below).

Many school districts report that unpaid meal costs create a financial burden on their meal programs (see text box below for more detail). In addition to federal funds, student payments for full and reduced-price meals are a primary source of revenue for school food programs. Schools have an interest in collecting this revenue to help fund operations. Also, according to federal regulations, if schools are unable to recover unpaid meal funds, the money becomes "bad debt" and the school or school district must use other nonfederal funding sources to cover the costs.

Starting in 2010, Congress and USDA have taken actions to address the issue of unpaid meal costs. Section 143 of the HHFKA required USDA to examine states' and school districts' policies and practices regarding unpaid meal charges. As part of the review, the law required USDA to "prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing national standards for meal charges and the provision of alternate meals" and, if applicable, make recommendations related to the implementation of the standards. The law also permitted USDA to take follow-up actions based on the findings from the report.

USDA's subsequent Report to Congress in June 2016 ultimately did not recommend national standards, but instead recommended "clarifying and updating policy guidance on specific national policies impacting unpaid meal charges and facilitating the development and distribution of best practices to support decision making by States and localities." USDA-FNS followed up with a memorandum requiring SFAs to institute and communicate, by July 1, 2017, a written meal charge policy, which was to include instructions on how to address situations in which a child does not pay for a meal. USDA-FNS also provided clarification through webinars, other memoranda, and a best practice guide.

In the Report to Congress, USDA stated that its recommendation was based on findings from a study published by USDA-FNS in March 2014 and a Request for Information (RFI) on "Unpaid Meal Charges" published by USDA-FNS in October 2014. The findings from both the study and the RFI—which garnered 462 comments—showed that meal charge policies were largely determined at the school and school district levels rather than the state level. The responses to the RFI also indicated that such policies ranged in formality, with varying degrees of review (e.g., some required school board approval while others did not) and enforcement. In the RFI comments, school and district officials generally expressed a preference for local control of meal charge policies, while national advocacy groups generally favored national standards.

The topics of lunch shaming and unpaid meal costs also surfaced in the 115 th Congress. For example, a provision in the FY2018 appropriations law stated that funds appropriated in the law could not be used in ways that result in discrimination against children eligible for free or reduced-price meals, including the practices of segregating children and overtly identifying children by special tokens or tickets (note that this does not pertain to children paying for full-price meals). Legislative proposals in the 115 th Congress included the Anti-Lunch Shaming Act of 2017 ( H.R. 2401 / S. 1064 ), which sought to establish national standards for how schools treat children unable to pay for a meal.

Unpaid meal costs and lunch shaming have also been active topics at the state level. In recent years, a number of states have enacted legislation aimed at addressing these issues. For example, in 2018, Illinois passed legislation that requires schools to serve a regular (reimbursable) meal to students who do not pay and allows school districts to request an offset from the state for debts exceeding $500.

Paid Lunch and Other School Food Pricing

The HHFKA created new requirements related to schools' pricing of paid lunches (sometimes referred to as "paid lunch equity" requirements). Specifically, the law required all NSLP-participating SFAs to review their average price of paid lunches and, if necessary, gradually increase prices based on a formula. The law also gave SFAs the option to meet the requirements with specified nonfederal funding sources instead of raising prices.

According to the Senate committee report on the HHFKA, the requirements were intended "to ensure that children receiving free and reduced price lunches receive the full value of federal funds." Prior to the paid lunch equity requirements, a USDA study found that federal subsidies for free and reduced-price lunches were cross-subsidizing other aspects of the meals programs, likely including paid lunches. This can occur because federal reimbursements for free, reduced-price, and paid lunches are all mixed into the same SFA-run "nonprofit school food service account" (NSFSA). Some observers argue, however, that raising prices may reduce participation in paid lunches.

Under the paid lunch equity formula, the price per paid lunch must eventually match or exceed the difference between the federal reimbursements for free and paid lunches. If this is not the case, schools must increase prices over time until they make up the difference. For example, the federal reimbursement was $3.37 for free lunches and $0.37 for paid lunches SY2018-2019 for some schools. Under the requirements, if schools were not charging at least $3.00 per paid lunch, they would be required to increase the price of a paid lunch gradually, based on a formula, until they closed the gap (see Figure 1 ). Schools cannot be required to raise the price by more than 10 cents annually, but they may choose to do so.

The HHFKA also included related requirements for revenue from "nonprogram" (i.e., competitive) foods. The law required that any revenue from nonprogram foods accrue to the SFA-run NSFSA. In practice, this prevents revenue from competitive foods from being used for other school purposes outside of food service. The law also required that, broadly speaking, revenue from nonprogram foods equal or exceed the costs of obtaining nonprogram foods (see the regulations for a specific formula).

In June 2011, USDA-FNS published an interim final rule implementing the requirements starting in SY2011-2012, offering some flexibility for that first year. USDA subsequently provided certain exemptions through agency guidance for SY2013-2014 through SY2017-2018 for SFAs "in strong financial standing," as determined by state agencies based on different criteria. For SY2018-2019, the enacted FY2018 appropriation (Section 775 of P.L. 115-141 ) expanded the exemptions, requiring only SFAs with a negative balance in the NSFSA as of January 31, 2018, potentially to have to raise prices for paid meals.

Other legislative proposals related to the paid lunch equity requirements were considered in recent Congresses. For example, the House committee's child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the 114 th Congress would have eliminated the requirements. The Senate committee's proposal would have replaced the requirements with a broader "non-federal revenue target," which could have come from household payments for full-price lunches or other state and local contributions.

CACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program

eSFSP: Enhanced Summer Food Service Program

NSFSA: Nonprofit school food service account

Summer EBT or SEBTC : Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children

USDA-FNS: U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service