Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers September 23, 2019
The Department of Defense (DOD, or the Department) has played a prominent role in
the Trump Administration’s border security strategy because of controversies related to
Christopher T. Mann
$13.3 billion in defense funding it has sought to use for border barrier construction
Analyst in Defense Policy
projects not otherwise authorized by Congress. These defense funds would comprise a
and Trade
complex mix of DOD program savings and unobligated military construction funds from

past years ($6.1 billion), as well as a request for new appropriations in FY2020 ($7.2

billion). An additional $2 billion in non-DOD appropriations are often cited as part of
the Administration’s overall border funding plan. These include $1.375 billion in previously enacted FY2019
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations, and $601 million in contributions from a Treasury
Forfeiture Fund (TFF) that manages seized assets. Altogether, these defense and non-defense funds would total
$15.3 billion, of which 87% would be DOD funds.
President Donald Trump has consistently declared the deployment of fencing, walls, and other barriers along the
U.S. Mexico border a high priority, however, he has been unable to fully secure from Congress the total amount of
funding he deems necessary for that purpose. On February 15, 2019, in part to gain access to such funding, the
President declared a national emergency at the southern border that required use of the Armed Forces, an act that
triggered statutes allowing the President to redirect national resources—including unobligated military
construction funds—for purposes for which they were not originally appropriated by Congress. Concurrent with
the declaration, the Administration released a fact sheet entitled, President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security
Victory (hereafter referred to as the border security factsheet) that described a plan for redirecting $6.1 billion in
DOD funds to border barrier construction projects not authorized by Congress. An additional $601 million was
included using TFFs. The plan invoked a mixture of emergency and nonemergency authorities that included:
 $2.5 billion in defense funds authorized by the (nonemergency) statute 10 U.S.C. 284 Support for
counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime;
 $3.6 billion in defense funds authorized by the emergency statute Title 10 U.S.C. 2808
Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency; and
 $601 million in nondefense, nonemergency TFFs.
Shortly after the release of the border security fact sheet, the DHS requested that DOD undertake 11 construction
projects along the Southwest U.S.-Mexico border for execution under 10 U.S.C. 284 authority. Typically, such
construction would be funded using congressionally provided appropriations from DHS’s own budget.
Nevertheless, citing the ongoing state of emergency, DOD agreed to undertake seven of the projects and, between
March and May 2019, reprogrammed $2.5 billion in defense program savings over the objections of House
congressional defense committees, a deviation from the Department’s own regulations. Subsequent court
injunctions temporarily prevented approximately half ($1.2 billion) of these appropriations from being fully
obligated, and resulted in the suspension of contracts that had been quickly awarded following DOD’s
reprogramming actions. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted these injunctions on July 26, 2019, but there has been no
final ruling in the case (Sierra Club v. Trump). It remains unclear how a potentially unfavorable ruling might
affect construction completed during the ongoing litigation. In September, DOD officials stated that $1.9 billion
of the 10 U.S.C. 284 funds have been obligated, with the remainder to be obligated by the end of the month.
On September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense exercised his authority under the emergency statute 10 U.S.C.
2808 to defer approximately 127 authorized military construction projects ($3.6 billion) and redirect the funds to
11 border barrier projects identified by the DHS. Deferred military construction projects would be halted
indefinitely (or terminated) unless Congress were to provide replenishing appropriations. Congressional critics of
the Administration’s border barrier funding plans have hesitated to reimburse DOD for transfer actions they
opposed or expressly prohibited. Furthermore, in March 2019, as part of its annual budget submission to
Congress, the Administration also requested an additional $7.2 billion in defense appropriations (not described by
Congressional Research Service

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

the February 2019 border security factsheet plan). DOD officials stated that half this amount ($3.6 billion) would
be used to support new DHS border barrier projects which the Administration has not yet described. The other
half ($3.6 billion) would replenish military construction projects deferred by DOD’s earlier 10 U.S.C. 2808
transfer actions.
There has been considerable congressional concern over the Administration’s efforts to fund the construction of
border barriers outside of the regular budgetary process. In broad terms, these concerns are related to the novel
and unorthodox use of emergency authorities, and the possibility that the Administration’s actions jeopardize
congressional control of appropriations, thereby potentially violating the Constitution’s separation of powers. At
the interagency level, DOD’s break from comity-based agreements with congressional defense committees on
reprogramming actions has generated new legislative interest in limiting the Department’s budgetary flexibility
and applying sharper oversight. More narrowly, individual Members have voiced apprehensions that military
construction projects in their states and districts have been jeopardized by DOD’s emergency transfers.
FY2020 defense authorization and appropriation bills currently under consideration (as of September 2019)
include provisions that would constrain the Administration from fully executing its plan, though final versions
have not yet been passed. In late July 2019, news outlets reported congressional leadership had come to an
informal understanding as part of a settlement of the annual budget caps for FY2020 and FY2021 that would
specifically prohibit legislative provisions limiting the use of transfer authority—a key part of the President’s
Border security factsheet plan – unless such language was adopted on a bipartisan basis.
Ongoing litigation has generally slowed the execution of border barrier construction and imperiled large portions
of the President’s plan. Of the $6.7 billion in future DOD and Treasury Funds included in the border security
factsheet, $2.1 billion (32%) has been obligated as of September 13, 2019. This includes $242 million in TFFs
and $1.9 billion transferred from the defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account.

Congressional Research Service

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Introduction
Funding for new border barrier construction became the focal point of a partial government
shutdown that began on December 22, 2018, and lasted 34 days, the longest on record.1 Congress
ultimately did not accept President Donald Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion in new funding for
the construction of a proposed border wall, providing instead $1.375 billion for additional
pedestrian fencing as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 (CAA).2
Unsatisfied with the negotiated agreement, the Trump Administration issued a Presidential
Proclamation on February 15, 2019, declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the
United States, a move that, among other things, allowed the President to invoke special
authorities for redirecting military construction appropriations.3
Concurrently, the White House released a plan for reprogramming or transferring $6.7 billion to
southwest border barrier projects, of which $6.1 billion would come from unobligated
Department of Defense (DOD or Department) appropriations.4
Congress, noting the President’s attempt to secure more funding than provided in the CAA, and
concerned over a potential violation of its constitutional prerogatives to manage appropriations,
acted quickly in an attempt to terminate the national emergency declaration.5 A joint resolution,
H.J.Res. 46, Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019,
was passed by both houses on March 14, 2019, but was subsequently vetoed by the President one
day later.6 On March 26, 2019, an attempt to override the veto fell short of the required two-thirds

1 CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10242, Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall?, by Jennifer K. Elsea, Edward
C. Liu, and Jay B. Sykes.
2 Enacted on February 15, 2019, the CAA provided a total of $2.4 billion for border related programs and
improvements. Of this amount, $1.375 billion was for the construction of primary pedestrian fencing, $0.725 million
for border security technologies, and $0.270 million for facility improvements. See Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2019 (H.J.Res. 31), Title II Administrative Provisions, Section 230, available at:
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hjres31/BILLS-116hjres31enr.pdf#page=16; See also explanatory text in
associated committee report H.Rept. 116-9, available at https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/hrpt9/CRPT-
116hrpt9.pdf#page=480.
3 White House, Remarks by President Trump on the National Security and Humanitarian Crisis on our Southern
Border, February 15, 2019. “The President: No. Look, I went through Congress. I made a deal. I got almost $1.4 billion
when I wasn’t supposed to get one dollar — not one dollar. “He’s not going to get one dollar.” Well, I got $1.4 billion.
But I’m not happy with it…In fact, the primary fight was on the wall. Everything else, we have so much, as I said, I
don’t know what to do with it we have so much money. But on the wall, they skimped. So I did — I was successful, in
that sense, but I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this. But I’d
rather do it much faster…And I think that I just want to get it done faster, that’s all.” Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-national-security-humanitarian-crisis-
southern-border/; The White House, "Proclamation No. 9844 Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the
Southern Border of the United States," 84, No. 34 Federal Register 4949, February 20, 2019, available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-20/pdf/2019-03011.pdf.
4 The White House plan cited $8.1 billion, an amount that included $1.375 billion previously provided in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.J.Res. 31, P.L. 116-6). See White House Fact Sheet, “President Donald J.
Trump’s Border Security Victory,” February 15, 2019, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-
statements/president-donald-j-trumps-border-security-victory/
5 The National Emergency Act (NEA) does not stipulate when a President may declare an emergency. When the Act
was enacted in 1976, Congress may have believed that it could rely on a concurrent resolution (which requires a simple
majority in both houses) to check the Executive if the power was abused. See
https://verdict.justia.com/2019/03/04/president-trumps-emergency-wall-declaration-a-guide-to-the-legal-issues
6 The Joint Resolution failed passage in the House by the required two-thirds majority on March 26, 2019 by a vote of
248-181. See Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019 (H.J.Res. 46).
Congressional Research Service
1

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

majority in the House by a vote of 248-181. In September 2019, Congress again attempted to
terminate the state of national emergency with a joint resolution (S.J.Res. 54) passed by both
chambers.7 The legislation has yet to be considered by the President.S.J.Res. 54 The national
emergency remains in effect.
This report outlines the Administration’s FY2020 border barrier funding plans using defense
funds, describes the various authorities involved, details the process for each budgetary action,
indicates the status of appropriated funds, identifies recent congressional actions, and identifies
potential issues for Congress.
The report does not include a comprehensive overview of DHS funding for border barriers, or
describe that agency’s FY2020 request for related projects.8 It also does not address the
deployment and concomitant expense of mobilizing active and reserve military personnel for
service on the border.
The Trump Administration’s FY2020 Funding Plan
On February 15, 2019, President Trump issued a proclamation declaring a national emergency at
the southern border that required use of the Armed Forces.9 Concurrent with the announcement,
the White House released a Fact Sheet entitled, President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security
Victory (hereafter referred to as the border security factsheet) that described steps the
Administration intended to take in order to provide $6.7 billion in appropriations outside of the
regular legislative process for new border barrier projects. Drawing on both emergency and
nonemergency authorities, the Administration outlined a number of steps it stated would be “used
sequentially and as needed.”10
In March 2019, the Administration delivered its annual budget to Congress. The FY2020 proposal
included an additional $7.2 billion in Army Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) military
construction funding, half of which ($3.6 billion) would replenish accounts affected by the
Administration’s border security factsheet plan. The remainder, $3.6 billion, would fund future
border barrier projects.11 According to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Elaine
McCusker:
We have $3.6 billion -- up to $3.6 billion to backfill any MILCON projects that we end up
having to fund in '20 instead of '19. And then we also have $3.6 billion for potential new
construction for the border, and the reason we've done this is to reflect the fact that we have
a presidential priority that has a macro funding level and we want to help get to that funding
level. 12

7 The joint resolution S.J.Res. 54 was passed by the Senate on September 25, 2019 by a roll call vote of 54-41, and in
the House on September 27, 2019 by a roll call vote of 236-174. For Senate roll call vote, see
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00302;
for House roll call vote, see http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll553.xml.
8 See CRS Report R45888, DHS Border Barrier Funding, by William L. Painter and Audrey Singer.
9 White House, “Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the
United States,” February 15, 2019, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-
proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-southern-border-united-states/.
10 White House, “President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory,” February 15, 2019, available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-border-security-victory/.
11 The additional $3.6 billion in future Army funding was not included in the Administration’s border security factsheet
plan.
12 Department of Defense News Briefing on the President's Fiscal Year 2020 Defense Budget, March 12, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
2

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Overall, funding actions the Administration described between February and March 2019
included a complex mixture of realigned DOD program savings and unobligated military
construction funds from past years ($6.1 billion), as well as a request for new defense
appropriations in FY2020 ($7.2 billion).
In its border security factsheet plan, the Administration cited an additional $2 billion in non-DOD
appropriations; $1.375 billion in previously enacted FY2019 Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) appropriations (included in the CAA), and $601 million in contributions from a Treasury
Forfeiture Fund (TFF) that manages seized assets. Altogether, these defense and non-defense
funds would total $15.3 billion, of which 87% would be DOD funds.
The Table 1 indicates all such actions.
Table 1. Trump Administration’s Border Funding Plan and FY2020 Request
Includes FY2020 Budget Request
DOD
Authority
Type
Source
Status
Plan
FY2019 Future Plan and FY2019 Enacted ($8.1 billion)
Non-DOD]
FY2019

Complete
$1.375 bil ion
Enacted DHS
Appropriations
Non-DOD

Nonemergency
Treasury Forfeiture
Partially
$601 mil ion
Fund (TFF)
Complete
($242 available
for obligation)
DOD
10 U.S.C. 284
Nonemergency
DOD Support for
Partially
$2.5 bil ion
Counterdrug
Complete
($1.9 bil ion
Activities
obligated)
DOD
10 U.S.C. 2808 Emergency
Unobligated Military
Ongoing
$3.6 bil ion
Construction
Project Funds
Additional Amounts in FY2020 Military Construction Budget Request ($7.2 billion)
DOD
FY2020 Military Additional Wall funding
Requested $3.6 bil ion
Construction
Appropriations
DOD
FY2020 Military Replacement, or “backfil ” funding. Not
Requested $3.6 bil ion
Construction
additive.
Appropriations
Total

$15.3 billion
DOD portion
$13.3 billion
Source: White House, “President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory,” February 15, 2019; Department of
Defense Comptrol er, FY2020 Defense Budget Materials – FY2020, Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base
Realignment and Closure Program (C-1); See also transcript of Briefing by Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) Elaine A. McCusker; Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Ierardi, USA, Director, Force Structure, Resources and Assessment,
Joint Staff (J8), March 12, 2019.

Transcript available at https://dod.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1783618/department-of-
defense-news-briefing-on-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2020-defense//
Congressional Research Service
3

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Notes: The total indicates all funding described by the President’s Border security factsheet plan, including $1.375
bil ion in DHS appropriations previously enacted as part of the FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.
116-6), part of a negotiated settlement to end a 35 day government shutdown that began on December 22,
2018. The total also includes the FY2020 additional (and replenishing) amounts the Administration has requested
as part of its annual budget submission to Congress.
Status of Funds
Of the $601 million in FY2019 Treasury Forfeiture Funds described in the Administration’s plan,
at least $242 million has been transferred for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The Treasury Department has stated that it will transfer the remaining $359 million when
additional funds become available.13
Of the $2.5 billion the Administration has designated for transfer through the defense Drug
Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account (hereafter referred to as the defense Drug
Interdiction account), $1.9 billion has been obligated.14 A substantial portion of the total amount,
previously frozen by court injunctions, became available on July 26, 2019 when the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down lower court injunctions. Since then, DOD border barrier construction
has been allowed to proceed, though the courts have made no final ruling.
After an extended review process, on September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense invoked the
emergency construction statute 10 U.S.C. 2808 and directed the Department to transfer
appropriations from 127 previously authorized military construction projects to eleven barrier
projects identified by DHS.15
The figure below illustrates the status of the Administration’s border security factsheet plan as of
September 2019. Of the $6.7 billion in newly introduced funds, approximately $2.1 billion has
been obligated (or otherwise made available for obligation). For completeness, the figure also
includes $1.375 billion in FY2019 DHS appropriations that were included in the President’s
Border security factsheet announcement, though these funds were previously enacted and do not
represent a plan for future actions.

13 Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Ex. 8, California v. Trump, No. 19‐cv‐00872 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25,
2019), ECF. No. 89-8 (“Second Declaration of Loren Flossman”) [hereafter Second Declaration of Loren Flossman].
14 See Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, Ex. 12, Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892 (N.D. Cal. May 29,
2019), ECF. No. 181-12 ("Declaration of Eric. M. McFadden") [hereafter First Declaration of Eric McFadden]; Motion
for Partial Summary Judgement, Ex. 13, Sierra Club, No. 19-cv-00892, ECF. No. 181-13 ("Second Declaration of Eric.
M. McFadden") [hereafter Second Declaration of Eric McFadden]; Based on a non-public briefing by DOD officials,
September 13, 2019.
15 This includes one $13.6 billion planning and design project.
Congressional Research Service
4

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Figure 1. Border Security Victory Factsheet Funding Plan vs. Execution
As of September 2019

Source: CRS analysis of White House Fact Sheet, “President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory,”
February 15, 2019. On September 3, 2019, DOD officials announced the Department would obligate $3.6 bil ion
in funds using 10 U.S.C. 2808 authority.
Overview of DOD funds Available for Securing the
Border
Although the Secretary of the DHS is charged with preventing the entry of terrorists, securing the
borders, and carrying out immigration enforcement functions, funding to carry out those missions
may be supplemented in part by resources from other agencies. Within DHS, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), is chiefly responsible for securing the borders of the United States,
preventing terrorists and their weapons from entering the country, and enforcing hundreds of U.S.
trade and immigration laws.
Because border security lies primarily within the jurisdiction of DHS, Congress has not generally
provided DOD with significant funds to address that mission.16 Congress has instead authorized
the military to support DHS (or local authorities) in certain situations, such as to assist with drug
interdiction or with terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. According to DOD
officials:
Active-duty and National Guard personnel have supported Federal and State counterdrug
activities (e.g., detection and monitoring of cross-border trafficking, aerial reconnaissance,
transportation and communications support, and construction of fences and roads)
beginning in the early 1990s. Most recently, U.S. Northern Command’s Joint Task Force-
North executed 53 counterdrug support missions in fiscal year (FY) 2017 and 23 missions
in FY2018. When the Secretary of Defense approved the four border States’ plans for drug

16 For more information on the role of the armed forces on the border, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10121, The
President’s Authority to Use the National Guard or the Armed Forces to Secure the Border, by Jennifer K. Elsea. “The
armed forces do not appear to have a direct legislative mandate to protect or patrol the border or to engage in
immigration enforcement. Chapter 15 of Title 10, U.S. Code —Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement
Agencies, however, provides general legislative authority for the armed forces to provide certain types of support to
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, in particular in counterdrug and counterterrorism efforts. Such
authorities might permit the military to provide indirect border security and immigration control assistance.”
Congressional Research Service
5

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

interdiction and counterdrug activities, DoD committed $21 million in funds in FY2017
and $53 million in FY2018.17
Congress has also permitted DOD special flexibility for undertaking military construction
projects during periods of national crisis, such as when the President declares a national
emergency. (The National Emergencies Act, or NEA, establishes procedures for how a President
may declare a national emergency but does not explicitly define that term.18) Historically,
emergency military construction has been used to support troops engaged in contingency
operations overseas at locations that include Iraq and Afghanistan.19
DOD Funding Available Without a Declaration of a National
Emergency
The Administration’s plan would tap funds for border barriers using both statutory military
construction authorities and non-statutory general transfer authorities. This section provides an
overview of those available to the Administration (both invoked and not invoked). Later sections
examine the Administration’s use of specific authorities in depth.
Statutes Permitting Military Construction
Statutes that would authorize DOD to undertake military construction activities along the border
but that would not require a Presidential declaration of a national emergency include the items
below.
The Administration has invoked:
 10 U.S.C 284 Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter
transnational organized crime. Upon request by qualifying entities, this statute
authorizes DOD to reprogram funds to construct roads, fences, and lighting along
international drug smuggling corridors in order to support law domestic (and
foreign) law enforcement. The Department’s activities are funded from a central
transfer account called the Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, which
also receives direct annual appropriations.20

17 Testimony of Mr. Robert G. Salesses (written statement), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense
Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities, Department of Defense, Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations (Committee on Homeland Security), June 20, 2019, available at:
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109664.
18 An emergency may be terminated in three cases: (1) automatically after one year unless the President publishes a
notice of renewal in the Federal Register; (2) upon a presidential declaration of termination; or (3) upon the enactment
of a Joint Resolution (requiring a presidential signature or, in the case of a veto, a two-thirds majority in each house).
See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10267, Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, by Jennifer
K. Elsea.
19 10 U.S.C. §2808. Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency, was invoked 18
times between 2001 and 2013. One of these instances was for domestic construction related to security measures for
weapons of mass destruction. For additional information, see CRS Insight IN11017, Military Construction Funding in
the Event of a National Emergency, by Michael J. Vassalotti and Brendan W. McGarry.
20 DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account receives direct annual appropriations and is also a
central transfer account; a vehicle for passing additional funds to domestic and foreign agencies to assist with
combatting organized crime and drug activity. Conceived in 1991 as part of the war on drugs, the statute authorizes
various forms of support, including the construction of roads, fences, and lighting to block drug and criminal activity.
For more information, please see CRS Insight IN11052, The Defense Department and 10 U.S.C. 284: Legislative
Origins and Funding Questions, by Liana W. Rosen.
Congressional Research Service
6

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

The Administration has not invoked:
 10 U.S.C 2803 Emergency construction. This statute authorizes the Secretary of
Defense, under conditions the Secretary determines to be vital to the national
security or the protection of health, safety, or environmental quality, to obligate
$50 million for military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law.21
This authority was not included in the Administration’s Border security factsheet
plan for wall funding.
General and Special Transfer Authorities (Section 8005 and Section 9002)
The Administration’s use of the statute 10 U.S.C. 284 is predicated on accessing DOD funds
made available by General Transfer Authority (GTA) transfers. GTA (sometimes colloquially
referred to as Section 8005, though the provision number may change), refers to the recurring
provision in annual defense appropriations acts that set the maximum amount permitted for
DOD’s base reprogramming actions (usually around $4 billion). Section 9002 is the equivalent
designation for war-related, Title IX Overseas Contingency Operations, funds (usually around $2
billion). Congress typically requires that reprogramming be undertaken within a specified
timeframe (less than year) and meet the following additional criteria:
That such authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no
case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress.22
Congress has generally considered reprogramming authority provided to Executive branch
departments and agencies to be a
privilege.23 Though the constitution
Why Does Congress Permit Reprogramming?
invests Congress with the “powers of
the purse,” legislators typically
“The defense budget does not exist in a vacuum. There are
forces at work to play havoc with even the best of budget
provide executive branch agencies
estimates. The economy may vary in terms of inflation; political
some limited flexibility to shift funds
realities may bring external forces to bear; fact-of-life or
among various accounts in
programmatic changes may occur. The very nature of the lengthy
recognition of a complex budget
and overlapping cycles of the budget process poses continual
execution process wherein estimated
threats to the integrity of budget estimates. Reprogramming
procedures permit us to respond to these unforeseen changes
costs often vary based on unforeseen
and stil meet our defense requirements.”
events. Such flexibility allows
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wil iam H. Taft IV, Hearing
agencies to accommodate changing
Before the House Armed Services Committee,
circumstances, while continuing to
Reprogramming Action within the Department of Defense,
carry out the essential functions for
September 30, 1985. Cited in FY2019 Fiscal Law Deskbook,
the programs and activities for which
Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (page 12-7).
funds have been provided.
Congress can grant reprogramming and transfer authorities in a variety of forms. They may be
statutory or non-statutory. Congress may establish a central transfer account for a special purpose,

21 10 U.S.C. §2803.
22 See Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).
23 House Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense Budget Hearing, March 26, 2019. Acting Secretary of
“Defense Patrick Shanahan:…It was a very difficult discussion and we understand the significant downsides of losing
what amounts to a privilege (reprogramming authority).”
Congressional Research Service
7

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

or alternately, apply a broader criteria that describe which funds may be exchanged, and in what
specific circumstances. Historically, Congress has consistently provided some limit to the total
amount of funds that may be used.24
DOD Funding Available With a Declaration of a National
Emergency
With the declaration of a national emergency, the President may invoke statutory authorities that
allow DOD to fund military construction
projects that support the national response.25
What is Military Construction?
These authorities generally last only as long as
“The term ‘military construction’ as used…(in any)
the emergency is in effect (expiring
provision of law includes any construction,
development, conversion, or extension of any kind
immediately or within 180 days of
carried out with respect to a military installation…or any
termination). They include DOD military and
acquisition of land or construction of a defense access
civil works funds.26
road…
The term ‘military installation’ means a base, camp,
In his February 2019 proclamation, the
post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the
President invoked:
jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military
department…”
 10 U.S.C. 2808 Construction
Excerpt from 10 U.S.C. 2801 (definitions used in
authority in the event of a
Chapter 169 of the U.S. Code, which contains
declaration of war or national
statutes related to military construction and family
emergency. This broad authority
housing)
permits the Secretary of Defense to
undertake military construction
projects not otherwise authorized by law that may be necessary to support the use
of the armed forces after the declaration of a national emergency. New projects
are funded from the unobligated balances of existing ones, with no other upper
limit on the overall total.
In his February 2019 proclamation, the President did not invoke:
 33 U.S.C. 2293 Reprogramming during national emergencies. This statute
permits the Secretary of the Army in the event of a declaration of war or a
declaration of a national emergency that requires or may require use of the
Armed Forces to terminate or defer Army civil works projects that the Secretary
deems are nonessential to national defense, and apply the resources of the
Department’s civil works program to, “authorized civil works, military

24 For more information on DOD transfer and reprogramming, see CRS In Focus IF11243, Defense Primer: DOD
Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities, by Aaron D. Walenga and Brendan W. McGarry.
25 An emergency may be terminated in three cases: (1) automatically after one year unless the President publishes a
notice of renewal in the Federal Register, (2) upon a presidential declaration of termination, or (3) upon the enactment
of a Joint Resolution (requiring a presidential signature or, in the case of a veto, a two-thirds majority in each house).
See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10267, Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, by Jennifer
K. Elsea.
26 Congress funds the Department of the Army’s USACE civil works activities and accounts through annual and
supplemental appropriations that are distinct from DOD military funds. The civil works annual appropriations typically
are provided through an annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations act.
Congressional Research Service
8

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national
defense.”27
Figure 2 summarizes the main points of each of the statutes listed above as they pertain
to the use of military construction.28
Figure 2. Selected DOD Authorities Enabling Military Construction

Source: CRS graphic based on analysis of identified statutes.

27 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11084, Redirecting Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Resources
During National Emergencies, by Nicole T. Carter.
28 For discussion of what constitutes a national emergency, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10267, Definition of National
Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, by Jennifer K. Elsea.
Congressional Research Service
9

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Use of Authorities to Fund Border Barrier
Construction
The following two subsections contain a detailed examination of DOD’s proposed use of
statutory and non-statutory authorities espoused in the Trump Administration border security
factsheet.29 These include: 10 U.S.C. 2808, which would make $3.6 billion available, and; 10
U.S.C. 284, which would transfer $2.5 billion of defense program savings in concert with the
non-statutory authority Section 8005 (General Transfer Authority). The final subsection addresses
the use of Treasury Forfeiture Funds, which would provide $601 million for the Administration’s
border funding plan.
10 U.S.C. 2808: Military Projects Deferred by Emergency Statute
Overview
When the President declares a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces and
invokes the emergency statute 10 U.S.C. 2808, the Secretary of Defense is permitted to undertake
military construction projects “not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such
use of the armed forces.” 30 Such projects are funded using the unobligated appropriations of
construction projects currently underway— effectively deferring them until Congress provides
replenishing appropriations.
On February 15, 2019, President Trump issued Proclamation 9844, Declaring a National
Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States, to address what he described as
a long-standing and worsening problem of large-scale, unlawful migration through the southern
border. The Proclamation asserted that the severity of the crisis justified use of the Armed Forces,
and invoked 10 U.S.C. 2808, thus unlocking emergency construction authority.31
On September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense determined that 11 construction projects
requested by DHS were necessary to support the use of the armed forces along the southern
border, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808.32
In a memorandum to the Department, the Secretary directed the DOD Comptroller to transfer
$3.6 billion in unobligated military construction appropriations for the new construction, and

29 For legal arguments related to statutory authorities, please see CRS Report R45908, Legal Authority to Repurpose
Funds for Border Barrier Construction, by Jennifer K. Elsea, Benjamin Hayes, and Edward C. Liu.
30 10 U.S.C. §2808.
31 “Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional
support to address the crisis…. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the federal
Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of
the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the
construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available.” The
White House, “Proclamation No. 9844 Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United
States,” 84, No. 34, Federal Register 4949, February 20, 2019, available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2019-02-20/pdf/2019-03011.pdf.
32 Notice of Filing of Administrative Record for Border Barrier Projects Undertaken Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808,
September 13, 2019, No. 19-cv-0006, ECF. No.123-1 (Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense to the Acting
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, “Military Construction Necessary to Support the
Use of the Armed Forces in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border”, September 3, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
10

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

urged the Secretary of Army to begin work expeditiously. The transfers indefinitely deferred 127
previously authorized military construction projects, roughly half of which were at overseas
locations ($1.8 billion for 64 non-U.S. projects).
Of the deferred military construction projects outside the U.S., approximately 42% ($772 million;
21 projects) would have supported the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), a program intended
to increase the capability of U.S. forces in Europe against non-NATO regional adversaries.33 In
public remarks to the media on September 5, 2019, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper suggested
allies reimburse the United States for the funding shortfalls.34
Of deferred military construction projects within the United States (and associated territories), the
largest share of funds would come from Puerto Rico ($403 million, or 23% of total) and, to a
lesser extent, Guam ($257 million, or 15% of the total).35
The Table 2 summarizes the total amount of deferred funds, grouped by U.S. State or affiliated
territory.
Table 2. U.S. Military Construction Projects Deferred by Use of 10 U.S.C. 2808, by
Location
Includes U.S.-Affiliated Territories
State or
Amount
Amount as %
Territory
(millions)
of Total
Puerto Rico
402.6
22.8%
Guam
257.3
14.6%
New York
160.0
9.1%
New Mexico
125.0
7.1%
Alaska
102.4
5.8%
Virginia
89.2
5.1%
Washington
89.0
5.0%
North Carolina
80.3
4.6%
Maryland
66.5
3.8%
Kentucky
62.6
3.6%
Utah
54.0
3.1%
Louisiana
39.0
2.2%
Texas
38.5
2.2%

33 CRS analysis. See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), European Deterrence Initiative Budget
Justification for FY2020, March 2019. Available at:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_EDI_JBook.pdf
34 Secretary of Defense Mark Esper: “The message that I’ve been carrying, since when I was acting secretary to today,
has been about the increase in burden sharing…So part of the message will be ‘Look, if you’re really concerned then
maybe you should look to cover those projects for us’ because that’s going to build infrastructure in many cases in their
countries…Part of the message is burden sharing, ‘Maybe pick up that tab.’” Reuters, Pentagon chief suggests
European allies replace funds diverted to border wall, September 5, 2019. Available at
https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1VQ2W6.
35 Approximately half of all projects deferred in Puerto Rico ($219 million of $403 million) are associated with
infrastructure improvements at Camp Santiago. All deferred projects in Guam ($257 million for eight projects) are
located at Joint Region Marianas.
Congressional Research Service
11

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

State or
Amount
Amount as %
Territory
(millions)
of Total
Hawaii
32.0
1.8%
Arizona
30.0
1.7%
Virgin Islands
27.4
1.6%
Indiana
24.0
1.4%
Florida
17.0
1.0%
South Carolina
10.8
0.6%
Oregon
10.5
0.6%
Oklahoma
8.0
0.5%
Wisconsin
8.0
0.5%
California
8.0
0.5%
Colorado
8.0
0.5%
Mississippi
8.0
0.5%
Alabama
5.2
0.3%
Total
1,763.2
100.0%
Source: CRS analysis of DOD September 3, 2019 notification to congressional defense committees on projects
to be deferred by the use of 10 U.S.C. 2808.
DOD has stated that it would make funds available to the Department of the Army for border
barrier projects by prioritizing the deferral of $1.8 billion in non-U.S. projects. Funds associated
with projects in the U.S. ($1.8 billion) would be made available at some later date.36
DOD’s action has attracted warnings from Members of Congress concerned over military
construction projects that may be affected in their states and districts.37 Critics have also
expressed concerns that the President’s use of emergency powers could circumvent (or be
perceived as circumventing) the congressional appropriations process.
DOD Imposed Non-Statutory Selection Criteria to Identify Project Funds as
Sources for Potential Reprogramming
DOD developed internal criteria not required by 10 U.S.C. 2808 that narrowed the pool of
military construction projects eligible for deferment under the Administration’s use of that statute.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies in February 2019, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment Robert McMahon
explained the Department’s reasoning for the additional guidelines:

36 Department of Defense transcripts, DOD Briefing on Use of 2808 MILCON Funds for Construction of the Border
Wall, September 3, 2019. Available at:
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/1952191/dod-briefing-on-use-of-2808-milcon-
funds-for-construction-of-the-border-wall/. CRS been unable to determine the effect of delaying funds associated with
the deferment of U.S. projects.
37 See, for example, Letter to House and Senate Defense Committee Chairs and Ranking Members, from Senator
Charles Schumer, Representative Sean Maloney, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, September 9, 2019. Available at
https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MILCON_Joint_Letter_CES_KG_Maloney.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

In order to protect military readiness, the projects that are most likely to be temporarily
delayed include those that pose no or minimal operational or readiness risks if deferred,
projects that were already scheduled to be awarded in the last six months of the fiscal year,
and recapitalization projects of existing facilities that can be temporarily deferred for a
period of months.38
The Department’s internal criteria narrowed the scope of the project funding pool by applying the
following selection criteria: 39
 No military construction projects would be considered that have already received
a contract award;
 No military construction projects with FY2019 award dates would be
considered;40 and
 No military housing, barracks, or dormitory projects would be considered.
In official statements, DOD has said that if its FY2020 budget request for military construction is
approved by Congress, it will use the funds provided to replenish funding for projects deferred in
favor of newly funded border barrier construction.
If the Department’s FY2020 budget is enacted on time as requested, no military
construction project used to source section 2808 projects would be delayed or cancelled.41
Nevertheless, projects deferred by use of the statute effectively remain underfunded (or unfunded)
unless Congress enacts additional amounts to replenish the original appropriations. DOD has
requested $3.6 billion in additional Army military construction funds as part of its FY2020 budget
submission for this purpose. Congressional opponents have argued against replenishment and
asserted that DOD transfers would be tantamount to cancelling—not deferring— affected
projects.
DOD’s Emergency Decision-making May Have Deviated from Precedent
The current DOD decision making process for construction in the event of a declaration
national emergency appears to differ from the one described in the Department’s Financial
Management Regulation (FMR) and associated internal directives. The current process appears to
have been driven by DHS requests, not generated internally by Military Departments in
conjunction with Combatant Commanders (COCOMs).42

38 Written Testimony of Robert H. McMahon, Assistant Secretary Of Defense U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, The President’s 2019
National Emergency Declaration Circumventing Congress to Build a Border Wall & its Effect on Military
Construction and Readiness, 116th Cong., February 27, 2019, available at:
https://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/hearings/the-2019-national-emergency-declaration-to-build-a-border-wall-
its-effect-on.
39 Department of Defense, Fact Sheet on Section 2808 Funding Pool, March 18, 2019, available at:
https://www.reed.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Milcon%20Wall%20Project.pdf.
40 In other words, the award date must be after September 30, 2019.
41 Department of Defense, Fact Sheet on Section 2808 Funding Pool, March 18, 2019, available at:
https://www.reed.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Milcon%20Wall%20Project.pdf.
42 DOD Financial Management Regulation DOD 7000.14, Volume 3, Chapter 17, section 170303, paragraph 3,
available at: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_17.pdf#page-17. When a
Secretary of a Military Department decides, in conjunction with the supported Combatant Commander, to request use
of this authority, the Secretary of the Military Department will submit a request to ASD(Sustainment).
Congressional Research Service
13

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

DOD’s Internal Process on Use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 Remains Unclear
Though DOD has not fully disclosed internal deliberations related to its 10 U.S.C. 2808 funding
decisions, an approximate chronology of events has emerged from court records, media reporting
and official briefings. (See Appendix A for detailed chronology.)
On February 18, 2019, then-Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan requested DHS
provide a prioritized list of construction projects that, according to its assessment, would improve
the operational effectiveness of troops deployed to the border.43 DHS responded on March 20,
2019 with a prioritized list that included $5 billion in projects along 220 miles of both public and
private U.S.-Mexico borderland.44
On April 11, 2019, then-Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan directed the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide a detailed evaluation of the DHS proposal by May 10th, 2019 and
assess how the DHS-requested projects might support the mobilization of the armed forces to the
southern border. Concurrently, the Acting Secretary instructed the DOD Comptroller and others to
identify $3.6 billion in unobligated balances from existing military construction projects that
might serve as a source of funding for border barriers.
On May 6, 2019, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted his final report, Assessment
of Whether the Construction of Barriers at the Southern Border is Necessary to Support the Use
of Armed Forces in Securing the Border, which concluded that all DHS-identified construction
projects were necessary to support the use of the armed forces.45 The report’s methodology was
based, in part, on the assumption that any construction along the border would provide necessary
support, wherever troops may (or may not) be deployed:
In general, construction projects in one sector of the border have ripple effects across all
other sectors. This recognition drives our conclusion that any border barrier construction
supports the use of the armed forces on the border to some extent, regardless of where the
construction occurs relative to the current location of DoD operations.46
On August 21, 2019, Kenneth Rapuano, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense &
Global Security (ASD/HDGS), recommended the Secretary of Defense adopt an action plan that
would execute 11 DHS identified projects and defer $3.6 billion in existing military construction.
The Secretary of Defense approved all these recommendations on September 3, 2019.

43 Tara Copp, Leo Shane III, and Joe Gould, "The Pentagon wants to know how a border wall will improve troops’
‘effectiveness’ before it contributes DoD dollars," Military Times, February 21, 2019, available at:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/02/21/dod-asks-dhs-for-data-to-justify-milcon-use-for-border-
wall/.
44 Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Ex. 10, California, No. 19‐cv‐00872, ECF. No. 89-10 (“Declaration
of Kenneth Rapuano”) [hereafter First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano].
45 10 USC 2808 reads, in part, “In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national
emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed
forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction
projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not
otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”
46 Notice of Filing of Administrative Record for Border Barrier Projects Undertaken Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808,
September 13, 2019, No. 19-cv-0006, ECF. No.123-2 (Info Memo General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, “Assessment of Whether the Construction of Barriers at the Southern Border is Necessary to Support
the Use of Armed Forces in Securing the Border”, May 6, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
14

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

DOD Directives on Use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 Describe a Process that Originates
with Combatant Commanders
Historically, DOD has used 10 U.S.C. 2808 to fund projects at overseas locations for war related
infrastructure.47 Requests for emergency construction projects originate with the Secretaries of the
Military Departments and COCOMs, who together make a preliminary assessment on whether
use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 authorities is warranted.48 For each emergency project, officials must
provide detailed justification materials that analyze possible alternatives to use of the emergency
authority, give a history of the request and rationale for why the project may not be deferred, and
submit a cost estimate and timeline for completion.49 The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(CJCS) is then required to certify any proposed projects are consistent with current theater basing
plans and do not conflict with other operational priorities.
Having made these determinations, the Secretaries then forward their list of proposed emergency
projects and detailed justification materials to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment, or ASD (Sustainment). That office, in turn, provides the Secretary of Defense with
its recommendations.
The Secretary makes a final decision on projects to be undertaken and notifies all appropriate
defense committees of the pending action, as required by statute. Following this notification, the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) is permitted to issue funds
for execution.50

47 See CRS Insight IN11017, Military Construction Funding in the Event of a National Emergency, by Michael J.
Vassalotti and Brendan W. McGarry.
48 “When a Secretary of a Military Department decides, in conjunction with the supported Combatant Commander, to
request use of this authority (10 U.S.C. 2808), the Secretary of the Military Department will submit a request to
ASD(Sustainment).” DOD Financial Management Regulation DOD 7000.14, Volume 3, Chapter 17, section 170303,
paragraph 3, available at: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_17.pdf#page-17.
49 “DOD Financial Management Regulation DOD 7000.14, Volume 3, Chapter 17, section 170303, paragraph 3,
subparagraphs a-e, available at: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/03/03_17.pdf#page-
17.
50 Department of Defense, Financial Management Regulation DoD 7000.14-R (Volume 3, Chapter 17), February 2016.
See Section “170303. Emergency and Contingency Construction.” Available at:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Volume_03.pdf#page=270#page=270.
Congressional Research Service
15

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Figure 3. 10 U.S.C. 2808 Process (as Reported)

Source: CRS analysis of DOD Financial Management Regulation DOD 7000.14, Volume 3, Chapter 17, part
170303 Emergency and Contingency Construction; Department of Defense Directive 4270.05 Military
Construction, Part 5 Responsibilities.
10 U.S.C. 284: DOD Transferred Funds Over Congressional
Objections in Contravention of DOD Directives
Overview
To execute the plan described by the Administration’s border security factsheet, DOD
reprogrammed $2.5 billion from a variety of nondrug defense programs, through the
Department’s Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, and on to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the federal agency that both DHS and DOD have asked to manage border barrier
construction activities.
This two-stage process—transferring funds into and out of the defense Drug Interdiction
account—was permitted by multiple authorities: first by Section 8005 General Transfer Authority
and Section 9002 Special Transfer Authority, and in the final stage by the statute 10 U.S.C. 284.

Congressional Research Service
16

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense
The Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account is a defense-wide appropriation that typically receives
roughly $1.1 bil ion annually. Approximately 70% of its funds support counterdrug activities focused on detecting
and monitoring il icit networks, providing domestic support to non-DOD agencies, and working with international
partners to combat criminal activity. Generally, the remaining 30% of funds support drug testing and prevention
programs within DOD for military and civilian personnel.51 The Table 3 provides a brief funding history.
Table 3. Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense Funding History
Enacted (amounts in thousands of dollars)
Budget Activity: Account
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
BA01: Counter-Narcotics Support
902,109
841,420
748,948
670,271
BA02: Drug Demand Reduction Program
121,589
118,713
120,813
121,900
BA03: National Guard Counterdrug
212,900
254,000
236,353
217,178
Program
BA04: National Guard Counterdrug
N/A
N/A
25,000
25,276
Schools
Total Enacted
1,236,598
1,214,133
1,131,114
1,034,625
Source: See Department of Defense (Comptrol er), Budget Execution: DD 1414 Base for Reprogramming
Actions (FY2019-FY2016). Available at: https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Execution/; See also annual
Department of Defense Comptrol er, Operation and Maintenance Overview, Drug Interdiction and
Counterdrug Activities. Available at: https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/Budget2019/
Notes: Includes base and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Note that OCO generally added to
BA01: Counter-Narcotics Support.
By transferring funds from nondrug programs into the defense Drug Interdiction account, DOD
was able to tap a larger pool of appropriations than might otherwise have been available by using
the account’s own funds. At the same time, the Drug Interdiction account’s ongoing programs
were safeguarded from diminishing transfers. DOD officials have stated they would not tap the
account’s own appropriations for wall-related projects:
DOD will not use any DoD counter-narcotics funding for the drug-demand-reduction
program, the National Guard counter-drug program, or the National Guard counter-drug
schools program to provided support to DHS under 10 U.S.C. 284(b)(7).52
To accomplish the first stage of the $2.5 billion transfer process – transferring savings from
nondrug programs to the defense Drug Interdiction account—DOD did not comply with internal
regulations that require the Department to first seek congressional prior approval for general
transfer authority (Section 8005) actions.53
DOD’s process for submitting prior-approval requests to congressional defense committees is a
non-statutory requirement intended to preserve comity with legislators who set the Department’s

51 Department of Defense Comptroller, Operation and Maintenance Overview, Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Estimates,
March 2018. (See “Appropriation Highlights: Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities.”) Available at:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2019/fy2019_OM_Overview.pdf#page=65.
52 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano.
53 DOD Financial Management Regulation DOD 7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 6. “No reprogramming request will be
approved if the funds requested have been obligated or committed prior to congressional committee review and
approval.” Available at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Volume_03.pdf#page=44.
Congressional Research Service
17

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

reprogramming thresholds each year. Disapproval by any one of the four committees terminates
further action, according to DOD regulations, though the Department may request reconsideration
or submit a modified request.54
On March 25, 2019, the Department notified the four congressional defense committees of its
plan to transfer $1 billion, the first of several reprogramming actions.55 The House Armed
Services and House Committee on Appropriations immediately denied the request.56 DOD
nevertheless completed its transfer on March 26, 2019, for the first time overriding congressional
disapprovals.57 The Department followed up with an additional reprogramming action of $1.5
billion, which it completed on May 9, 2019.58
How DOD Transferred $2.5 billion in Two Reprogramming Actions
DOD’s first reprogramming action occurred on March 25, 2019, and included $1 billion for
construction of high priority projects in Yuma Sector Arizona (Projects 1 and 2) and El Paso
Sector Texas (Project 1). All projects were to be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The transfer of funds took place in two stages. In the first stage, the Department used General
Transfer Authority (also known as Section 8005 authority) to shift $1 billion in Army military
personnel program savings into the defense Drug Interdiction account.59 The funds consisted of:
 $812 million (81%) in excess appropriations due to a shortfall of 9,500 personnel
from the Army’s targeted end strength, and

54 GAO, Budget Reprogramming: Department of Defense Process for Reprogramming Funds (GAO/NSIAD-86-
164BR), July 1986, available at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/75702.pdf#page=21; GAO, Budget Reprogramming:
Department of Defense Process for Reprogramming Funds (GAO/NSIAD-86-164BR), July 1986, available at:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/75702.pdf#page=21.
55 Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Reprogramming Action (FY 19-01 RA), March 25, 2019, available at:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/19-
01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf
56 Chairman Adam Smith, House Armed Services Committee, Letter to Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and
Chief Financial Officer David L. Norquist, March 26, 2019, available at:
https://armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/5/7/57ea01fb-9872-4a49-b878-
9b844ca0b030/B5C69226DA76BB0F77AC9E06052FA8AC.fy-19-01-ra.pdf; Chairman Peter Visclosky, Defense
Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations, Letter to Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and Chief
Financial Officer David L. Norquist, March 26, 2019, available at:
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Visclosky%20Letter%20Denying%20R
eprogramming.pdf.
57 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, The Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Budget Request from
the Department of Defense, 116th Cong., March 26, 2019. (Remarks by Adam Smith, “…the sort of gentleman’s
agreement was if you reprogram money, you will not do it without first getting the approval of all relevant
committees…For the first time…you are not asking for our permission.”), available at:
https://armedservices.house.gov/2019/3/the-fiscal-year-2020-national-defense-budget-request-from-the-department-of-
defense.
58 Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Reprogramming Action (FY 19-02 RA), May 9, 2019, available at:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/19-
02_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf
59 Section 8005 refers to the recurring designation in annual appropriations measures that authorizes base general
transfer authority and sets the maximum amount permitted (typically around $4-5 billion). Section 9002 is the
equivalent designation for war-related funds. Congress typically requires reprogrammed funds to meet three criteria.
Reprogrammed funds must: 1) be used for higher priority items; 2) based on unforeseen military requirements, and; 3)
in be case be used for items previously denied by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 39

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

 $188 million (19%) in program savings from several military benefits
programs.60
In the second stage of the transfer action, the Department invoked 10 U.S.C. 284 to authorize
moving the $1 billion into an Army Operation and Maintenance appropriation for use by the
Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for managing all DOD approved border barrier
projects.
Figure 4. First DOD Reprogramming Tranche of $1 billion

Source: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptrol er), Reprogramming Action (FY 19-01 RA), March 25, 2019.
Notes: Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities funds were transferred to an “Operations and
Maintenance, Army” appropriation with a one-year period of availability that expires on September 30, 2019.
The appropriation is accessible by USACE.
On May 9, 2019, DOD notified congressional defense committees of a second reprogramming
action of $1.5 billion for four additional border barrier projects (El Centro California Project 1
and Tucson Sector Arizona Projects 1-3; see Appendix Table B-2 for complete list).61 Unlike the
first action, the Department transferred both base and OCO funds:
 Base: $818.5 million (55%) drawn from a variety of accounts, including research
and development technologies to reduce the U.S. chemical stockpile ($252
million), recovered savings related to lower than expected contributions to the
Thrift Savings Plan retirement ($224 million), and the cancellation of a National
Security Space Launch mission ($210 million).
 Overseas Contingency Operations: $681.5 million (approximately 45%) drawn
from funding for training of Afghan security forces and reimbursement to
Pakistan for logistics support.
Base and OCO reprogramming authorities are derived from separate provisions with nearly
identical legislative language; for base Section 8005 of P.L. 115-245 and Section 1001 of P.L.
115-232; and for OCO Section 9002 of PL. 115-245 and Section 1512 of P.L. 115-232.

60 Additional funds were made available due to DOD overestimates in the number of personnel transferring to the new
Blended Retirement System and those applying for unemployment compensation benefits.
61 See Second Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano, California, No. 19‐cv‐00872, ECF. No. 143 [hereafter referred to as
Second Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano].
Congressional Research Service
19

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Figure 5. Second Reprogramming Tranche of $1.5 billion

Source: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptrol er), Reprogramming Action (FY 19-02 RA), May 9, 2019.
Notes: Unlike the first reprogramming tranche, funds in this action were drawn from FY2019 appropriations
with varying periods of availability. Approximately $224 mil ion, or 15% of the total, would otherwise have
expired after one year; $933 mil ion, or 62% of the total amount, would have expired after two years; and $344
mil ion, or 23% of the total, after three years. Like the first tranche, all these funds were transferred to an
“Operations and Maintenance, Army” account appropriation with a one-year period of availability that expire on
September 30, 2019. The appropriation is accessible by USACE.
DOD Has Undertaken Six Border Barrier Projects Requested by
DHS Under 10 U.S.C. 284
On February 25, 2019, DHS requested that DOD undertake 11 construction projects on the U.S.-
Mexico southwest border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The projects involved
construction or replacement of roads, lighting, and vehicle and pedestrian fencing along drug
smuggling corridors that were also areas of high illegal entry. DHS stated the purpose:
To support DHS's action under Section 102 of IIRIRA, DHS is requesting that DoD,
pursuant to its authority under 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7), assist with the construction of fences
roads, and lighting within the Project Areas to block drug-smuggling corridors across the
international boundary between the United States and Mexico.
DOD initially agreed to fund seven of the 11 projects in multiple funding tranches (described
above).62 The Defense Department subsequently cancelled one of these projects (Yuma Sector
Project 2), which was later funded using the emergency authority 10 U.S.C. 2808. All the projects
were to be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
DOD’s first reprogramming funding tranche of $1 billion supported: Yuma Sector Arizona
Projects 1 and 2, and El Paso Sector Texas Project 1.63 DOD’s second funding tranche of $1.5
billion supported: El Centro California Project 1 and Tucson Sector Arizona Projects 1-3.64

62 DOD funded three projects using 10 U.S.C. 2808 that it was unable to fund using 10 U.S.C. 284. These were: Yuma
2; Yuma 3, and El Paso 2.
63 Yuma 2 was later terminated. See Second Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano.
64 In August and September, DOD identified three additional projects that were to be funded using unanticipated
contract savings. Those savings were eventually found to be insufficient, and the plans for adding the new projects
were aborted.
Congressional Research Service
20

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Figure 6. Locations of U.S.-Mexico Border Construction Projects for Which DHS
Requested Assistance from DOD Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284
As of July 2019

Source: First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum from Christina Bobb, Executive
Secretary of Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive Secretary of the Department of
Defense, “Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25, 2019) and Second Declaration of
Kenneth Rapuano.
Court Challenges Delayed Project Execution While Funds Expire September
30, 2019
As of September 2019, DOD has obligated $1.9 billion of the $2.5 billion it reprogrammed for
wall related construction under 10 U.S.C. 284.65 Until recently, operations were suspended due to
multiple court injunctions in a legal case challenging DOD’s reprogramming actions, Sierra Club
v. Trump. The delays incurred additional costs as contractors that had received contract awards
were compelled to idle their equipment and put laborers on standby.66 On July 26, 2019, the U.S.
Supreme Court lifted all injunctions in the case, allowing construction to once again proceed.
Nevertheless, the litigation remains unresolved. In the case of an unfavorable ruling, the
government has suggested that it may be required to take down the new construction.
DOD is under some pressure to complete the obligation of reprogrammed appropriations before
funds are no longer available. Due to legislative language regarding the period of availability of
transferred appropriations, all unobligated amounts expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on
September 30, 2019, thus incentivizing quick action.67 Additionally, due to the complex funding

65 Based on a non-public briefing by DOD officials, September 13, 2019.
66 First Declaration of Eric McFadden; Second Declaration of Eric McFadden.
67 Legislative language governing DOD’s General Transfer Authority (Section 8005) and the defense Drug Interdiction
and Counterdrug Activities account is identical regarding the period of availability of transferred appropriations: “That
Congressional Research Service
21

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

structure of contracts under consideration, USACE requires some actions be taken within 100
days of the award date, according to Army officials:
…contracts require definitization not later than 100 days from the date of contract
award…If the Corps does not have sufficient time available prior to September 30, 2019,
to definitize these contracts and thereby obligate the balance of the contract price, the
remaining unobligated funds will become unavailable for obligation…As a consequence,
the Corps will be unable to complete the projects as planned, and the contracts will have to
be significantly de-scoped or terminated.68
Treasury Forfeiture Funds (TFF) Available
Established in 1992 for the purpose of managing cash and other resources seized as the result of
civil or criminal asset forfeiture, the Treasury Forfeiture Funds (TFF) functions as a multi-
Departmental source of funding for law enforcement interests of the Departments of the Treasury
and Homeland Security. With executive authority to define what fits within this broadly defined
purpose, the Administration determined that it could be a source of wall funding.69
The TFF is managed by the Treasury Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF), which
makes budget authority available to other federal agencies or bureaus via interagency agreements,
reimbursing them upon the receipt of spending invoices. Payments are limited by the total value
of seized property. TEOAF’s mission statement is:
To affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture by law
enforcement bureaus that participate in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) to disrupt
and dismantle criminal enterprises.70
On February 15, 2019, the Treasury Department notified congressional appropriators that it had
approved a DHS request (submitted in December 2018) to provide a total of $601 million in TFF
to the CBP for border security purposes.71 The first tranche of $242 million was made available to
CBP for obligation on March 14, 2019.72 The second tranche of $359 million is expected to be
made available at a later date, upon Treasury’s receipt of additional anticipated forfeitures. All
funds the TFF provides to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may be used for various
aspects of border security –not only the construction of a physical wall.73

the funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for obligation for the same time period and for the same
purpose as the appropriation to which transferred.” DOD has successively used each of those authorities to transfer
$2.5 billion in program savings to the FY2019 Army Operations and Maintenance appropriations account (for use by
USACE), a one year appropriation whose unobligated balances expire on the last day of FY2019 (as stipulated by
Section 8003 Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, P.L. 115-245).
68 Identical language contained in First Declaration of Eric McFadden, and Second Declaration of Eric McFadden.
69 Office of Inspector General, Audit of the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund's Financial Statements for
Fiscal Years 2018 and 2017, Department of the Treasury, OIG-19-022, December 13, 2018, p. 11,
https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/ig/Audit%20Reports%20and%20Testimonies/OIG-19-
022.pdf#page=11.
70 Treasury Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture, Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Report
and Plan FY2020, Department of the Treasury, p. 3, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/19.-TEOAF-FY-2020-
CJ.pdf#page=3.
71 Second Declaration of Loren Flossman.
72 An interagency agreement between Treasury and DHS was finalized on March 13, 2019. See Declaration of John
Farley.
73 CRS correspondence with TFF officials.
Congressional Research Service
22

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Congressional Actions
Congressional response to the Administration’s border security factsheet plan has generally split
by chamber, with the House Armed Services and Appropriations committees moving swiftly to
pass legislative language that would block the President’s actions and the Senate Armed Services
and Appropriations committees expressing some support.
In late July 2019, news outlets reported congressional leadership had come to an informal
understanding as part of a settlement of the annual budget caps for FY2020 and FY2021 that
might exclude legislative language restricting the use of federal funds for border barriers from
annual appropriations measures. The deal would specifically prohibit legislative provisions
limiting the use of transfer authority—a key part of the President’s Border security factsheet plan
– unless such language was adopted on a bipartisan basis. The effect of such language is still
unclear as is how it may otherwise be used to modify ongoing legislative activity.74
House Authorization
The House-passed version of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2500)
contains a number of provisions that if enacted would limit or prohibit the use of DOD funds for
construction of border barriers. Furthermore, it provides no funding for the Administration’s
request for replenishment of defunded projects or for related future projects. The bill targets each
stage of the Administration’s funding plan:
 Transfer Authority. Section 1001 would sharply curtail the total amount of base
funds that may be used for reprogrammed, reducing the limit to $1 billion (from
$4.5 billion in FY2019). Section 1512, the equivalent transfer authority used for
war-related funds, would be reduced to $500 million (from $3.5 billion in
FY2019).
 10 U.S.C. 284. Section 1011 would remove fence construction as a permitted
type of support authorized under 10 U.S.C. 284 and would impose additional
congressional notification requirements associated with use of the statutory
authority.
 10 U.S.C. 2808. Section 2802 would limit the total amount of funds that could be
used under 10 U.S.C. 2808 emergency authorities to $500 million if used for
construction “outside the United States,” or $100 million if used for domestic
construction projects. (Currently, transfers are only limited to the total amount of
all unobligated military construction appropriations.) These changes would apply
only to projects pursuant to a declared emergency and would not impact projects
that support a declared war.
 General Prohibition. Section 1046 would prohibit the use of national defense
funds appropriated between FY2015-FY2020 for the construction of any type of
physical border barrier along the southern border. Section 2801 contains identical
language that applies to military construction funds.

74 Niels Lesniewski, Kellie Mejdrich, Andrew Siddons and Doug Sword, "White House, Hill leaders agree on two-year
budget deal," Roll Call, July 22, 2019, available at: https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/white-house-hill-leaders-
agree-two-year-budget-deal. The article cites a congressional aide’s comment, “In divided government, every bill needs
bipartisan support. Language saying provisions in appropriations bills require bipartisan agreement is meaningless
verbiage designed to make the obvious seem profound…”
Congressional Research Service
23

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

On May 15, 2019, a group of legislators led by House Armed Services Committee members
introduced H.R. 2762, a bill that would modify 10 U.S.C. 2808 by imposing a $250 million cap
on the total amount that could be used for emergency military construction projects in the event
of a national emergency. Additionally, “The bill would only allow money that cannot be spent for
its intended purpose to be used for an emergency, would require additional information in a
congressional notification, and delay the start of construction until after a waiting period
following the notification going to Congress.”75
Senate Authorizations
The Senate passed version of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1790) would
support the actions described in the President’s Border security factsheet plan by providing $3.6
billion in military construction funds to replenish projects deferred by the Administration’s use of
10 U.S.C. 2808 and avoiding large cuts to DOD reprogramming thresholds.76 However, the
Senate bill would not authorize the additional $3.6 billion requested by the Administration for
future border barrier projects.
 Transfer Authority. Section 1001 and Section 1522 provide $4 billion in general
transfer authority— a decrease of $0.5 billion from FY2019 authorized
amounts— and $2.5 billion in special transfer authority— a decrease of $1
billion from FY2019 authorized amounts, respectively.
 10 U.S.C. 2808 Replenishment funding. Section 2906 would provide $3.6
billion to replenish military construction projects affected by the use of 10 U.S.C.
2808 transfers, fulfilling the Administration’s entire request for that purpose.
Authorization for the transfer of these funds into the depleted accounts would
terminate at the end of FY2020 (September 30, 2020).
House Appropriations
The House has generally sought to limit the Administration’s funding actions across multiple
appropriations bills. In the first of two FY2020 appropriations minibus measures, the Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2740), Division C (Department of Defense
Appropriations, H.R. 2968) and Division E (Energy And Water Development And Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020, H.R. 2960 ) contained the following provisions that would
affect the Administration’s plan for funding border barrier construction:
 Transfer Authority. Section 8005 would limit general transfer authority of base
funds to $1 billion (a reduction from $4 billion in FY201977) and require the
Secretary of Defense and others to certify the transferred funds will be used for
higher priority items. The Section 9002 special transfer authority for war funds

75 House Armed Services Press Release, “HASC Democrats Introduce Bill to Limit DOD’s Authority to Reprogram
Military Construction Funds,” May 15, 2019, available at: https://armedservices.house.gov/2019/5/hasc-democrats-
introduce-bill-to-limit-dod-s-authority-to-reprogram-military-construction-funds.
76 During Senate Armed Services Committee markup, a motion to include a provision prohibiting the use of FY2015-
FY2021 military construction funds for border barrier construction failed by a roll call vote of 12-15. See S.Rept. 116-
48, Available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/crpt/srpt48/CRPT-116srpt48.pdf#page=641.
77 See Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-6157), available at: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr6157/BILLS-
115hr6157enr.pdf#page=19.
Congressional Research Service
24

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

would provide authority to transfer up to $500 million (a reduction from $2
billion in FY2019).78
 10 U.S.C. 284. Though the legislation would provide $816.8 million for Drug
Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities transfer account (for use under 10 U.S.C.
284), the bill prohibits use of any of those funds for construction of border barrier
fencing, and further prohibits any transfer of these funds.79
 General Prohibition. Section 8127 would broadly prohibit defense
appropriations from being used for construction of a wall, fence, border barrier,
or border security infrastructure along the southern border.80
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 108 of Division E would broadly
prohibit USACE from using any civil works funds for border barrier
construction:81
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this
Act or any other prior appropriations Acts for the Civil Works Program of the United
States Corps of Engineers may be committed, obligated, expended, or otherwise used
to design or construct a wall, fence, border barriers, or border security infrastructure
along the southern border of the United States.82
The House passed the second of two FY2019 appropriations mini-buses, H.R. 3055 on June 25,
2019. It contains a number of limiting restrictions in Division D (Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020) that would interrupt the
Administration’s plans for funding border barriers.
 Reprogramming Guidelines. Section 122 would require DOD to follow its own
guidelines when reprogramming military construction funds, a directive that
would make significant transfers contingent on congressional prior-approval.83 In
committee language, the House cautioned DOD that “reprogramming is a
courtesy provided to DOD and can be taken away if the authority is abused” and
urged the Department to adhere to its own directives when seeking to reprogram
funds.84
 General Prohibition on Transfers. In committee language, the House
underscored the absence of wall funding in the current appropriations language

78 See Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-6157), available at: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr6157/BILLS-
115hr6157enr.pdf#page=62; Section 8005 Available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2740/BILLS-
116hr2740eh.pdf#page=225; Section 9002 Available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2740/BILLS-
116hr2740eh.pdf#page=328.
79 See Title VI Other Department of Defense Programs, subsection Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities,
Defense, available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2740/BILLS-116hr2740eh.pdf#page=221.
80 Section 8127 available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2740/BILLS-116hr2740pcs.pdf#page=304.
81 See Division E (Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020), General
Provisions – Corps of Engineers-Civil, available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2740/BILLS-
116hr2740eh.pdf#page=596.
82 Available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2740/BILLS-116hr2740eh.pdf#page=599.
83 See H.R. 3055, Division D (Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2020), House Rules Committee print, Available at:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR3055-RCP116-18.pdf#page=384.
84 See H.Rept. 116-63, Report from the Committee on Appropriations to accompany H.R. 2745, available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-116hrpt63/pdf/CRPT-116hrpt63.pdf#page=7.
Congressional Research Service
25

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

and its efforts to preserve previously appropriated projects from becoming a pool
of funds for the Administration’s efforts to construct border barriers.
The Committee recommendation does not provide these requested funds. Also, the
accompanying bill includes language that protects previously appropriated projects, as
well as fiscal year 2020 projects included in this bill from being used as a source for
wall funding.85
 Prohibition on Design and Construction. Section 612 would prohibit the use of
military construction appropriations provided in any act from FY2015-FY2020 to
be used for the purpose of designing or constructing border barriers or access
roads along the southern border. The provision uses the strongest possible
legislative language by stating it would apply, “notwithstanding any other
provision of law.”86
The House-passed Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R.
3351) contains a provision (Sec. 126) that would bar the Administration’s use of Treasury
Forfeiture Funds for planning, designing, or executing any kind of barrier or road along the
southwest border.87 If enacted, this language would likely prevent the use of $601 million funds
approved by the Treasury Department for these purposes.
Senate Appropriations
On September 12, 2019, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported the Defense
Appropriations Act, 2020 (S. 2474 , S.Rept. 116-103), which would retain transfer authorities at
FY2019 levels ($4 billion for General Transfer Authority, or Section 8005; $2 billion for OCO
related transfers) and contained no additional wall-related provisions.88

85 See H.Rept. 116-63, Report from the Committee on Appropriations to accompany H.R. 2745.
86 See H.R. 3055, Division D (Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2020), House Rules Committee print, Available at:
https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR3055-RCP116-18.pdf#page=444.
87 See Title I, Department of the Treasury, Administrative Provisions- Department of the Treasury, Section 126,
available at: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr3351/BILLS-116hr3351rfs.pdf#page=29.
88 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (S. 2474). Section 8005 Transfer Authority available at
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s2474/BILLS-116s2474rs.pdf#page=42;Section 9002 Transfer Authority available
at https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s2474/BILLS-116s2474rs.pdf#page=141.
Congressional Research Service
26

Table 4. Side-by-Side Comparison of FY2020 Congressional Action on Wall DOD Funding
House Appropriators
House Appropriators (H.R. 2740):
(H.R. 3055): Includes
Provision
House Authorizers (H.R. 2500)
Senate Authorizers (S.1790)
Includes Defense
Military Construction
Transfer Authority
Section 1001 lowers the limit for
Section 1522 decreases base budget
Section 8005 lowers the base budget
In committee language, the
base budget transfers from $4.5
transfer authority from $4.5 bil ion in cap from $4 bil ion in FY2019 to
House underscored the
bil ion in FY2019 to $1.0 bil ion in
FY2019 to $4.0 bil ion in FY2020.
$1.0 bil ion in FY2020 and requires
absence of wall funding in
FY2020.
Section 1522 lowers war-related
that the Secretary of Defense to
the current appropriations
Section 1512 reduces the war-
transfer limits from $3.5 bil ion in
certify the process.
language and its efforts to
related funds cap from $3.5 bil ion
FY2019 to $2.5 bil ion in FY2020.
Section 9002 reduces the cap on
preserve previously
in FY2019 for $0.5 bil ion in
war-related transfers from $2 bil ion
appropriated projects from
FY2020.
in FY2019 to $.5 bil ion in FY2020.
becoming a source of funds
for the Administration’s

efforts to construct border
barriers
10 U.S.C. 284 Drug
Section 1011 removes fence

Provides $816.8 mil ion for Drug

Interdiction
construction as a permitted type of
Interdiction and Counter-Drug
support authorized under 10 U.S.C
Activities but prohibits the
284 and imposes additional
construction of border barrier fencing.
reporting requirements.

10 U.S.C. 2808
Section 2802 sets a $500 mil ion
Section 2906 provides $3.6 bil ion to

Emergency Military
funding limit for international
replenish, or backfill, military
Construction
construction, and $100 mil ion for
construction projects affected by the
domestic construction projects;
use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 transfers, but
currently, transfers are only limited
transfers would terminate at the end
to the total amount of all
of the fiscal year (September 30,
unobligated military construction
2020).
appropriations. These changes apply
only to projects pursuant to
declared emergencies (not war).
CRS-27

House Appropriators
House Appropriators (H.R. 2740):
(H.R. 3055): Includes
Provision
House Authorizers (H.R. 2500)
Senate Authorizers (S.1790)
Includes Defense
Military Construction
General Provisions
Sections 1046 prohibits the use of

Section 8127 prohibits defense
Section 612 prohibits the use
defense funds appropriated
appropriations from being used for
of military construction funds
between FY2015-FY2020 for the
construction of a wall, fence, border
appropriated between
construction of any type of physical
barrier, or border security
FY2015-FY2015 for the
border barrier along the southern
infrastructure along the southern
construction of roads or
border.
border.
barriers along the southern
Section 2801 contains identical
border.
language that applies to military
construction funds.
U.S. Army Corps of

Section 108 prohibits the use of funds

Engineers
in any bil for USACE barrier
construction.
Source: See preceding section for detailed source notes.

CRS-28

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Issues for Congress
Separation of Powers
At the highest level, the President’s statements regarding the use of emergency powers to
supplement the congressional appropriations process have raised questions for some about the
reach of the executive branch’s lawful authority.
“I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this [national
emergency]. But I would rather do it much faster.”89 – President Trump, February 15, 2019
Critics also assert the President’s actions risk violating the constitutional separation of powers.
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury,
but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.”90 Supporters have argued the President has
lawfully reallocated funds to address a national crisis.
On June 3, 2019, in a lawsuit brought by the House of Representatives that argued the
Administration’s actions to fund a border wall represented a breach of the Appropriations Clause
of the Constitution, a federal judge ruled the legislature had no standing to sue.91
In the 116th Congress, House authorizers and appropriators have inserted provisions into annual
legislation that would broadly prohibit the use of defense funds for construction of a wall, fence,
border barrier, or other security infrastructure along the southern border. Some of these
prohibitions would appear to apply retroactively to all appropriations since FY2015.
Section 8005 (and Related) Reprogramming Guidelines
DOD’s recent decision to undertake general and special reprogramming transfers (in conjunction
with 10 U.S.C. 284), “without regard to comity-based DOD policies that prescribe prior approval
from congressional committees” has introduced uncertainty into a historically uncontroversial
process.92 For some, DOD’s disregard for longstanding reprogramming agreements with
congressional defense committees has signaled a challenge to the legislative branch’s ability to
conduct oversight of approximately $6 billion in annual defense appropriations. Consequently,
the Department’s actions have generated new congressional interest and actions (particularly in
the House) that would sharply limit the annual budget flexibility provided to the Department in
authorizations and appropriations acts.

89 White House, Remarks by President Trump on the National Security and Humanitarian Crisis on our Southern
Border, February 15, 2019, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-
national-security-humanitarian-crisis-southern-border/.
90 U.S. Constitution available at National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.
91 United States House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, 379 F. Supp. 3d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2019) (“And while the
Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive
Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear
the House’s claims and will deny its motion.”), available at: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-
bin/show_public_doc?2019cv0969-54.
92 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. C, (Memorandum from Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan
to Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, “Funding Construction in Support of the
Department of Homeland Security Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284,” March 25, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
29

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Others view DOD’s recent reprogramming notifications in support of border wall construction as
a justifiable anomaly in an otherwise unbroken agreement supported by the Department’s own
internal directives.
In cases where DOD reprogramming actions do not reflect congressional intent (or adhere to
DOD directives), Congress may consider what legislative recourse might be available to prohibit
future violations. In some cases, decreasing the Department’s budgetary flexibility may
potentially undermine DOD’s ability to effectively execute congressionally directed policies and
programs.
DOD’s Emergency Military Construction Selection Criteria
The emergency Military Construction statute (10 U.S.C. 2808) does not limit the types of military
construction projects that may be deferred based on a set of criteria, including, for example,
whether such delays will affect military readiness. Nevertheless, DOD has stated it will apply its
own criteria to the 10 U.S.C. 2808 pool of eligible projects in order to preserve readiness.
Congress may evaluate whether DOD’s guidelines are sufficient and whether they serve as a
sound basis for governing future decisions.
Congressional Research Service
30

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Appendix A. Selected Communications and
Documents
The tables below contains a chronology of selected communications, correspondence, and
documents relevant to the use of 10 U.S.C. Section 2808 and Section 284, drawn primarily from
court records. This section is intended to identify milestones in the decision-making process.
Table A-1. Interagency Correspondence Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284 (and Related
Reprogramming Authorities)
Date
From
To
Subject
4/4/2018
Presidential
DOD, DHS,
Directs the SecDef to activate National Guard and assist DHS in
Memorandum
U.S. Attorney
securing the southern border
General
2/25/2019 DHS
DOD
Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284; letter contains
a prioritized list of 11 border projects.
3/25/2019 DOD
DHS
Letter affirming DOD wil undertake Yuma Sector Projects 1-2
and El Paso Sector Project 1
3/25/2019 SecDef
SecArmy
Memo identifying USACE as the construction agent and directing
construction to begin as quickly as possible on Yuma Sector
Projects 1 and 2 and El Paso Sector Project 1 consistent with
applicable law.
3/25/2019 SecDef
DOD
Directing internal reprogramming "without regard to comity-
Comptrol er
based DOD policies that prescribe prior approval from
congressional committees"
3/25/2019 DOD
OMB
Request for reprogramming approval
Comptrol er
3/25/2019 DOD
Congress
First tranche of $1 bil ion (for Yuma and El Paso): Notification of
Comptrol er
Prior-Approval Reprogramming Action FY 19-01-RA (from DOD
program savings to defense Drug Interdiction account);
Notification of Internal Reprogramming Action FY 19-11 IR (from
defense Drug Interdiction account to Army O&M 2019/2019
appropriation)
3/26/2019 Congress
DOD
HASC and HAC deny reprogramming action; DOD completes
transfer of first tranche
3/29/2019 DHS
DHS
Modification Request (1 of 2) for El Paso Sector Project 1 to
include anti-climb features (30 foot bol ard)
4/5/2019
DHS
DOD
Modification Request (2 of 2)
4/9/2019
DOD
DHS
Notice of approval of DHS modifications requests; 30 foot steel
bol ard with anti-climb plate for Yuma Sector Project 1 and El
Paso Sector Project 1, and; 18 foot steel bol ard with anti-climb
plate for Yuma Sector Project 2
4/12/2019 DHS
DOD
Request to terminate Yuma Sector Project 2 contracts
4/18/2019 DOD
DHS
Approval of further modification (de-scoping)
Congressional Research Service
31

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Date
From
To
Subject
5/9/2019
DOD
Congress
Second tranche of $1.5 bil ion (for Tucson Sector Projects 1-3
Comptrol er
and El Centro 1): Notification of Prior-Approval Reprogramming
Action FY 19-02-RA (from DOD program savings to Drug
Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities, Defense); Notification
of Internal Reprogramming Action FY 19-16 IR (from defense
Drug Interdiction account to Army O&M 2019/2019
appropriation)
5/24/2019 Federal district
Sierra Club v. Trump: preliminary injunction barring transfer of $1
court in CA
bil ion (first reprogramming tranche); USACE suspends
construction
6/28/2019 Federal district
Sierra Club v. Trump: Permanent injunction prohibiting both
court in CA
reprogramming tranches (USACE suspends new construction)
7/26/2019 U.S. Supreme

U.S. Supreme Court lifts both injunctions
Court
8/16/2019 DHS
DOD
Letter requesting DOD add additional mileage for Yuma Sector
Project 3 (8 miles), Yuma Sector Project 4 (1.1 miles), and Yuma
Sector Project 5 (2.5 miles), based on anticipated project savings.
8/22/2019 Internal DOD

Recommendation for SecDef to disapprove Yuma Sector Project
(ASD HDGS
3 modification (due to location being interspersed with 31 miles
to SecDef)
of 10 USC 2808 proposed construction) and approve Yuma
Sector Projects 4 and 5, and additionally, Tucson Sector Project 4
(14.4 miles).
8/26/2019 Internal DOD:

SecDef directs USACE to use excess funds to undertake
SecDef to
construction of Yuma Sector Projects 4 and 5 and Tucson Sector
USACE
Project 4 (rejecting DHS request for Yuma Sector Project 3 and
Tucson Sector Project 5).
8/26/2019 DOD
DHS
DOD confirms modifications of 20 miles in Yuma Sector Projects
4 and 5, and additional mileage in Tucson Sector Project 4
(subject to availability of funds).
9/13/2019 DOD
Court
DOD declares that, due to shortfall in anticipated project savings,
(declaration)
it no longer intends to undertake new projects Yuma Sector
Projects 4 and 5 and Tucson Sector Project 4.
Source: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California filings in California v. Trump, No. 19‐cv‐00872 (N.D.
Cal. filed Feb. 18, 2019) and Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 19, 2019).
Notes: Abbreviations include: SecDef- Secretary of Defense; CJCS – Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Table A-2. Interagency Correspondence Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808 (As Of
9/17/2019)
Date
From
To
Subject
2/10/2019
CJCS
SecDef
CJCS provides a preliminary assessment of DOD support for
border barrier projects.

2/15/2019
Presidential declaration of national emergency and use of armed
forces (10 U.S.C. 2808 invoked)
2/18/2019
DOD
DHS
Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan requests DHS provide
a prioritized list of projects and asks that the agency provide
analysis explaining how they wil support deployed troops.
3/18/2019
DOD
Congress
DOD provides "Fact Sheet on Section 2808 Funding Pool"
with list of potentially affected military construction projects
3/20/2019
DHS
DOD
DHS provides prioritized list of border projects
Congressional Research Service
32

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Date
From
To
Subject
4/11/2019
SecDef
CJCS
SecDef directs a detailed assessment of DHS projects and
other border-related analysis (due by May 10, 2019)
4/11/2019
SecDef
DOD
Directs Comptrol er (in consultation with others) to identify
Comptrol er
$3.6 bil ion in existing military construction projects
potentially subject to 10 U.S.C. 2808 (Due May 10)
5/6/2019
CJCS
SecDef
Chairman submits final assessment on border barrier projects
that concludes all 11 projects under consideration are
necessary to support use of the armed forces
5/23/2019
DOD
Congress
Update to 10 U.S.C. 2808 Funding Pool award dates
8/21/2019
ASD(HDGS)
SecDef
Recommendation to approve funding for all 11 projects under
consideration. Memo provides a roadmap summarizing
necessary actions. (Approved on 9/3/19)
9/3/2019
SecDef
Military
Directs Acting Secretary of the Army to undertake 11
Departments;
projects ($3.6 bil ion), beginning immediately with Yuma
Comptrol er
Sector Project 2 10/27 (on Barry Goldwater Range under the
jurisdiction of the Navy); to be fol owed by Yuma Sector
Projects 3 and 6, El Paso Sector Projects 2 and 8, San Diego
Sector Projects 4 and 11, El Centro Sector Projects 5 and 9,
and Laredo Sector Project 7.
9/3/2019
SecDef
DHS
Notification that DOD has authorized and directed
construction of 11 requested projects.
9/3/2019
DOD
Congress
SecDef notifies defense committees of 10 USC 2808 actions,
provides list of deferred projects, and describes additional
selection criteria applied; deferred projects outside of the U.S.
wil be prioritized for execution, and total amount wil be split
50%-50% with domestic projects ($1.8 bil ion US/$1.8bil ion
non-US).
9/18/2019
DOI

Public Land Orders transferring for three years the
jurisdiction of land required for: El Paso Sector Project 2; El
Paso Sector Project 8; San Diego Sector Project 4; Yuma
Sector Project 3; and Yuma Sector Project 6.
Source: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California filings in California v. Trump, No. 19‐cv‐00872 (N.D.
Cal. filed Feb. 18, 2019) and Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 19, 2019). For
Department of Interior (DOI) Public Land Orders, see https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-
transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army.
Notes: SecDef – Secretary of Defense; Congress – Congressional defense committees
Congressional Research Service
33

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Appendix B. 10 U.S.C 284 Reprogramming Requests
DOD has submitted two reprogramming notifications to defense committees transferring a total
of $2.5 billion to the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account.
The Department’s first action, on March 25, 2019, used general transfer authority to reallocate $1
billion.93 Approximately 82% of this total was taken from the active duty army pay and
allowances (for officers and enlisted personnel), savings realized from service recruiting
shortfalls.94
Table B-1. DOD’s First Reprogramming Action Supporting
DHS Counter Drug Activity
March 25, 2019
Account / BA: BA Title
Amount
Percentage
Military Personnel, Army
993,627,000
99.36%
02: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted
754,212,000
75.90%
05: Permanent Change of Station Travel
115,726,000
11.65%
04: Subsistence of Enlisted Personnel
57,420,000
5.78%
01: Pay and Allowances of Officers
56,440,000
5.68%
06: Other Military Personnel Costs
9,829,000
0.99%
Reserve Personnel, Army
6,373,000
0.64%
01: Reserve Component Training and Support
6,373,000
100.00%
Total
1,000,000,000
100.00%
Source: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptrol er), 19-01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity (DD
1415-1), March 25, 2019.
DOD’s second action, on May 9, 2019, used a mix of $818.465 million in general transfer
authority (base) and $881.535 in special transfer authority (OCO); a total of $2.5 billion.95
In the table below, reprogramming actions that use special transfer authority are indicated
parenthetically with the (OCO) designation. 96
Table B-2. DOD’s Second Reprogramming Action Supporting
DHS Counter Drug Activity
May 9, 2019
Account / BA: BA Title
Amount
Percentage
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (OCO)
604,000,000
40.27%
06: Afghan National Army
279,000,000
46.19%
09: Afghan Special Security Forces
135,900,000
22.50%

93 Serial number FY 19-01-RA
94 Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), 19-01 RA: Support for DHS Counter Drug Activity (DD 1415-1), March
25, 2019, available at: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Execution/ReprogrammingFY2019/.
95 Serial number FY 19-02-RA
96 Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), 19-02 RA: Support for DHS Counter Drug Activity (DD 1415-1), March
25, 2019, available at: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Execution/ReprogrammingFY2019/.
Congressional Research Service
34

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Account / BA: BA Title
Amount
Percentage
07: Afghan National Police
117,200,000
19.40%
08: Afghan Air Force
71,900,000
11.90%
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
57,000,000
3.80%
05: Modification of In-Service Aircraft
57,000,000
100.00%
Chemical Agent and Munitions Destruction, Defense
251,000,000
16.73%
02: Chemical Agents - RDT&E
251,000,000
100.00%
Military Personnel, Air Force
45,249,000
3.02%
01: Pay and Allowances of Officers
45,249,000
100.00%
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
36,653,000
2.44%
02: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted
24,623,000
67.18%
01: Pay and Allowances of Officers
12,030,000
32.82%
Military Personnel, Navy
88,503,000
5.90%
02: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted
55,501,000
62.71%
01: Pay and Allowances of Officers
33,002,000
37.29%
Missile Procurement, Air Force
76,900,000
5.13%
03: Modification of In-Service Missiles
53,900,000
70.09%
02: Other Missiles
23,000,000
29.91%
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
8,571,000
0.57%
01: Reserve Component Training and Support
8,571,000
100.00%
National Guard Personnel, Army
25,360,000
1.69%
01: Reserve Component Training and Support
25,360,000
100.00%
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OCO)
77,535,000
5.17%
04: Administration and Service-wide Activities
77,535,000
100.00%
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
4,835,000
0.32%
01: Reserve Component Training and Support
4,835,000
100.00%
Reserve Personnel, Army
10,599,000
0.71%
01: Reserve Component Training and Support
10,599,000
100.00%
Reserve Personnel, Navy
4,095,000
0.27%
01: Reserve Component Training and Support
4,095,000
100.00%
Space Procurement, Air Force
209,700,000
13.98%
01: Space Procurement, Air Force
209,700,000
100.00%
Total
1,500,000,000
100.00%
Source: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptrol er), 19-02-RA Support for DHS Counter Drug Activity (DD 1415-1),
May 9, 2019
Notes: Account titles sorted alphabetically. BA titles sorted in descending order by amount.
Together, both reprograming actions reallocated $1.8 billion from base and $.7 billion from OCO
defense funds. The majority of these funds were derived from Army personnel accounts and
programs supporting the Afghanistan Security Forces.
The Department’s two actions were sourced exclusively from appropriations that began in
FY2019 and had a one- to three-year lifespan, or period of availability.
Congressional Research Service
35

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

When these program savings were transferred to the Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug activities
FY2019 appropriations, they became one-year appropriations. Following additional transfer
actions, all appropriations were merged with an FY2019 Army Operations and Maintenance
appropriations account, another one-year account.
Figure B-1. Analysis of DOD Two Reprogramming Actions

Source: CRS Analysis of Reprogramming actions 19-01-RA and 19-02-RA.
Notes: Life-of-Appropriation indicates the beginning and end years of an appropriation’s period of availability. For
example, 2019/2019 represents an appropriation that became available for obligation on October 1, 2018 (the
first day of the fiscal year) and expires on September 30, 2019 (last day of the fiscal year). The appropriation in
this example may be referred to col oquially as “one-year money.”
Congressional Research Service
36

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Appendix C. Wall Projects Requested by DHS
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284
On February 25, 2019, DHS formally requested DOD support its ability to impede and deny
illegal entry and drug smuggling activities along the southwest U.S.-Mexico border by assisting
with the construction (or replacement) of fences, roads, and lighting. DHS summarized the work
required:
The new pedestrian fencing includes a Linear Ground Detection System, which is intended
to, among other functions, alert Border Patrol agents when individuals attempt to damage,
destroy or otherwise harm the barrier. The road construction includes the construction of
new roads and the improvement of existing roads. The lighting that is requested has an
imbedded camera that works in conjunction with the pedestrian fence. The lighting must
be supported by grid power…. DHS will provide DoD with more precise technical
specifications as contract and project planning moves forward.97
DHS requested DOD undertake a total of 11 projects on federal lands, which the agency
identified by geographic location and unique numeric id. The Border Patrol divides responsibility
for its operations along the Southwest border into nine geographic sectors. Four of these were
included as part of the DHS request:
 Yuma Sector Arizona. Composed primarily of desert terrain with vast deserts,
mountain ranges, and sand dunes, the area encompasses 126 miles of U.S.-
Mexico borderland (181,670 square miles) between California and Arizona.98
DHS requested DOD undertake 36 miles of vehicle barrier replacement, 6 miles
of pedestrian fencing, and lighting in this sector.99
 El Paso Sector Texas. This sector covers the entire state of New Mexico and two
counties in western Texas; 268 miles of U.S.-Mexico borderland (125,500 square
miles).100 DHS requested 70 miles of vehicle barrier (with pedestrian fencing)
and lighting in this sector. 101
 El Centro California. Located in Southern California, the sector is characterized
primarily by agricultural lands, eastern desert areas (where summer temperatures
can exceed 120 degrees), and western mountain ranges. The sector stretches for

97 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum from Christina Bobb, Executive Secretary of
Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive Secretary of the Department of Defense, “Request for
Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25, 2019).
98 See U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official website, Border Security Along U.S. Border, Border Patrol Sectors,
Yuma Sector Arizona, available at: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors/yuma-
sector-arizona.
99 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum from Christina Bobb, Executive Secretary of
Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive Secretary of the Department of Defense, “Request for
Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25, 2019).
100 See U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official website, Border Security Along U.S. Border, Border Patrol Sectors, El
Paso, available at: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors/el-paso-sector-texas.
101 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum from Christina Bobb, Executive Secretary of
Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive Secretary of the Department of Defense, “Request for
Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
37

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

71 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.102 DHS requested DOD undertake a mix
of projects along 15 miles in this sector (vehicle, pedestrian, and lighting). 103
 Tucson Sector Arizona. Encompassing nearly all of Arizona, this area – a
particularly active one for illegal alien apprehension and marijuana seizures –
covers 262 miles.104 DHS requested road construction, 86 miles of vehicle barrier
(with pedestrian fencing), and lighting in this sector. 105
Between March and April 2019, DOD approved seven of the eleven requested projects, funding
them in two tranches. One of the approved projects, Yuma 2, was subsequently terminated due to
contract complications.
In August 2019, DHS notified DOD of anticipated contract savings and requested surplus 10
U.S.C. 284 funds be applied to the execution of three additional projects (Yuma 3-5). After
evaluating the request, DOD agreed to undertake a modified set of projects (Yuma 4-5, Tucson 4).
In September, the Department terminated the new projects after new estimates revealed the
anticipated contract savings would be insufficient to undertake additional construction.
The list below shows projects initially requested by DHS and those added by DOD in subsequent
modified requests. The geographic sector is indicated in the “Project Name” column, along with
the project’s numeric designation. Several projects not funded by the use of 10 U.S.C. 284 funds
were later funded by 10 U.S.C. 2808.
For those approved for action by DOD, the funding tranche is also indicated.
Table C-1. DHS Projects Request, by DOD Funding Tranche and Project Name
Projects may not be contiguous
Funding
Tranche
Project Name
Description
Funding Actions Summary
First
Yuma Sector
Involves the replacement of 5
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 1
Project 1
miles of vehicle fencing.
First
Yuma Sector
Construction of an 18 foot
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 1, but
Project 2
fence for 6 miles.
contract terminated. (Later funded by 10 U.S.C.
2808.)
First
El Paso Sector
46 miles of vehicle fence (with
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 1
Project 1
pedestrian fencing).
Second
El Centro
15 miles of vehicle fencing
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 2
Sector Project 1
(replacement).

102 See U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official website, Border Security Along U.S. Border, Border Patrol Sectors, El
Centro Sector California, available at: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors/el-
centro-sector-california
103 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum from Christina Bobb, Executive Secretary of
Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive Secretary of the Department of Defense, “Request for
Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25, 2019).
104 See U.S. Customs and Border Patrol official website, Border Security Along U.S. Border, Border Patrol Sectors,
Tucson Sector Arizona, available at: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-
sectors/tucson-sector-arizona
105 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum from Christina Bobb, Executive Secretary of
Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive Secretary of the Department of Defense, “Request for
Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
38

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Funding
Tranche
Project Name
Description
Funding Actions Summary
Second
Tucson Sector
63 miles of vehicle and
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 2
Project 1
pedestrian fencing mix (Tucson
1-3).
Second
Tucson Sector
See above.
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 2
Project 2
Second
Tucson Sector
See above.
Funded by 10 U.S.C. 284 in Tranche 2
Project 3
Not
El Paso Sector
24 miles of vehicle barrier
Unfunded by 10 U.SC. 284 (later funded by 10
funded
Project 2
replacement (non-contiguous).
USC 2808).
Not
Tucson Sector
26 miles of non-contiguous
Not initially funded. Later, added/Removed due to
funded
Project 4
vehicle barrier replacement.
misestimate of 10 USC 284 surplus from project
savings. Project remains unfunded.
Not
Tucson Sector
2 miles of vehicle barrier
Unfunded. (Considered but rejected by DOD
funded
Project 5
replacement (non-contiguous)
during consideration of potential project savings

along 15 miles.
surplus.)
Not
Yuma Sector
39 miles through Cabeza Prieta Unfunded by 10 U.SC. 284 (later funded by 10
funded
Project 3
National Wildlife Refuge.
USC 2808).
Not
Yuma Sector
1.1 miles of new primary
Added/Removed due to estimates of 10 U.S.C
Funded
Project 4
pedestrian fencing.
284 surplus from project savings. Project remains
unfunded.
Not
Yuma Sector
5 miles of pedestrian fencing
Added/Removed due to estimates of 10 U.SC.
Funded
Project 5
replacement.
284 surplus from project savings. Project remains
unfunded.
Source: For first tranche, see First Declaration of Eric McFadden, for second tranche, see Second Declaration
of Eric McFadden; for remaining projects, see First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. A, (Memorandum
from Christina Bobb, Executive Secretary of Homeland Security to Captain Hallock N. Mohler, Executive
Secretary of the Department of Defense, “Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284,” February 25,
2019).
Notes: Sorted by funding tranche and priority (as identified in DHS correspondence).
In a letter to Acting DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan
stated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would undertake the planning and construction of
approved projects and, upon completion, would hand over custody of all new infrastructure to
DHS.106
Court Injunctions Temporarily Suspended Construction
On May 24, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a
temporary injunction in Sierra Club v. Trump, barring use of DOD’s first funding tranche of $1
billion.107 In compliance with the court’s order, USACE immediately suspended ongoing
operations for the two active border barrier projects. At the time of the suspension, $423,999,999
remained unobligated (of the original $1 billion):

106 First Declaration of Kenneth Rapuano at Ex. B, (Letter from Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan to
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, March 25, 2019).
107 Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88210 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
39

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

 El Paso 1: An undefinitzed contract was awarded on April 9, 2019. At the time of
the court’s injunction, $389,999,999 remained unobligated.
 Yuma 1: An undefinitized contract was awarded on awarded May 15. At the time
of the court’s injunction, $35,000,000 remained unobligated.108
On May 25, 2019, DOD executed a second reprogramming action of $1.5 billion. On June 28,
2019, the California district court issued a second injunction that prohibited DOD from using
either of the two funding tranches ($2.5 billion total).109 Again, USACE project managers
suspended ongoing operations.
At the time of the new suspension, approximately $752,750,000 remained unobligated from the
second funding tranche ($1.5 billion):110
 Tucson Sector Projects 1-3: An undefinitzed contract was awarded on May 15,
2019. At the time of the court’s injunction, $646,000,000 remained unobligated.
 El Centro Sector Project 1: An undefinitzed contract was awarded on May 15,
2019. At the time of the court’s injunction, $106,750,000 remained unobligated.
Project delays have resulted in some additional costs to the government. DOD financial
regulations recognize contractors are entitled to compensation for unreasonable contract
suspensions, since costs continue to be incurred by idling equipment, site security, contract labor,
material storage, or market fluctuations. The government is charged additional penalties for late
payment (3.625% per annum). In the event an active contract is terminated, DOD would be held
responsible for compensating contractors for sunk costs.
On July 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the lower court injunctions, allowing
construction to proceed.111

108 First Declaration of Eric McFadden.
109 Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108933 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2019).
110 See Second Declaration of Eric McFadden, CO for Task Force Barrier, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Pacific Division, June 18, 2019. An injunction was imposed 10 days after McFadden’s estimate; so, final totals may
differ somewhat. Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108933 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2019).
111 Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 19A60, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4491 (July 26, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
40

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Appendix D. Wall Projects Requested by DHS
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808
On September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense, having determined that border barrier
construction would serve as a “force multiplier” for reducing DHS’s demand for DOD personnel
and assets, directed the Acting Secretary of the Army to proceed with the construction of 11
border barrier projects. In a memorandum to the Department, the Secretary stated:
Based on analysis and advice from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and input from
the Commander. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), and the Department of the Interior and pursuant to the authority granted to me in
Section 2808, I have determined that 11 military construction projects along the
international border with Mexico with an estimated total cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary
to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency. These
projects will deter illegal entry, increase the vanishing time of those illegally crossing the
border, and channel migrants to ports of entry. They will reduce the demand for DoD
personnel and assets at the locations where the barriers are constructed and allow the
redeployment of DoD personnel and assets to other high-traffic areas on the border without
barriers. In short, these barriers will allow DoD to provide support to DHS more efficiently
and effectively. In this respect, the contemplated construction projects are force
multipliers.112
Of the eleven projects DOD selected for execution, seven were located (in whole or in part) on
land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior (DOI) that required an administrative
transfer to the Department of Defense before construction could proceed.113 On September 18,
2019, DOI issued Public Land Orders that temporarily transferred jurisdiction of land required for
five of these projects for a period of three years.114 In the table below, DOI-transferred lands have
been indicated with an asterisk (see column marked “Jurisdiction”).
Two of the eleven projects selected by DOD (El Centro 5 and Laredo 7) were located on non-
public lands that will require either purchase or condemnation before construction may proceed.
USACE representatives have stated that such a process would not be completed before April
2020.
The remaining two projects (Yuma 2 and Yuma 10/27), are located exclusively on the Barry M.
Goldwater Range (BMGR), a military installation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy where
construction may begin immediately.

112 Memorandum from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to Military Departments, September 3, 2019. Available in
court records as: Notice of Decision by the Department of Defense to Authorize Border Barrier Projects Pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 2808, No. 19‐cv‐00872, ECF. No. 206-1 (“Guidance for Undertaking Military Construction Projects Pursuant to
Section 2808 of Title 10, U.S. Code”).
113 This section summarizes a declaration made to the U.S. District Court of Northern California by Brigadier General
Glenn A. Goddard, Deputy Director for Military Programs at the Headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
September 3, 2019. Notice of Decision by the Department of Defense to Authorize Border Barrier Projects Pursuant to
10 U.S.C. 2808, No. 19‐cv‐00872, ECF. No. 206-3 (“Declaration of Brigadier General Glenn Goddard”)[hereafter
referred to as Declaration of Brigadier General Glenn Goddard, USACE].
114 Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior press release, Secretary of the Interior Transfers
Jurisdiction of Five Parcels of Land to the Department of the Army to Secure the Southwest Border, September 18,
2019. Available at https://www.blm.gov/press-release/interior-secretary-transfers-five-parcels-land-department-army.
Congressional Research Service
41

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

The table below indicates the eleven projects DOD has agreed to fund using 10 U.S.C. 2808
funds, and describes the estimated cost of construction, the jurisdiction of associated lands, and a
description of the parcel.
Table D-1. 10 U.S.C. 2808 Funded Border Barrier Projects
Project
Project Amount Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Description
Parcel Description
Yuma 2
40,000,000
DOD
Department of the Navy
Exclusively Navy
Yuma 10/27
527,000,000
DOD
Department of the Navy
Exclusively Navy
Yuma 3
630,000,000
DOI*
Federal public domain land Exclusively Federal
Yuma 6
65,000,000
DOI*
Federal public domain land Mixed Federal public domain land
San Diego 4
67,000,000
DOI*
Federal public domain land Exclusively Federal
San Diego 11 57,000,000
DOI
Federal public domain land Mixed Federal public domain land
El Paso 2
476,000,000
DOI*
Federal public domain land Mixed Federal public domain land
El Paso 8
164,000,000
DOI*
Federal public domain land Mixed Federal public domain land
El Centro 9
286,000,000
DOI
Federal public domain land Mixed Federal public domain land
El Centro 5
20,000,000
Other
Non-public land
Federal non-public or non-public
Laredo 7
1,268,000,000
Other
Non-public land
Federal non-public or non-public
Source: Declaration of Brigadier General Glenn Goddard, USACE.
Notes: Lands transferred from the jurisdiction of DOI to DOD on September 18, 2019 are indicated by an
asterisk.
Congressional Research Service
42

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Appendix E. Military Construction Projects
Deferred Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808
On September 3, 2019, DOD delivered to congressional defense committees a list of ongoing
military construction projects the Department had selected for deferral pursuant to 10 USC 2808.
The list had been preceded by two additional notifications that identified potential military
construction projects that might be affected by use of the statute.
The first of these three lists of military construction projects, delivered to defense committees in
March 2019, identified all military construction projects that had not yet received contract
awards—making them vulnerable for selection under 10 U.S.C. and the Department’s
independent internal criteria.115 A second list, which DOD delivered to defense committees in late
May 2019, selectively updated the contract award dates of some military construction projects.
The final list, comprised of approximately 127 projects ($3.6 billion), updated the contract award
dates for six projects ($209 million) located outside of the United States, making them newly
eligible for selection.116 Additionally, the Department’s final list included one planning and design
project ($13.6 million) not included in previous notifications. The table below summarizes this
final list.

115 The criteria, described in prior sections of this report, included: no military housing projects; no projects with award
dates prior to FY2020.
116 Previous notifications indicated the projects would be awarded contracts in FY2019, making them ineligible for
selection under DOD’s internal 10 U.S.C. criteria. In the final update on September 3, 2019, DOD indicated the
projects would be awarded contracts in FY2020 and selected them for deferral.
Congressional Research Service
43

Table E-1. Military Construction Project in DOD 10 U.S.C. 2808 Funding Pool
By Fiscal Year Appropriated (amounts in millions)
State or Country
Site
Project (Award Date)
FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019

United States

Alabama ($5.2 total)
Anniston Army Depot
Weapon Maintenance Shop (Mar 2020)
5.2

Alaska ($102.4 total)
Eielson AFB
F-35A CATM Range (Jan 2020)
19.0

Repair Central Heat & Power Plant Boiler Ph3 (Jan 2020)
34.4

Repair Central Heat/Power Plant Boiler PH 4 (Feb 2021)
41.0

Fort Greely
Missile Field #1 Expansion (Jan 2021)
8.0

Arizona ($30.0 total)
Fort Huachuca
Ground Transport Equipment Building (May 2020)
30.0

California ($8.0 total)
Channel Islands ANGS
Construct C-130J Flight Simulator Facility (Jul 2020)
8.0

Colorado ($8.0 total)
Peterson AFB
Space Control Facility (Sep 2020)
8.0

Florida ($17.0 total)
Tyndall AFB
Fire/Crash Rescue Station (Jan 2020)
17.0

Hawaii ($32.0 total)
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-
Consolidated Training Facility (Sep 2020)
5.5
Hickam

Kaneohe Bay
Security Improvements Mokapu Gate (May 2020)
26.5

Indiana ($24.0 total)
Crane Army Ammunition
Railcar Holding Area (Mar 2020)
16.0
Plant

Hulman Regional Airport Construct Small Arms Range (Feb 2020)
8.0

Kentucky ($62.6 total)
Fort Campbell
Ft Campbell Middle School (Feb 2020)
62.6

Louisiana ($39.0 total)
Joint Reserve Base New
NORTHCOM - Construct Alert Apron (Jan 2020)
15.0
Orleans

NORTHCOM - Construct Alert Facilities (Jan 2020)
24.0

Maryland ($66.5 total)
Fort Meade
Cantonment Area Roads (Jun 2020)
16.5

Joint Base Andrews
Child Development Center (Jan 2020)
13.0

PAR Relocate Haz Cargo Pad and EOD Range (Jun 2020)
37.0

Mississippi ($8.0 total)
Jackson IAP
Construct Small Arms Range (Aug 2020)
8.0

New Mexico ($125.0 total) Hol oman AFB
MQ-9 FTU Ops Facility (Mar 2020)
85.0
CRS-44

State or Country
Site
Project (Award Date)
FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019

White Sands
Information Systems Facility (Feb 2020)
40.0

New York ($160.0 total)
U.S. Military Academy
Engineering Center (Jun 2020)
95.0

Parking Structure (Jun 2020)
65.0

North Carolina ($80.3
Camp Lejeune
Ambulatory Care Center Addition/Alteration (Jan 2020)
15.3
total)

2nd Radio BN Complex, Phase 2 (Apr 2020)
25.7

Fort Bragg
Butner Elementary School Replacement (Cancelled)
32.9

Seymour Johnson AFB
KC-46A ADAL for Alt Mission Storage (Apr 2020)
6.4

Oklahoma ($8.0 total)
Tulsa Iap
Construct Small Arms Range (May 2020)
8.0

Oregon ($10.5 total)
Klamath Falls IAP
Construct Indoor Range (Feb 2020)
8.0

Replace Fuel Facilities (Jan 2020)
2.5

South Carolina ($10.8 total) Beaufort
Laurel Bay Fire Station Replacement (Apr 2020)
10.8

Texas ($38.5 total)
Fort Bliss
Defense Access Roads (Jan 2020)
20.0

Joint Base San Antonio
Camp Bul is Dining Facility (Feb 2020)
18.5

Utah ($54.0 total)
Hil AFB
Composite Aircraft Antenna Calibration Fac (Aug 2020)
26.0

UTTR Consolidated Mission Control Center (Jan 2020)
28.0

Virginia ($89.2 total)
Joint Base Langley-Eustis
Construct Cyber Ops Facility (Jan 2020)
10.0

Norfolk
Replace Hazardous Materials Warehouse (Jan 2020)
18.5

Pentagon
Pentagon Metro Entrance Facility ( )
12.1

Portsmouth
Replace Harardous Materials Warehouse (Jan 2020)
22.5

Ships Maintenance Facility (Jan 2020)
26.1

Washington ($89.0 total)
Bangor
Pier and Maintenance Facility (Feb 2021)
89.0

Wisconsin ($8.0 total)
Truax Field
Construct Small Arms Range (Mar 2020)
8.0

U.S. Affiliated

Guam ($257.3 total)
Joint Region Marianas
APR - Munitions Storage Igloos, Ph 2 (Feb 2020)
35.3

APR - SATCOM C4I Facility (Jan 2020)
14.2

Earth Covered Magazines (Dec 2020)
52.3
CRS-45

State or Country
Site
Project (Award Date)
FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019

Hayman Munitions Storage Igloos MSA 2 (Feb 2020)
9.8

Machine Gun Range (INC) (Mar 2020)
50.0

Navy-Commercial Tie-In Hardening (Jun 2020)
37.2

PRTC Roads (Sep 2020)
2.5

Water Well Field (Jul 2020)
56.1

Puerto Rico ($402.6 total)
Arroyo
Readiness Center (Jan 2021)
30.0

Camp Santiago
Company Headquarters Bldg -Transient Training (Mar 2021)
47.0

Dining Facility, Transient Training (Mar 2021)
13.0

Engineering/Housing Maintenance Shops (DPW) (Sep 2020)
11.0

Maneuver Area Training Equipment Site (Sep 2020)
80.0

National Guard Readiness Center (Sep 2020)
50.0

Power Substation/Switching Station Building (Sep 2020)
18.5

Gurabo
Vehicle Maintenance Shop (Jan 2021)
28.0

Punta Borinquen
Ramey Unit School Replacement (Dec 2019)
61.1

San Juan
Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (AASF) (Jan 2021)
64.0

Virgin Islands ($27.4 total)
St. Croix
Power Substation/Switching Station Building (Sep 2020)
3.5

Vehicle Maintenance Shop (Jan 2021)
20.0

St. Thomas
National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop Add/A (Sep
3.9
2020)

Non-U.S.

Bahrain Island ($26.3 total)
SW Asia
Fleet Maintenance Facility & TOC (Feb 2020)
26.3

Belgium ($14.3 total)
Chievres AB
Europe West District Superintendent's Office (Sep 2020)
14.3

Bulgaria ($5.2 total)
Nevo Selo Fos
EDI: Ammunition Holding Area (Oct 2020)
5.2

Estonia ($15.7 total)
Unspecified Estonia
EDI: SOF Operations Facility (Dec 2020)
6.1

EDI: SOF Training Facility (Dec 2020)
9.6

Germany ($467.6 total)
Baumholder
SOF Joint Parachute Rigging Facility (Apr 2021)
11.5

East Camp Grafenwoehr
Mission Training Complex (Jan 2020)
31.0
CRS-46

State or Country
Site
Project (Award Date)
FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019

Panzer Kaserne
MARFOREUR HQ Modernization and Expansion (Jun 2021)
44.0

Ramstein AB
37 AS Squadron Operations/AMU (Sep 2020)
13.4

EDI - KMC DABS-FEV/RH Storage Warehouses (Sep 2020)
119.0

Spangdahlem AB
EIC - Site Development and Infrastructure (Aug 2021)
43.5

F/A-22 Low Observable/Composite Repair Fac (Jul 2020)
18.0

Spangdahlem Elementary School Replacement (Mar 2020)
79.1

Upgrade Hardened Aircraft Shelters for F/A-22 (Mar 2020)
2.7

Stuttgart
Robinson Barracks Elem. School Replacement (Jun 2022)
46.6

Weisbaden
Clay Kaserne Elementary School (Dec 2022)
56.0

Wiesbaden Army Airfield Hazardous Material Storage Building (Nov 2019)
2.7

Greece ($47.9 total)
Souda Bay
EDI: Joint Mobility Processing Center (Oct 2019)
41.7

EDI: Marathi Logistics Support Center (Nov 2019)
6.2

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Guantanamo Bay Naval
*Working Dog Treatment Facility Replacement (Changed
9.1
($9.1 total)
Station
from Sep 2019 to Feb 2020)

Hungary ($55.4 total)
Kecskemet AB
ERI: Airfield Upgrades (Oct 2020)
12.9

ERI: Construct Parallel Taxiway (Oct 2020)
30.0

ERI: Increase POL Storage Capacity (Apr 2020)
12.5

Italy ($66.1 total)
Sigonella
EDI: P-8A Taxiway and Apron Upgrades (Aug 2020)
66.1

Japan ($405.7 total)
Iwakuni
*Fuel Pier (Changed from Sep 2019 to March 2020)
33.2

Kadena AB
*APR - Replace Munitions Structures (Changed from Jun
19.8
2019 to January 2020)

Yokosuka
*Kinnick High School Inc 1 (Changed from Sep 2019 to
40.0
March 2020 )

Camp Mctureous
Bechtel Elementary School (Apr 2020)
94.9

Iwakuni
Construct Bulk Storage Tanks PH 1 (Jan 2020)
30.8

Kadena AB
SOF Maintenance Hangar (May 2020)
42.8
4.0

Truck Unload Facilities (Jun 2020)
21.4
CRS-47

State or Country
Site
Project (Award Date)
FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019

Yokota AB
C-130J Corrosion Control Hangar (Feb 2020)
23.8

Construct CATM Facility (Jan 2020)
8.2

Hangar/Aircraft Maintenance Unit (Dec 2019)
12.0

Hangar/AMU (Dec 2019)
39.5

Operations and Warehouse Facilities (Dec 2019)
26.7
8.6

Korea ($70.5 total)
Camp Tango
Command and Control Facility (Dec 2020)
17.5

Kunsan AB
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar (Dec 2019)
53.0

Luxembourg ($67.4 total)
Sanem
ERI: ECAOS Deployable Airbase System Storage (Apr 2021)
67.4

Norway ($10.3 total)
Rygge
ERI: Replace/Expand Quick Reaction Alert Pad (Nov 2020)
10.3

Poland ($130.4 total)
Poland
EDI: Rail Extension and Railhead (Apr 2020)
6.4

EDI: Ammunition Storage Facility (Jun 2020)
52.0

EDI: Staging Areas (Sep 2020)
51.0

Powidz Air Base
EDI: Bulk Fuel Storage (Nov 2020)
21.0

Romania ($21.7 total)
Mihail Kogalniceanu
EDI: Explosives & Ammo Load/Unload Apron (Nov 2019)
21.7

Slovakia ($105.0 total)
Malacky
EDI - Regional Munitions Storage Area (Dec 2020)
59.0

ERI: Airfield Upgrades (Nov 2019)
4.0

ERI: Increase POL Storage Capacity (Feb 2020)
20.0

Sliac Airport
ERI: Airfield Upgrades (Nov 2019)
22.0

Spain ($21.6 total)
Rota
EDI: Port Operations Facilities (Jan 2020)
21.6

Turkey ($14.6 total)
Incirlik AB
OCO: Relocate Base Main Access Control Point (Aug 2020)
14.6

United Kingdom ($250.6
Raf Fairford
*EDI - Munitions Holding Area (Changed from Sep 2019 to
19.0
total)
Sep 2020)

*EDI - Construct DABS-FEV Storage (Changed from Sep
87.0
2019 to Sep 2020)

Croughton RAF
Croughton Elem/Middle/High School Replacement (Jan
71.4
2020)

Main Gate Complex (Oct 2019)
16.5
CRS-48

State or Country
Site
Project (Award Date)
FY2016 FY2017
FY2018
FY2019

Menwith Hil Station
RAFMH Main Gate Rehabilitation (Feb 2020)
11.0

Royal Air Force Fairford
EIC RC-135 Infrastructure (Nov 2019)
2.2

EIC RC-135 Intel and Squad Ops Facility (Nov 2019)
38.0

EIC RC-135 Runway Overrun Reconfiguration (Nov 2019)
5.5

Worldwide Classified
Classified Location
TACMOR - Utilities and Infrastructure Support (Jan 2020)
18.0
($18.0 total)

Unspecified ($13.6 total)
WORLDWIDE
Planning and Design (Feb 2021)
13.6
UNSPECIFIED

TOTAL: $3.6 billion
72.3
390.7
1,318.5
1,818.5
Source: Department of Defense, 2808 Deferrals (Public Territories and 50 States; Public Overseas), as distributed to congressional defense committees, September 3, 2019.
Notes: The total count of this list (127) may be cited with some variation due to two identically named projects (Poland “EDI: Staging Areas”), and two projects with
deferred amounts in multiple years, both located in Japan: “SOF Maintenance Hanger” at Kadena Airbase and “Operations and Warehouse Facilities” at Yakota Airbase.
Moreover, DOD’s final list of deferred projects varies somewhat from earlier information provided to congressional defense committees about the potential 10 U.S.C.
funding pool. Specifically, the contract award dates for six non-U.S. projects with a value of $208 mil ion have been updated to make them eligible for deferral. DOD has
also added a “planning and design” project at an unspecified location not previously disclosed. Finally, earlier versions of this data referred to a single project in Poland
called “EDI Staging Areas” while the current version refers to two projects (with a combined identical sum).

CRS-49

Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers

Author Information

Christopher T. Mann

Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45937 · VERSION 1 · NEW
50