DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background, Status, and Issues for Congress

June 17, 2020 R46421

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: June 17, 2020
Background, Status, and Issues for Congress
Brendan W. McGarry
In provisions of the U.S. Code and on an annual basis through authorization and appropriations
Analyst in U.S. Defense
acts, Congress provides the Department of Defense (DOD) limited authority to obligate funds for
Budget
purposes other than originally approved. These authorities allow the department to transfer or

reprogram funds. A transfer involves shifting funds from one appropriation account to another,
while a reprogramming involves shifting funds within the same account. DOD uses the term

reprogramming action to describe both types of transactions.
DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities have emerged as central in a debate over the department’s use of the authorities
to transfer, without congressional prior approval, fiscal year (FY) 2019 and FY2020 defense funds to construct barriers along
the U.S.-Mexico border. The debate has involved questions over constitutional separation of powers, statutory design and
interpretation, and congressional procedure, as well as political disagreements over spending and border security. Critics say
the use of such authorities for such activities denies Congress its constitutional prerogatives. They point to Article I of the
Constitution, which states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
Law.” In addition, critics say the executive branch’s decision to transfer certain DOD funds in FY2019 and FY2020 without
congressional prior approval was a divergence from longstanding practice and understandings between the executive and
legislative branches, and may have represented a violation of DOD regulation, if not law. Proponents have defended the
President’s actions to address unlawful migration through the U.S.-Mexico border.
Agencies may transfer funds only as authorized by law. Title 10, Section 2214, of the United States Code generally covers
transfers within DOD “whenever authority is provided in an appropriation Act to transfer amounts in working capital funds
or to transfer amounts provided in appropriation Acts for military functions of the Department of Defense (other than military
construction).” The statute limits use of transfers and reprogrammings to “a higher priority item, based on unforeseen
military requirements,” and prohibits their use for an item for which Congress has denied funds. The statute also requires the
Secretary of Defense to “promptly notify” Congress “of each transfer made under such authority.” Other notification
requirements reside in specific appropriations provisions. In addition to these statutory notification requirements, DOD
Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R (FMR) requires some transfers to be approved by the congressional defense
committees.
Some policymakers say the ability to transfer or reprogram funds provides DOD with necessary and frequently used
flexibility to respond to unanticipated budgetary or national security conditions. Changes in financial or operational
circumstances can generate costs or savings for the department. For example, costs may arise from the need to replenish
expended munitions, expand combat medical training, or cover a price increase that exceeds the budgeted amount for a
weapon system. Savings may accrue from military recruitment shortfalls, canceled programs or renegotiated contracts, or
favorable fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, fuel prices, or inflation. Congress may choose to address such scenarios by
enacting supplemental appropriations or rescissions of budget authority; in turn, DOD may respond by using authorities
provided by Congress to transfer or reprogram funds.
While DOD regulation requires congressional prior approval of certain reprogramming actions, the department does not view
the requirement as legally binding. The ability of Congress to create legally binding prior approval requirements on
reprogramming actions may be limited by the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
v. Chadha. Some observers may view approval requirements as practically binding, however, because the annual
appropriations process provides a means for Congress to impose sanctions on violations of comity and trust.
In FY2016 and FY2017, DOD used, on average, less than half of the combined limit for general and special transfer authority
provided in the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act. In FY2019, DOD used $5.1 billion (85%) of the $6
billion limit for general and special transfer authority. The percentage increase was driven by DOD’s two border barrier-
related transfers totaling $2.5 billion pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284 and the enactment of lower general and special transfer
authority limits. In a single border-barrier transfer totaling $3.8 billion in FY2020, DOD used nearly two-thirds (63%) of the
combined limit for general and special transfer authority.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller (OUSD-C) typically categorizes reprogramming actions in the
following types: prior approval (PA), internal reprogramming (IR), below threshold reprogramming (BTR), letter transfer
Congressional Research Service

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

(LTR), and military construction-family housing (MILCON/FH). The DOD Comptroller categorized each of the border-
barrier transfers pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284 as a “reprogramming action,” a categorization that was not previously used for
implemented reprogramming actions since at least FY1999. According to CRS analysis of department reprogramming
actions and regulation, these transactions met DOD criteria for requiring congressional prior approval because they used
general transfer authority (either in whole or in part) and exceeded reprogramming thresholds (based on explanatory
statements accompanying defense appropriations acts).
To illustrate how frequently DOD seeks congressional prior approval for reallocating funds, CRS analyzed implemented
reprogramming actions published on the DOD Comptroller website. From FY1999 through FY2019, DOD published 2,233
implemented reprogramming actions, averaging more than a 100 a year, according to the CRS analysis (which excluded a
certain type of reprogramming action called below threshold reprogrammings). Of that total, DOD categorized more than half
(1,168 actions or 52%) as internal reprogrammings (IR); more than a quarter (581 actions or 26%) as prior approval (PA);
almost one in six (357 actions or 16%) as letter directed (LTR); 125 actions (or 6%) as military construction-family housing,
and two as “reprogramming actions.” During that 21-year period, the quantity of implemented reprogramming actions peaked
at 198 in FY2005 during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, trended downward in subsequent fiscal years, and declined to 68
in FY2018. Similarly, from FY2000 through FY2019, the value of prior approval and internal DOD reprogramming actions
peaked at $48.9 billion in FY2008 during the surge of U.S. forces into Iraq, trended downward in subsequent fiscal years, and
decreased to $10.4 billion in FY2017.
In the first session of the 116th Congress, the House passed authorization and appropriations bills intended to reduce the
department’s transfer authority limits; the Senate did not. As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L. 116-
37), which increased statutory caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending for FY2020 and FY2021, leaders in
Congress and the White House agreed to maintain existing transfer authorities. The Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93) kept DOD general and special transfer authority limits unchanged and totaling $6
billion. As part of the explanatory report accompanying P.L. 116-93, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to seek prior
approval when transferring more than $10 million into or out of a line item in most appropriation titles —a decrease in the
dollar amount reprogramming threshold from $20 million for procurement and from $15 million for operation and
maintenance in FY2019.
In the second session of the 116th Congress, lawmakers are again debating the Administration’s additional transfer of DOD
funds for border barrier construction, and may consider a proposal to expand transfer authority for the Space Force. As part
of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), Congress authorized DOD to
transfer $10.5 billion in FY2020 emergency funding to other appropriations for expenses incurred in preventing, preparing
for, or responding to the pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Potential issues for Congress relating to DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities include the following:
 DOD does not view congressional prior approval requirements as legally binding;
 Balancing congressional control and DOD fiscal flexibility;
 DOD opportunity costs in transferring and reprogramming funds;
 The level of effort needed for Congress to monitor DOD reprogramming actions may be high; and
 DOD response to contingencies and emergencies, such as COVID-19.
Congress may consider how much transfer and reprogramming authority to provide DOD and whether to approve, reject, or
modify the Trump Administration’s requested FY2021 limits for general and special transfer authority. Congress’s decisions
could affect, on the one hand, its ability to control DOD action through appropriations and, on the other hand, DOD’s ability
to respond to unanticipated budgetary or national s ecurity conditions.
Congressional Research Service

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
At times throughout history, entities in the legislative and executive branches have disagreed over
the extent to which federal agencies can obligate funds for purposes other than original y
approved. Nevertheless, Congress has provided the Department of Defense (DOD) limited
authority to do so in recognition of the department’s need to respond to unanticipated budgetary
or national security conditions.
From fiscal year (FY) 1999 through FY2019, DOD published a total of 2,233 implemented
reprogramming actions, averaging more than a 100 a year, according to CRS analysis of the
actions (excluding a certain type cal ed below threshold reprogrammings). DOD categorized
more than a quarter of these transactions (581 actions or 26%) as “prior approval” (PA), meaning
the department first sought approval from the congressional defense committees—the House and
Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees—before transferring funds based in part
on criteria agreed by the committees. The transfer of certain DOD funds in FY2019 and FY2020
to construct barriers along the southern border of the United States, without congressional prior
approval, marked a divergence from this practice.1
On February 13, 2020, DOD transferred $3.8 bil ion from defense procurement programs to the
Operation and Maintenance, Army account for use by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct
barriers and roads along the southern border.2 The reprogramming repeated, in part, a process the
department undertook twice in 2019 (totaling $2.5 bil ion) in support of Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) counter-drug activities pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284, in conjunction with a separate
set of emergency transfers ($3.6 bil ion) under 10 U.S.C. §2808.3
DOD did not seek prior approval from the congressional defense committees for border-barrier
transfers pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284. According to CRS analysis of department reprogramming
actions and regulation, these transactions met DOD criteria for requiring congressional prior
approval because they used general transfer authority (either in whole or in part) and exceeded
reprogramming thresholds (based on explanatory statements accompanying defense
appropriations acts).4 DOD officials have argued that such transfer authority is provided by the

1 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, DOD Financial Management
Regulation 7000.14-R (FMR), Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060401, “Reprogramming Actions Requiring Written
Congressional Approval,” subparagraph C, p. 6-7,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1374.
2 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2020, “ Support for DHS Counter Drug Activity,” February 13, 2020,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2020/reprogramming_action/20-
01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf .
3 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2019, “ Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming Action,” March 25,
2019,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/19-
01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf ; “ Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming
Action,” May 9, 2019,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogram ming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/19-
02_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf ; and White House, “ President Donald J. T rump’s Border
Security Victory,” fact sheet, February 15, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president -donald-j-
trumps-border-security-victory/.
4 For DOD prior-approval criteria, see Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller,
Financial Management Regulation, Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060401, “ Reprogramming Actions Requiring
Written Congressional Approval,” subparagraph C, p. 6-7,
Congressional Research Service
1

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

defense appropriations act, among other federal laws.5 The disagreement is the subject of lawsuits
in federal courts.6
Debate on these transfers of DOD funds has involved questions over constitutional separation of
powers, statutory design and interpretation, and congressional procedure, as wel as political
disagreements over spending and border security.
In 2019, after the first of two DOD transfers pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284, Representative Pete
Visclosky, chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, argued that the
department’s actions denied the Congress its prerogatives set forth in Article I of the Constitution,
which states, “No Money shal be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law.”7 Visclosky argued “these funds were neither requested nor
appropriated for the activities described in the reprogramming. With this unilateral action, the
historic and unprecedented comity that has existed between the Committee and the Department
has been breached.”8 Other Members have defended the President’s actions to address unlawful
migration through the U.S.-Mexico border. Representative Andy Biggs said, “There is a real
emergency at our southern border.”9
In response to the DOD transfers, the House passed an FY2020 defense appropriations bil (H.R.
2740) that would have reduced DOD’s combined general and special transfer authority limits,
from $6 bil ion to $1.5 bil ion, and thus its ability to real ocate funds for border-barrier
construction and other activities. The House legislation would have established transfer authority
limits below those that DOD has used in recent years for real ocating funds unrelated to border-
barrier construction (e.g., in FY2018—before wal -related transfers occurred—the department
used $3.6 bil ion of general and special transfer authority, after accounting for military personnel
adjustments).
Robert Hale, a former Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, has said restricting or eliminating
transfer and reprogramming authorities would “significantly harm” DOD’s ability to manage
funds to meet national security needs effectively, as the department prepares its budget more than
two years in advance: “Inevitably, needs change, creating higher priorities for some projects and

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1374. For FY2019 and
FY2020 reprogramming thresholds, see the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December
17, 2019), p. H10613, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk2.pdf;
and the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division A of
P.L. 115-245), p. 2, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Joint%20Explanatory%20Statement%20-
%20HR%206157.pdf#page=4.
5 T estimony of then-Assistant Defense Secretary for Sustainment Robert H. McMahon, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, The President’s 2019
National Em ergency Declaration Circum venting Cong ress to Build a Border Wall & its Effect on Military
Construction and Readiness, hearings, 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 27, 2019, text from Congressional Quarterly,
https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5473281?4.
6 For more information, see CRS Report R45908, Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier
Construction, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Edward C. Liu.
7 Letter from Representative Peter J. Visclosky to then-Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller David Norquist,
March 26, 2019, on file with the author of this report.
8 Ibid.
9 Representative Andy Biggs, “ Congressman Biggs Upholds President T rump’s Lawful Right to Declare a National
Emergency,” press release, March 26, 2019, https://biggs.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-biggs-upholds-
president -trump-s-lawful-right-declare-national.
Congressional Research Service
2

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

lowering them for others. In these cases, reprogramming permits effective management. In
different circumstances, reprogramming can avert crises.”10
As part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93),
Congress kept DOD’s combined limit for general and special transfer authority at $6 bil ion. As
part of the accompanying explanatory report, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to seek
prior approval when reprogramming more than $10 mil ion into or out of a line item in most
appropriation titles. The dollar threshold for reprogramming funds represented a decrease from
$20 mil ion for procurement and from $15 mil ion for operation and maintenance.
In March, after the third DOD transfer pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284 for border-barrier construction,
some lawmakers in the House and Senate criticized the move. Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking
member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said: “It is Congress—the representatives of
the American people—who hold the power of the purse under the Constitution. Time and again,
this President has subverted that constitutional authority and bipartisan majorities of Congress to
pay for his vanity wal .”11 Representative Mac Thornberry, ranking member of the House Armed
Services Committee (HASC), said: “The re-programming announced today is contrary to
Congress’s constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action.”12
This report provides information and analysis on DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities, as
wel as reprogramming actions. This report does not cover functional transfers—that is, funding
realignments to reflect a transfer of function, responsibility, or duty from one major command to
another within a military department or defense agency.13
Background
Historical Context
Disagreements over the extent to which entities in the executive branch can use funds
appropriated by Congress for purposes other than those for which appropriated can be traced to
the first presidency. In 1793, during President George Washington’s second term, Representative
Wil iam Giles of Virginia accused Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton of improperly using
federal funds.14 Representative Giles introduced resolutions that stated, in part, “... it is essential
to the due administration of Government of the United States, that laws making specific

10 Robert Hale, “ A serious financial problem looms at the Pentagon,” Defense News, May 9, 2019,
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/09/a-serious-financial-problem-looms-at-the-pentagon/.
11 Senator Patrick Leahy, “Statement on President T rump’s Lat est Raid on the Military,” press release, February 13,
2020, https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/statement-on-president -trumps-latest-raid-on-the-military.
12 Representative Mac T hornberry, “Thornberry on DOD Reprogramming: Congress Must Act,” press release,
February 13, 2020, https://republicans-armedservices.house.gov/news/press-releases/thornberry-dod-reprogramming-
congress-must-act.
13 For a broader look at transfer and reprogramming authorities across the federal government, see CRS Report
R43098, Transfer and Reprogram m ing of Appropriations: An Overview of Authorities, Lim itations, and Procedures, by
Michelle D. Christensen. For additional information and analysis on the construction of barriers along the U.S. -Mexico
border, see CRS Insight IN11052, The Defense Departm ent and 10 U.S.C. 284: Legislative Origins and Funding
Questions, by Liana W. Rosen; CRS Insight IN11193, Funding U.S.-Mexico Border Barrier Construction: Current
Issues, coordinated by William L. Painter; CRS Report R45937, Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers, by
Christopher T . Mann; and CRS Report R45908, Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier Construction ,
by Jennifer K. Elsea and Edward C. Liu.
14 Louis Fisher, Presidential Spending Discretion and Congressional Controls, 37 Law and Contemporary Problem s
135-172 (Winter 1972), p. 147, https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol37/iss1/6.
Congressional Research Service
3

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

appropriations of money should be strictly observed by the administrator of the finances
thereof.”15 In a rebuttal, Representative Wil iam Smith of South Carolina argued that certain cases
may require a departure from the “general rule” of appropriations, such as those relating to public
credit and safety.16 Ultimately, the House did not approve the resolutions.
During the 20th century, Congress has provided broad authority to the executive branch to transfer
funds among purposes and entities, particularly during times of emergency or war. During World
War II, Congress passed the Military Appropriation Act, 1944 (P.L. 78-108), which authorized the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget—the predecessor organization to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), an entity in the Executive Office of the President—to transfer, with certain
restrictions, up to 10% of the “appropriations for the Military Establishment ... to any other such
appropriations.”17 At the same time, Congress sought to establish legislative controls over
wartime construction. The executive and legislative branches agreed to a unique type of
committee veto (a type of legislative veto), in which the Department of the Navy would “come
into agreement” with the House and Senate Naval Affairs Committees before finalizing land
acquisitions.18 This World War II-era process, sometimes described as informal and a
“handshake” agreement, evolved and was later adopted by the Appropriations and Armed
Services committees for transactions in excess of certain dollar thresholds and involving other
types of appropriations.19
Some observers have traced the current DOD process for seeking congressional prior approval for
certain reprogramming actions to 1960 when, during the Eisenhower Administration, the Air
Force attempted to procure additional Jet Star aircraft without congressional permission.20 As the
Kennedy Administration took office, in correspondence to then-Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara in 1961, then-House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman George Mahon
reportedly requested that future reprogrammings for the “procurement of items omitted or deleted
by the Congress ... or specifical y reduced ... or not previously presented or considered by
Congress, or quantitative program increases” be undertaken only after congressional approval.21
In 1983, in the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha, the Supreme
Court struck down a type of legislative veto—a one-house veto provision then included in the
Immigration and National Act. Even so, the DOD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R
(FMR) continues to reflect guidance and instruction from the congressional defense committees
and administratively requires committee notification and approval for certain transactions.
What is a Legislative Veto?
“Beginning in 1932, Congress delegated authority to the executive branch with the condition that proposed
executive actions would be first submitted to Congress and subjected to disapproval by a committee, a single
house, or both houses. Over the years, other types of legislative veto were added, al owing Congress to control
executive branch actions without having to enact a law. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that the legislative veto
was unconstitutional on the grounds that al exercises of legislative power that affect the rights, duties, and

15 Ibid., p. 148; and “ Proceedings and Debates of the House of Representatives of the United States, at the Second
Session of the Second Congress, begun at the City of Philadelphia, November 5, 1792,” Annals of the Congress of t he
United States 3 (1791-1793), p. 900.
16 Ibid., p. 901.
17 P.L. 78-108, Ch. 185, §3, 57 Stat. 367.
18 For more information, see CRS Report RL33151, Committee Controls of Agency Decisions, by Louis Fisher.
19 Ibid.
20 David W. Roberts, “A Historical Analysis of the Defense Reprogramming Process,” Armed Forces Comptroller, Fall
1985, p. 22.
21 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 14 link to page 14 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

relations of persons outside the legislative branch must satisfy the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and
presentment of a bil or resolution to the President for his signature or veto. Despite this ruling, Congress has
continued to enact proscribed legislative vetoes, and it has also relied on informal arrangements to provide
comparable controls.”
Source: CRS Report RL30240, Congressional Oversight Manual, coordinated by Christopher M. Davis, Walter J.
Oleszek, and Ben Wilhelm.
Terms and Definitions
Different entities within the legislative and executive branches may use certain budgetary terms
with somewhat different emphases. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO),
there is a distinction between a transfer and a reprogramming.22 A transfer involves shifting funds
from one appropriation account to another, while a reprogramming involves shifting funds within
the same account.23 While the DOD Financial Management Regulation defines the terms transfer
and reprogramming in language similar to the GAO language, the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense-Comptroller (OUSD-C) uses the term reprogramming action to categorize both of
these types of transactions.24
Transfer
GAO defines a transfer in part as the “[s]hifting of al or part of the budget authority in one
appropriation or fund account to another. Agencies may transfer budget authority only as
specifical y authorized by law.”25
The DOD Financial Management Regulation defines the term in similar language: “Transfer
means the movement or shifting of budgetary resources from one budget account to another.
Agencies may transfer budget authority only as specifical y authorized by law.”26

22 Government Accountability Office, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, September 2005,
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf.
23 GAO defines an appropriation account as, “ T he basic unit of an appropriation generally reflecting each unnumbered
paragraph in an appropriation act. An appropriation account typically encompasses a numbe r of activities or projects
and may be subject to restrictions or conditions applicable to only the account, the appropriation act, titles within an
appropriation act, other appropriation acts, or the government as a whole. ” See GAO Government Accountability
Office, A Glossary of Term s Used in the Federal Budget Process, September 2005, p. 2,
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf#page=6 . According to DOD regulation: “ Appropriation accounts form
the structure for the President’s budget request and are the basis for congressional action. T he appropriations are
subdivided into budget activities of appropriations with programs, projects or activities of similar purposes. ” See
Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secret ary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 2A, Chapter 1, Paragraph 0102, Subparagraph 010201, p. 1 -20,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=114. For information on
how reprogramming thresholds apply to line items in the defense budget, see the “ Defense Authorization and
Appropriations Acts” section below.
24 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution website,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget -Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/.
25 Government Accountability Office, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, September 2005, p.
95, p. 95, https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf#page=99 .
26 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Glossary, p. G-28, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=7383.
Congressional Research Service
5

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

For example, in the DOD budget, shifting funds provided in a defense appropriations act from the
Aircraft Procurement, Navy account to the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDT&E), Navy account would be a transfer.
Reprogramming
The ways in which various entities describe reprogramming may have somewhat different
emphases. GAO defines a reprogramming in part as “[s]hifting funds within an appropriation or
fund account to use them for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of
appropriation.... Unlike transfers, agencies may reprogram without additional statutory
authority.”27
The DOD Financial Management Regulation defines the term in similar language: “Realignment
of budget authority from the purpose for which appropriated to finance another (usual y
emergent, unfunded) requirement. A necessary, desirable, and timely device during execution of
Defense programs for achieving flexibility in the use of DoD funds provided in appropriation
acts.”28 In another section that describes concepts applicable to budget formulation, the regulation
states, “[r]eprogramming is general y accomplished pursuant to consultation with and approval by
appropriate congressional committees.”29
For example, shifting funds provided in a defense appropriations act within the Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy account—for instance, from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer
(DDG-51) program to the Ford-class (CVN-78) aircraft carrier program—would be a
reprogramming.30
Reprogramming Action
The DOD Comptroller uses the term reprogramming action to categorize transactions that
transfer or reprogram funds.31 Before carrying out most types of reprogramming actions, the
department submits to the congressional defense committees a Defense Department (DD) Form
1415 or letter detailing the proposed funding changes on a line-item or project level.32 After
carrying out below threshold reprogrammings (BTRs), the department submits quarterly or
annual reports (DD Form 1416) to the congressional defense committees. The DOD Comptroller
publishes these documents and others on the Budget Execution portion of its website.33

27 Ibid., 85, https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf#page=89. GAO also states, “Sometimes committee
oversight of reprogramming actions is prescribed by statute and requires formal notification of one or more committees
before a reprogramming action may be implemented.”
28 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Glossary, p. G-26, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=7381.
29 Ibid., p. 1-16, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=110.
30 See CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program :
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
31 Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Budget Execution website,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget -Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/.
32 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 3, p. 3-5, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -
16.pdf#page=1353.
33 Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Budget Execution website, acc essed December
31, 2019, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget -Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 45 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Selected DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities
In provisions of the U.S. Code and on an annual basis through authorization and appropriations
acts, Congress provides DOD limited authority to obligate funds for purposes other than
original y authorized and appropriated. DOD uses separate authorities and processes for
department functions (other than construction projects), military construction and family housing
projects, and the National Intel igence Program (NIP) and Military Intel igence Program (MIP).
Provisions in U.S. Code
10 U.S.C. §2214, “Transfer of Funds: Procedure and Limitations”34
Title 10, Section 2214, of the United States Code general y covers transfers within DOD
“whenever authority is provided in an appropriation Act to transfer amounts in working capital
funds or to transfer amounts provided in appropriation Acts for military functions of the
Department of Defense (other than military construction).” The statute limits use of transfers or
reprogrammings to “a higher priority item, based on unforeseen military requirements,” and
prohibits their use for an item for which Congress has denied funds. The statute also requires the
Secretary of Defense to “promptly notify” Congress “of each transfer made under such authority.”
Other notification requirements reside in specific appropriations provisions.
10 U.S.C. §2853, “Authorized Cost and Scope of Work Variations”
In practice, DOD reprograms military construction and family housing appropriations to respond
to emergencies, restore or replace damaged or destroyed facilities, accommodate unexpected
price increases, and implement specific program provisions provided by congressional
committees. DOD reprogramming actions involving military construction and family housing
appropriations can occur under multiple sections of permanent law.35 Title 10, Section 2853, of
United States Code al ows for the cost authorized for a military construction or family housing
project to be increased or decreased by up to 25% of the appropriated amount to meet “unusual
variations in cost” that could not have been anticipated.
50 U.S.C. §3024, “Responsibilities and Authorities of the Director of National
Intelligence”
Title 50, Section 3024, of the United States Code authorizes the Director of National Intel igence
to transfer or reprogram funds appropriated for a program within the National Intel igence

34 T his section of the U.S. Code is reprinted in its entirety in Appendix A.
35 Other sections of permanent law referenced in the DOD Financial Management Regulation, Volume 3, Chapter 7,
“Reprogramming of Military Construction and Family Housing Appropriated Funds,” include 10 U.S.C. §2803,
“Emergency Construction;” 10 U.S.C. §2854, “Restoration or Replacement of Damaged or Destroyed Facilities;” 10
U.S.C. §2663(d), “ Acquisition of Interests in Land When Need Is Urgent;” 10 U.S.C. §2827, “ Relocation of Military
Family Housing Units;” and 10 U.S.C. §2883, “ Department of Defense Housing Funds.” A section of permanent law
used to transfer defense funds for border-barrier construction, 10 U.S.C. §2808, appears in a different chapter of the
FMR—Volume 3, Chapter 17, “ Accounting Requirements for Military Construction Projects.” DOD Directive
(DODD) 4270.5 does not require submission of reprogramming requests to fund construction projects under 10 U.S.C.
§2808. See Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Executive Services Directorate, DOD Directive
(DODD) 4270.5, “ Military Construction,” p. 3,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/427005p.pdf#page=3 .
Congressional Research Service
7

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Program (NIP) to another NIP effort.36 The statute caps the cumulative transfer or reprogramming
of funds in the NIP in a single fiscal year at $150 mil ion or less than 5% of amounts available to
a department or agency. The statute also requires the Secretary of Defense to consult with the
Director of National Intel igence before transferring or reprogramming funds made available
under the Military Intel igence Program.
Provisions in Legislation
Congress provides DOD transfer authority in permanent, one-time or recurring provisions of law,
including annual defense authorization and appropriations acts, military construction and family
housing appropriations acts, and supplemental appropriations acts. While transfer authorities can
be included in multiple provisions of law, DOD in practice transfers most funds pursuant to
authority granted in the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act.37
In recent decades, Congress has not supported DOD requests to limit general transfer authority to
a percentage of appropriations rather than to a specific dollar amount. For example, in 2003,
DOD requested from Congress “enhanced” general transfer authority that would have al owed the
department to transfer of up to 2.5% of funds appropriated to the department each fiscal year, and
up to 5% in time of war or national emergency.38 Instead, Congress has general y limited DOD
general and special transfer authority to dollar amounts.39
Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts
General and Special Transfer Authority
Over the past decade, defense authorization and appropriations acts have included separate
recurring provisions that permit DOD to transfer a certain amount of funding (excluding military
construction appropriations) from the department’s base budget and an additional amount of
department funds designated for Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO.40 The term base
budget general y refers to funding for planned or regularly occurring costs to man, train, and
equip the military force. Since 2009, executive branch entities have used the term Overseas
Contingency Operations, or OCO, mainly to describe U.S. military operations in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Syria, among other locations.
Transfer authority for the base budget (except for military construction) typical y appears in a
recurring general provision (Section 8005) of the annual Department of Defense Appropriations

36 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10428, Intelligence Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation
(IPPBE) Process, by Michael E. DeVine.
37 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 3, p. 3-3, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -
16.pdf#page=1351.
38 Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, DOD Legislative Proposals, “ Defense T ransformation for the
21st Century Act of 2003 (Sent to Congress o n April 11, 2003),” pp. 108-09,
https://ogc.osd.mil/olc/docs/April11.pdf#page=110 .
39 Congress has limited certain specific DOD transfer authorities to a percentage. T itle VI of Division A of P.L. 116-93
provides DOD authority to carry over up to 1% of FY2020 operation and maintenance appropriations of the Defense
Health Program into FY2021. DOD describes the transaction as a “ carryover transfer.”
40 For more information, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding: Background and Status,
by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern. T he Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 112-25) allowed funding
designated for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on T errorism (OCO/GWOT ) to be effectiv ely exempt
from spending limits, or caps. For more information, see CRS Report R44039, The Defense Budget and the Budget
Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 45 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Act and in the “General Transfer Authority” section of the annual National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA). For example, Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020
(Division A of P.L. 116-93) al ows the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget, to transfer up to $4 bil ion of “funds made available in this Act ... for
military functions (except military construction) between such appropriations or funds or any
subdivision.”41 The language states that the Secretary must determine that the transfer is “in the
national interest” and “based on unforeseen military requirements.” Section 1001, “General
Transfer Authority,” of the NDAA for FY2020 (P.L. 116-92) is the accompanying authorizing
language and states in part that the Secretary may transfer up to $4 bil ion “of authorizations
made available to the Department of Defense in this division.”
In turn, transfer authority for OCO funding typical y appears in a recurring provision (Section
9002) of the defense appropriations act and in the “Special Transfer Authority” section of the
NDAA.42 Section 9002 of Division A of P.L. 116-93 al ows the Secretary of Defense to transfer
up to $2 bil ion of OCO funding “between the appropriations or funds” made available in Title IX
of the act. Section 1520A, “Special Transfer Authority,” of the FY2020 NDAA (P.L. 116-92) is
the accompanying authorizing language. See Table 1 for a listing of information related to
FY2020 general and special transfer authority.
Table 1. DOD General and Special Transfer Authority in Selected Provisions of
Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts, FY2020
(amounts in bil ions of dol ars)
Bill Type
Section
Funding Type
Transfer Authority
Limit
NDAA
1001
Base
General (GTA)
$4.0
NDAA
1520A
OCO
Special (STA)
$2.0
Total, NDAA

$6.0
DOD Appropriations
8005
Base
General (GTA)a
$4.0
DOD Appropriations
9002
OCO
Special (STA)a
$2.0
Total, DOD Appropriations

$6.0
Source: CRS analysis of National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 (NDAA; P.L. 116-92) and Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93).
Notes: The DOD base budget general y refers to funding for planned or regularly occurring costs to man, train,
and equip the military force. OCO is Overseas Contingency Operations; GTA is general transfer authority; STA
is special transfer authority. The language in Sec. 1001 usual y states that the Secretary must determine that the
transfer is “in the national interest” and “based on unforeseen military requirements.”
a. While the terms General Transfer Authority and Special Transfer Authority currently appear in the annual
NDAA and not in the annual defense appropriations act, the provisions of each bil are related and typical y
referenced together in DOD reprogramming actions.

41 Sections 8005 and 9002 of P.L. 116-93 are printed in their entirety in Appendix A.
42 While the terms general transfer authority and special transfer authority generally appear in the annual NDAA and
not in the annual defense appropriations act, the provisions of each bill are related and typically referenced together in
DOD reprogramming actions. T he NDAA authority does not require approval of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB); the appropriations act authority does.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 26 link to page 26 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

In some years, Congress has authorized and appropriated different levels of general and special
transfer authority. (For more information, see the “Requested and Appropriated General and
Special Transfer Authority” section later in this report).
Specific Transfer Authority
Congress provides additional transfer authorities to DOD in other provisions of defense
authorization and appropriations acts for specific purposes. For example, Congress provides
authority for transfer accounts intended to receive and disburse al ocations, such as the DOD’s
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account and the military departments’
Environmental Restoration accounts.43 Congress authorizes the transfer of excess cash balances
from Working Capital Funds to the Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense or to the Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) appropriation accounts.44 Congress has also al owed DOD to transfer
funds to support the Sexual Assault Special Victims’ Counsel Program, to assist Israeli
procurement of the Iron Dome missile defense system to counter short-range rocket threats, and
to improve near-term intel igence, surveil ance, and reconnaissance capabilities, among other
activities.45 If transfer authorities for specific purposes are “in addition to any other transfer
authority provided by law,” they do not count toward general or special transfer authority limits.46
Reprogramming Thresholds
Through procedures developed between the congressional defense committees and DOD, the
department requires the committees’ prior approval of reprogramming actions in excess of certain
dollar or percentage thresholds. These thresholds are typical y included in committee reports and
the conference report or explanatory statement accompanying the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act.
In the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020
defense (Division A of P.L. 116-93), Congress directed a $10 mil ion threshold for
reprogramming military personnel (MILPERS); O&M; procurement; and RDT&E funds at a line-
item level.47 The FY2020 dollar threshold for reprogramming funds represented a decrease from
$20 mil ion for procurement and from $15 mil ion for operation and maintenance in the previous
year.48 The reprogramming threshold is cumulative or “zero-sum,” based on the combined value
of transfers into or out of a procurement line, RDT&E program element, and MILPERS or O&M
budget activity.49 For a procurement line or RDT&E program element, the FY2020

43 DOD’s counterdrug activities, including those carried out pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284, are funded out of the “ Drug
Interdict ion and Counter-Drug Activities” central transfer account (CT A) in annual DOD appropriations for Defense -
wide operations and maintenance (O&M). For more information, see CRS Insight IN11052, The Defense Departm ent
and 10 U.S.C. 284: Legislative Origins and Funding Questions, by Liana W. Rosen.
44 A working capital fund is a type of revolving fund intended to operate as a self -supporting entity to fund business-
like activities (e.g., acquiring parts and supplies, maintaining equipment). For more information on defense working
capital funds, see CRS In Focus IF11233, Defense Prim er: Defense Working Capital Funds, by G. James Herrera. For
more information on the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, see CRS Report R45986, Federal Role in
Responding to Potential Risks of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), coordinated by David M. Bearden.
45 See, for example, Sections 8057, 8072, and 9018 of Division A of P.L. 116-93.
46 Ibid.
47 Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2 020 (Division A of P.L. 116-
93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10613,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk2.pdf.
48 Joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division A of P.L.
115-245), p. 2, https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180924/Joint%20%20Statement.pdf#page=4 .
49 Congress also imposes reprogramming thresholds on certain O&M subactivity groups (SAGs). For a full list of
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 50 link to page 47 link to page 14 link to page 38 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

reprogramming threshold is $10 mil ion or 20%—“whichever is less.”50 Thus, under the
explanatory report language, reprogramming funds to or from a procurement line or RDT&E
program element of $50 mil ion or less requires congressional prior approval.
According to the explanatory statement:
... if the combined value of transfers into or out of a military personnel (M-1); an operation
and maintenance (O-1); a procurement (P-1); or a research, development, test and
evaluation (R-1) line exceeds the identified threshold, the Secretary of Defense must
submit a prior approval reprogramming to the congressional defense committees.51
Military Construction Appropriations
Congress typical y provides additional DOD transfer authorities in annual Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations. For example, the FY2020 appropriations
(Division F of P.L. 116-94) includes language that al ows the Secretary of Defense to transfer
amounts within the Military Construction, Defense-Wide account “to such appropriations of the
Department of Defense available for military construction or family housing.”
Supplemental Appropriations
Congress sometimes includes provisions in supplemental appropriations acts that permit DOD to
transfer funding designated for emergency requirements. For example, Section 13001 of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136)—the third
FY2020 supplemental appropriations that Congress passed in response to the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—al owed DOD to transfer the $10.5 bil ion provided to the
department in Title III of the act to other appropriations for expenses incurred in preventing,
preparing for, or responding to COVID-19.52 The authority is “in addition to any other transfer
authority provided by law” and thus does not count against the department’s general or special
transfer authority limits.
Selected Types of DOD ‘Reprogramming Actions’
GAO has described reprogramming as “a cumbersome process within both DOD and the
Congress because of the many levels of review and the wide variety of congressional committee
review procedures.”53 DOD Financial Management Regulation incorporates guidance and
instruction from congressional committees on transferring or reprogramming funds. As
previously discussed, the DOD Comptroller uses the term reprogramming action to categorize

operation and maintenance (O&M) subactivity groups (SAGs) subject to the $10 million reprogramming threshold for
FY2020, see Table B-4 in Appe ndix B.
50 Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-
93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10613. T he percentage
reprogramming threshold is sometimes referred to as the lesser of 20% rule. For more information, see the
“Reprogramming T hresholds” heading in the “ Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts” section later in this
report.
51 Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-
93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10613,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk2.pdf.
52 Section 13001 of P.L. 116-136. For more information, see the “ Emergency Supplemental” section later in this report.
53 Government Accountability Office, BUDGET REPROGRAMMING: Department of Defense Process for
Reprogram m ing Funds, July 1986, p. 3, https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/75702.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 24 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

both of these types of transactions. The DOD Comptroller general y categorizes reprogramming
actions in the following types: prior approval (PA); internal reprogramming (IR); below threshold
reprogramming (BTR); letter transfer (LTR); and military construction/family housing
(MILCON/FH).54 Table 2 shows these and other types of reprogramming actions and some of
their qualifying conditions.
Prior Approval (PA)55
Under DOD regulation, prior-approval reprogramming actions require prior approval from the
chairman and the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee (HAC), House Armed
Services Committee, Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC), and Senate Armed Services
Committee (SASC).56 Criteria for a prior-approval reprogramming as defined by DOD regulation
include actions that would:
 increase the procurement quantity of a major end item (e.g., aircraft, missile,
naval vessel);
 impact an item or program designated as being of special interest to one or more
of the congressional committees;57
 use general or special transfer authorities provided in annual defense
authorization and appropriations acts;58
 exceed previously established appropriation-specific thresholds;
 initiate a new start program element or project;59
 terminate appropriated programs; or
 use sale proceeds for replacement of certain items sold from the DOD’s
inventory.

54 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller (OUSD-C), Budget Execution,
Implemented Reprogramming Actions, accessed March 3, 2020, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget -
Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/.
55 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060401, p. 6-6,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1373.
56 National Intelligence Program (NIP) reprogramming actions require prior approval from the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), House Appropriations
Committee (HAC), and Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC); Military Intelligence Program (MIP) reprogramming
actions require prior approval from HPSCI, House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Senate Armed Services
Committee (SASC), HAC, and SAC. See Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-
Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation, Volume 3, Chapter 6, p. 6-18,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1385.
57 Congressional special interest items are designated by items in paragraphs using the phrase “only for” or “only to,”
and by increased or decreased amounts in project -level funding tables. According to the explanatory statement
accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93), as part of FY2020
appropriations for the Defense Health Program, the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) subactivity groups (SAGs) for
In-House Care and Private Sector Care were designated as special interest items. See the Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10897, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-
17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk2.pdf#page=285.
58 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060405, Subparagraphs (C) and (E), pp. 6 -12 and 6-13,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1380.
59 A program not explicitly justified to, and funded by, the Congress is considered to be a new start program.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 35 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

In FY2019 and FY2020, however, DOD conducted reprogramming actions for the construction of
barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border using general transfer authority and exceeding certain
reprogramming thresholds but did not seek congressional prior approval, as required by
department regulation (see box below). Congress responded in part by debating whether to
prohibit DOD from transferring funds to construct border-barriers and whether to reduce the
department’s general and special transfer authority limits, but ultimately only agreed to reduce
certain reprogramming thresholds. (For more information, see the ““Legislative Activity””
section later in this report.)
DOD Did Not Categorize Border Barrier Transfers as “Prior Approval”
Reprogramming Actions
As of March 2020, the DOD Comptrol er website had published three “reprogramming actions” related to the
Trump Administration’s transfers of funding for constructing barriers on the southern border (separate from
military construction appropriations). Each of these actions involved redirecting funds to DOD’s Drug Interdiction
and Counter-Drug Activities account in support of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to 10
U.S.C. §284:60

$1.0 bil ion in FY2019 appropriations on March 25, 2019 (using general transfer authority); 61

$1.5 bil ion in FY2019 appropriations on May 9, 2019 (using $818.5 mil ion of general transfer authority and
$681.5 mil ion of special transfer authority);62 and

$3.8 bil ion in FY2020 appropriations on February 13, 2020 (using $2.2 bil ion of general transfer authority
and $1.6 bil ion of special transfer authority).63
The department did not seek prior approval from the congressional defense committees for these transactions.
Based on CRS analysis of department reprogramming actions and regulation, these transactions met DOD criteria
for requiring congressional prior approval because they used general transfer authority (either in whole or in part)
and exceeded reprogramming thresholds (based on explanatory statements accompanying defense appropriations
acts).64 In addition, the DOD Comptrol er did not categorize these transactions as a specific type of

60 For more information and analysis on this topic, see CRS Insight IN11052, The Defense Department and 10 U.S.C.
284: Legislative Origins and Funding Questions, by Liana W. Rosen, CRS Report R45937, Military Funding for
Southwest Border Barriers, by Christopher T . Mann, CRS Report R46002, Military Funding for Border Barriers:
Catalogue of Interagency Decisionm aking , by Christopher T . Mann and Sofia Plagakis, and CRS Insight IN11210,
Possible Use of FY2020 Defense Funds for Border Barrier Construction: Context and Questions, by Christopher T .
Mann.
61 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2019, “ Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming Action,” March 25,
2019,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/19-
01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf .
62 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2019, “ Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming Action,” May 9, 2019,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2019/reprogramming_action/19-
02_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf .
63 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2020, “ Support for DHS Counter-Drug Activity Reprogramming Action,” February 13,
2020,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2020/reprogramming_action/20-
01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf .
64 For DOD prior-approval criteria, see Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller,
Financial Management Regulation, Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060401, “ Reprogramming Actions Requiring
Written Congressional Approval,” subparagraph C, p. 6-7,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1374. For FY2019 and
FY2020 reprogramming thresholds, see the explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December
17, 2019), p. H10613, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk2.pdf;
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 14 link to page 29 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

reprogramming action—that is, prior approval (PA). Rather, the DOD Comptrol er categorized them as a
“reprogramming action,” a designation that was not previously used for implemented reprogramming actions since
at least FY1999. For more information, see “DOD does not view congressional prior approval requirements as
legal y binding” heading in the “Issues for Congress” section.
In addition to the aforementioned amounts, in 2019, DOD redirected $3.6 bil ion in military construction
appropriations for border barrier construction using a separate authority, 10 U.S.C. §2808.65 According to DOD
Directive (DODD) 4270.5, the department does not require submission of reprogramming requests to fund
construction projects under 10 U.S.C. §2808.66
Internal Reprogramming (IR)67
Internal reprogramming actions do not change the congressional intent behind the original
appropriation—and thus do not require new congressional approval. Criteria for internal
reprogramming actions as defined by DOD regulation include actions that would:
 reclassify funds into a different line item, program element, or appropriation than
that in which the funds were appropriated;
 use transfer authority to execute funds from designated transfer accounts (e.g.,
Environmental Restoration accounts; Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense; Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund; Foreign
Currency Fluctuations, Defense); or
 increase procurement quantities for major end items not requiring congressional
approval.
Below Threshold Reprogramming (BTR)
Below threshold reprogramming actions move funds in a manner that changes their purpose from
original congressional intent; however, they do not require congressional approval under DOD
regulation because they general y fal below certain monetary thresholds (e.g., $10 mil ion for
most appropriation titles in FY2020). Considered minor actions, below threshold reprogrammings
are approved by the military services and defense agencies, and are reported in aggregate on a
quarterly or annual basis, depending on the appropriation title.
For more information on reprogramming thresholds, see the “Reprogramming Thresholds”
heading in the “Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts” section earlier in this report and
the “Reprogramming Threshold Changes” section later in this report.

and the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division A of
P.L. 115-245), p. 2, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Joint%20Explanatory%20Statement%20-
%20HR%206157.pdf#page=4.
65 White House, “President Donald J. T rump’s Border Security Victory,” fact sheet, February 15, 2019,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president -donald-j-trumps-border-security-victory/.
66 Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Executive Services Directorate, DOD Directive (DODD)
4270.5, “ Military Construction,” p. 3,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/427005p.pdf#page=3 .
67 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapt er 6, Paragraph 060401, p. 6-10,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1377.
Congressional Research Service
14

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Letter Transfer Reprogramming (LTR)
A letter transfer reprogramming (LTR) is used to process transfers specifical y authorized in
legislation, including transfers between agencies. For example, DOD regularly transfers funding
from the Defense Health Program, Operation and Maintenance appropriation account to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the DOD-VA Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, which
supports a federal health care center in North Chicago, Il inois.68
Military Construction/Family Housing (MILCON/FH)
As previously discussed, DOD transfers and reprogrammings of military construction and family
housing appropriations can occur under multiple sections of permanent law. DOD Financial
Management Regulation requires congressional prior approval of such reprogramming actions in
certain scenarios, including the following:
 an increase exceeding 25% or $2 mil ion, whichever is less, to military
construction projects, family housing new construction projects, or family
housing improvement projects;
 a project to be performed under 10 U.S.C. §2803, “Emergency construction;”
 a project to be undertaken with military construction funds under 10 U.S.C.
§2854, “Restoration or replacement of damaged or destroyed facilities;”
 land acquisition under 10 U.S.C. §2663(d), “Acquisition of Interests in Land
When Need Is Urgent;” or
 a project to be accomplished under 10 U.S.C. §2827, “Relocation of military
family housing units.”69
A section of permanent law used to transfer defense funds for border-barrier construction,
10 U.S.C. §2808, requires congressional notification but not approval.70 DOD Directive
(DODD) 4270.5 does not require the submission of reprogramming requests to fund
construction projects under 10 U.S.C. §2808.71

68 T itle XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA; P.L. 111-84) authorized the
creation of demonstration project to integrate VA and DOD facilities into a single health system, the DOD/VA Medical
Facility Demonstration Project, Federal Health Care Center. For more information, see Government Accountability
Office, VA AND DOD HEALTH CARE: First Federal Health Care Center Established, but Im plem entation Concerns
Need to Be Addressed, GAO-11-570, July 2011, https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321187.pdf.
69 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 7, Paragraph 070302, “ Determining Reprogramming Actions Requiring Prior Notification and
Approval of Congressional Committees,” subparagraph B, p. 7-4,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1410.
70 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 17, Paragraph 170303(A), “ Construction in the Event of a Declaration of War or National
Emergency,” p. 17-17, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -
16.pdf#page=1611.
71 Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Executive Services Directorate, Washington
Headquarters Services, DoD Directives, DODD 4270.5, “ Military Construction,” p. 3, updated August 31, 2018,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/P ortals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/427005p.pdf?ver=2018 -11-08-080607-
280#page=3.
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 23 link to page 45 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

DOD Reporting of Reprogramming Actions
In general, DOD notifies Congress and other stakeholders of reprogramming actions using certain
forms and procedures. This section of the report briefly describes some of the key documents and
processes that may be of note for congressional oversight of department implementation of
reprogramming actions.
Base for Reprogramming Actions Report (DD Form 1414)
The Reprogramming Actions Report (DD Form 1414) establishes a baseline—that is, a statement
of amounts at the line-item level—for transferring and reprogramming funds. The report includes
amounts for each appropriation provided in defense appropriations acts and reflects adjustments
since the initial appropriation, including rescissions, supplemental appropriations, and approved
reprogramming actions. A recurring provision in the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act prohibits DOD from reprogramming or transferring funds until the report is
submitted to the congressional defense committees, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that
the action is an emergency requirement.72 The report is due to the committees 60 days after
enactment of annual defense appropriations.
Reprogramming Action Form (DD Form 1415)
The DOD Comptroller, with the approval of OMB, submits prior-approval reprogramming
requests from the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to the congressional defense
committees using the DD Form 1415-1. The Comptroller typical y submits the form in one of two
ways: (1) as needed for specific requirements, or on a monthly basis, and (2) as part of a single
request for multiple reprogramming actions (known as an omnibus reprogramming action), due
prior to June 30 each year.73 The omnibus reprogramming action was adopted by DOD in
FY1991 in part to streamline the process for the committees and the department. Typical y, the
committees either approve, deny, or adjust the requested amounts before DOD transfers or
reprograms funds. For a visual representation of the process, see Figure 1.

72 See language in Section 8005 of P.L. 116-93.
73 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060401, p. 6 -6,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1373. Statutory language
relating to the omnibus reprogramming request typically appears in Section 8005 of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act: “... Provided further, T hat a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority
provided in this section shall be made prior to June 30 ...” T his section is printed in its entirety in Appendix A.
Congressional Research Service
16

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 1. DOD Process for Prior-Approval Reprogramming Actions

Source: CRS description based on Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-
Comptrol er, Financial Management Regulation (7000.14-R FMR).
Notes: The congressional defense committees refer to the chairman and the ranking member of the House
Appropriations Committee (HAC), House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Senate Appropriations
Committee (SAC), and Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).
The DOD Comptroller typical y uses DD Form 1415-3 for internal reprogramming actions to
document the transfer of funds out of a transfer account (e.g., the Drug Interdiction and Counter-
Drug Activities, Defense), reclassify funds in a way that does not change congressional intent, or
change procurement quantities in a way that does not require congressional approval.74
The office also provides quarterly reports on budget al ocation and execution of funds for the
active, Guard, reserve, and defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts.75 In the past, the
department has resisted congressional reporting requirements for more frequent reports on the
al ocation of funds within O&M budget sub-activity groups (SAGs), arguing in part that doing so
would be “overly redundant and burdensome” because such information is already provided by
DD Form 1415, among other documentation.76
Report of Programs (DD Form 1416)
The DOD Comptroller also submits to the congressional defense committees a report (DD Form
1416) on the status of reprogramming actions. The report breaks down funding for enacted
programs, approved reprogramming actions, congressional y directed transfers, and department-
implemented below threshold reprogramming of funds. DOD provides the report to the
committees on a quarterly basis—that is, 30 days after the end of each quarter—for procurement
and RDT&E appropriations, and on an annual basis for MILPERS and O&M appropriations.

74 According to archived versions of the DOD Financial Management Regulation, DD Form 1415-2 was previously
used to provide congressional prior notification of certain reprogramming actions.
75 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Operations and maintenance (O&M)
Budget Execution Reports website, accessed May 11, 2020, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget -
Execution/OM_Reports/.
76 Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, DOD Legislative Proposals, “ Defense T ransformation for the
21st Century Act of 2003 (Sent to Congress on April 11, 2003 ),” pp. 121-122,
https://ogc.osd.mil/olc/docs/April11.pdf#page=124 .
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 24 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 2 shows the types of documents used to notify Congress and other stakeholders of certain
types of DOD reprogramming actions.
Table 2. Selected DOD Reprogramming Actions and Reporting Documents
Type
Form
Reporting Frequency
Qualifying Condition(s)
Notification/Approval
Prior Approval
DD
as needed, monthly, or
increases procurement
requires committee
(PA)
1415-1
annual y (omnibus)
quantities;
approval
starts or ends a program;
involves congressional
special interest items;
uses general or special
transfer authority;
exceeds below-threshold-
reprogramming thresholds
Internal
DD
as needed, or monthly
may use general transfer
does not require committee
Reprogramming
1415-3
authority;
approval, but requires
(IR)
real ocates funds without
committee notification
changing purpose;
processes transactions out
of transfer accounts

“Reprogramming
DD
not established
used to process border-
disagreement between
Action” (RA)
1415
barrier transfers
Congress and DOD (actions
were carried out without
committee approval despite
department regulation and
report language)
Below Threshold
DD
quarterly (procurement,
reprograms less than $10
require committee
Reprogramming
1416
RDT&E); annual y
mil ion;
notification
(BTR)
(MILPERS, O&M).
changes purpose;
approved at the military
service or agency level
Letter Transfer
Letter
as needed
used to process funding
transfers posted on
Reprogramming
transfers enacted in
Comptrol er website
(LTR)
legislation

Military
Letter
as needed
an increase exceeding 25%
stated conditions require
Construction,
or $2 mil ion, whichever is
committee approval (other
Family Housing
less
conditions do not require
an emergency project
committee approval)
under 10 U.S.C. §2803
land acquisition under 10
U.S.C. §2663(d)
Congressional
Letter
as needed
real ocates less than $10
requires committee
Notification
mil ion;
approval
Letters
changes purpose;
starts or ends a program
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 26 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Source: CRS analysis of Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptrol er
(OUSD-C) website, Budget Execution, Implemented Reprogramming Actions, and DOD Financial Management
Regulation (7000.14-R FMR), Volume 3, Chapter 6; and Defense Technical Information Center, “Report of the
Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Volume 3 of 3 (Part 1),” Figure 4-4,
January 2019, p. 179, https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-
Report_Jan2019_part-1_0509.pdf#page=379.
Note: Table includes “Reprogramming Action” as shown on DOD Comptrol er website to categorize border
barrier transfers. Table excludes “Above Threshold Reprogramming” (ATR), which is not an official category of
reprogramming as defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) but is commonly used to describe actions
other than “Below Threshold Reprogramming” (BTR), according to the Section 809 Panel report cited above.
Analysis of Selected DOD Transfer Authorities and
Reprogramming Actions
General and Special Transfer Authority
Evolution of Authorities After 9/11
In the years following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress provided broad
authority to DOD to transfer and reprograms funds in support of military operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to increasing transfer authority limits provided in Section 8005
of the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Congress provided transfer authority in
other legislative provisions, including emergency appropriations. For example, as part of the
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L. 108-11), Congress provided
$15.7 bil ion in emergency funding for the Iraq Freedom Fund, a special transfer account to fund
expenses related to military operations in Iraq and other countries. This transfer authority was in
addition to general transfer authority provided in Section 8005 of the regular defense
appropriations act.
Beginning with the FY2010 President’s budget request, the Obama Administration requested
funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) as part of the annual budget submission to
Congress rather than as part of a separate supplemental request. This approach implied that while
the funds might be war-related, they largely supported predictable ongoing activities rather than
unanticipated needs. As a result, Congress enacted a separate transfer authority limit for OCO
funding in a recurring provision, Section 9002, of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (i.e., special transfer authority). Figure 2 shows how the department’s general
and special transfer authority limits have changed over the past decade.
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 47 link to page 47 link to page 27

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 2. General and Special Transfer Authority Limits in Selected Provisions of
Defense Appropriations Acts, FY2010-FY2020
(in bil ions of dol ars)

Source: CRS analysis of recurring provisions (Sections 8005 and 9002) of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for the fiscal years FY2010-FY2020. For a ful list of referenced provisions, see Table B-1 in
Appendix B.
Notes: GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority; FY is fiscal year. Figures exclude
additional transfer authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer accounts, working capital
funds, and emergency requirements.
Requested and Appropriated General and Special Transfer Authority
Since FY2013, Congress has appropriated general and special transfer authority limits less than
those requested by DOD. For the eight-year period through FY2020, Congress limited DOD
transfer authorities in these provisions, on average, to 73% of the amounts requested, according to
a CRS analysis of defense authorization and appropriation legislation and accompanying reports
over the period. In recent years, the gap between these requested and enacted limits has widened.
In FY2020, Congress appropriated general and special transfer authority limits, on average, to
60% of the amount requested. See Figure 3.
Congressional Research Service
20

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 47 link to page 28

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 3. Requested, Authorized, and Appropriated DOD General and Special
Transfer Authority Limits, FY2013-FY2020
(in bil ions of dol ars)

Source: CRS analysis of recurring provision (Section 8005) of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act and the “General Transfer Authority” section of the annual National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), and recurring provision (Section 9002) of the defense appropriations act and the “Special Transfer
Authority” section of the NDAA, for the fiscal years FY2013-FY2020, as wel as accompanying conference
reports or explanatory statements. For a ful list of referenced sections and tables of bil s and reports, see Table
B-2 in Appendix B.
Notes: GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority; FY is fiscal year. Figures exclude
additional transfer authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer accounts, working capital
funds, and emergency requirements.
General and Special Transfer Authority as Share of Budget Authority
Since FY2013, Congress has enacted general and special transfer authority limits for DOD that,
taken together and put into percentage terms, amount to an average of 1.2% of the total
discretionary budget authority provided in regular annual defense appropriations acts. That figure
is below the average percentage of 1.5% requested during that period and excludes additional
transfer authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer accounts, working
capital funds, and emergency requirements. See Figure 4.
Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 49 link to page 47 link to page 29

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 4. Requested and Appropriated General and Special Transfer Authority Limits
as Share of Budget Authority in Defense Appropriations Acts, FY2013-FY2020
(in percentages)

Source: CRS analysis of recurring provisions (Sections 8005 and 9002) of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for the fiscal years FY2013-FY2020. For a ful list of referenced sections and tables of bil s
and reports, see Table B-3 in Appendix B.
Notes: GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority; FY is fiscal year. Figures exclude
additional transfer authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer accounts, working capital
funds, and emergency requirements.
DOD Usage of General and Special Transfer Authority
From FY2016 to FY2018, DOD used, on average, less than half of the general and special
transfer authority provided in the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This trend
noticeably changed in FY2019, when DOD used $5.1 billion (85%) of the $6 bil ion combined
limit for general and special transfer authority (after accounting for military personnel
adjustments). The increase on a percentage basis in FY2019 was driven in part by DOD’s two
border barrier-related transfers totaling $2.5 bil ion pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284 and Congress
enacting lower transfer authority limits for the fiscal year. In a single border-barrier transfer
totaling $3.8 bil ion in FY2020, DOD nearly two-thirds (63%) of the limit for general and special
transfer authority (see Figure 5).
Congressional Research Service
22

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 5. DOD Usage of General and Special Transfer Authority, FY2016-FY2019
(in bil ions of dol ars and percentages)

Source: CRS analysis of reprogramming action data provided by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(OUSD-C), as of February 18, 2020.
Notes: GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority; FY is fiscal year. Amounts account
for military personnel adjustments. Figures exclude additional transfer authority amounts in certain other
provisions, including for transfer accounts, working capital funds, and emergency requirements. Totals may not
sum due to rounding.
DOD Reprogramming Actions
The following sections of the report provide additional information on:
 how Congress has changed DOD reprogramming thresholds over time;
 the number, value, and type of certain DOD reprogramming actions over time;
and
 the value of certain DOD reprogramming actions for a selected fiscal year,
including the percentage of prior-approval reprogramming actions supported by
congressional committees.77
Reprogramming Threshold Changes
In the latter half of the 20th century, amid concerns over unauthorized use of funds, Congress
sought to establish greater control over DOD reprogramming actions.78 In FY1959, the House
Appropriations Committee directed DOD to report approved reprogramming actions of $1

77 In general, DOD transfers and reprograms discretionary budget authority. On occasion, DOD reprograms mandatory,
or direct, spending for spectrum relocation, according to CRS communication with DOD-Comptroller personnel. T he
Spectrum Relocation Fund, created by the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2004, reimburses federal
agencies that must relocate or share wireless communications systems in federal spectrum that has been or will be
reallocated to commercial use.
78 For more information, see CRS Report RL33151, Committee Controls of Agency Decisions, by Louis Fisher.
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

mil ion or more for O&M and RDT&E appropriations; and of $5 mil ion or more for procurement
appropriations.79
In subsequent decades, Congress amended these dollar amount reprogramming thresholds. In
FY2005, after reports that DOD used below threshold reprogramming actions to fund war-related
priorities by reducing funding for many smal er programs,80 Congress included a percentage
limitation to reprogramming thresholds for procurement and RDT&E appropriations.81 Table 3
shows DOD reprogramming thresholds for selected fiscal years.
Table 3. DOD Reprogramming Thresholds by Appropriation Title for Selected Fiscal
Years
Fiscal
Year
MILPERS
O&M
Procurement
RDT&E
2003a
$10 mil ion
$15 mil ion
$20 mil ion
$10 mil ion
2005b
$10 mil ion
$15 mil ion
$20 million or 20%c
$10 million or 20%c
2018d
$10 mil ion
$20 million
$20 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
2019e
$10 mil ion
$15 million
$20 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
2020f
$10 mil ion
$10 million
$10 million or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
Source: Explanatory reports accompanying Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for selected fiscal
years. For source documents for individual fiscal years, see table notes below.
Notes: Bold and shaded figures indicate change from previous threshold. Military Personnel (MILPERS) and
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) thresholds apply to a budget activity; Procurement and Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) thresholds apply to line items. Source documents for individual
fiscal years are as fol ows:
a. Department of Defense, Defense Technical Information Center, Section 809 Panel, “Report of the Advisory
Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Volume 3 of 3,” Figure 4 -4, January 2019, p.
187, https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-
Report_Jan2019_part-1_0509.pdf#page=387.
b. Conference report (H.Rept. 108-622) accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005
(P.L. 108-287), p. 87.
c. Threshold applies to whichever is less.
d. Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division C of
P.L. 115-141) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164 (March 22, 2018), p. H2116.
e. Joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division
A of P.L. 115-245) released by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 13, 2018, p. 2.
f.
Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of
P.L. 116-93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10613.
From a congressional standpoint, lower dollar amount reprogramming thresholds potential y
provide greater oversight of individual reprogramming actions. From a DOD standpoint, the
lower thresholds potential y create delays, with DOD arguing that the prior-approval process can

79 H. Rept. No. 408, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. 20 (1959); Department of Defense Instruction, “Reprogramming of
Appropriated Funds –– Report on,” No. 7250.5 (October 23, 1959).
80 Department of Defense, Defense T echnical Information Center, “Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Volume 3 of 3,” January 2019, p. 194, https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-
content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-Report_Jan2019_part-1_0509.pdf#page=394.
81 Conference report (H.Rept. 108-622) accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 ( P.L. 108-
287), p. 87.
Congressional Research Service
24

link to page 32 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

take months for both department and congressional approval.82 Also, because of the percentage
limitation, DOD contends it has less flexibility for smal er investment programs.83
In 2018, a bipartisan congressional panel known as the Section 809 panel and appointed to
recommend defense acquisition reforms,84 issued three recommendations related to DOD
reprogramming policy: (1) delegate below threshold reprogramming decision authority from the
military or department level to portfolio managers; (2) increase reprogramming dollar thresholds
to match their previous levels relative to inflation and the DOD budget—including to $20 mil ion
for RDT&E and to $40 mil ion for procurement; and (3) increase to 50% from 20% the
percentage limitation in reprogramming thresholds for procurement and RDT&E.85 Congress has
not enacted these recommendations.
Quantity and Type of DOD Reprogramming Actions
The following CRS analysis of the number, value, and type of DOD reprogramming actions is
limited to the implemented reprogramming actions published on the Budget Execution section of
the DOD Comptroller website, which often include reprogramming actions involving
congressional notification and prior approval. Thus, the analysis excludes below threshold
reprogramming actions, which are reported in aggregate in the department’s Report of Programs
(DD Form 1416).86
According to the CRS analysis, DOD published a total of 2,233 reprogramming actions over the
21-year period from FY1999 through FY2019, averaging more than 100 a year. The department
categorized more than half of those (1,168 actions or 52%) as internal reprogrammings (IR);
more than a quarter (581 actions or 26%) as prior approval (PA); almost one in six (357 actions or
16%) as letter directed (LTR); 125 actions (or 6%) as military construction-family housing, and
two as “reprogramming action” for border barrier-related purposes (see Figure 6).

82 Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, DOD Legislative Proposals, “ National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Sent to Congress on May 12, 2009) -- Section-by-Section Analysis (.pdf),” p.
78, https://ogc.osd.mil/olc/docs/FY10_NDAA_sectional_analysis.pdf#page=78 .
83 David W. Roberts, “A Historical Analysis of the Defense Reprogramming Process,” Armed Forces Comptroller, Fall
1985, p. 21.
84 See Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92).
85 Department of Defense, Defense T echnical Information Center, Section 809 Panel, “List of Section 809 Panel
Recommendations,” p. 8, https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Promo-
Outreach/ImplementationTracker.pdf#page=8; and “ Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying
Acquisition Regulations, Volume 3 of 3,” January 2019, p. 192, https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-
Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-Report_Jan2019_part-1_0509.pdf#page=392.
86 According to the Section 809 panel, the Air Force reported 128 below threshold reprogrammings in unclassified
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT &E) accounts in a single quarter in FY2018. See Department of
Defense, Defense T echnical Information Center, Section 809 Panel, “Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Volume 3 of 3,” January 2019, p. 180, https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-
content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-Report_Jan2019_part-1_0509.pdf#page=380.
Congressional Research Service
25

link to page 33

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 6. Combined Quantity of Selected Types of DOD Reprogramming Actions,
FY1999-FY2019
(in numbers and percentages of the total)

Source: CRS analysis of Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptrol er
(OUSD-C), Budget Execution, Implemented Reprogramming Actions, as of March 3, 2020,
https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/.
Notes: Figures include omnibus reprogrammings as a single reprogramming action. Figure excludes two
uncategorized “reprogramming actions” relate to constructing barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border in FY2019
that met criteria for “prior approval” under DOD regulation; below threshold reprogrammings, policy letters,
and memos.
During the 21-year period, the quantity of DOD reprogramming actions peaked at 198 in
FY2005, trended downward in subsequent fiscal years, and decreased to 68 in FY2018 (see
Figure 7). In FY2005, multiple funding transfers were intended to address war-related
requirements from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as additional armor kits for Army
wheeled vehicles and Air Force MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with related
weapons (e.g., Hel fire missiles).87

87 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller (OUSD-C), Budget Execution,
Implemented Reprogramming Actions – FY2005, “ Urgent Force Protection-Army,” November 19, 2004,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2005/prior1415s/05 -
02_PA_Army_Force_Protection.pdf, and “ Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,” January 27, 2005,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2005/prior1415s/05 -
08_PA_AF_Predator_UAV.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

link to page 34

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 7. Annual Quantity of Selected Types of DOD Reprogramming Actions,
FY1999-FY2019

Source: CRS analysis of Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptrol er
(OUSD-C), Budget Execution, Implemented Reprogramming Actions, as of March 3, 2020,
https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/.
Notes: MILCON/FH is military construction/family housing. CR is continuing resolution. The two uncategorized
“reprogramming actions” in FY2019 relate to constructing barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border and met
criteria for “prior approval” under DOD regulation. Figures include omnibus reprogrammings as a single
reprogramming action. Figures exclude below threshold reprogrammings, policy letters, and memos. Years in
fiscal years.
Value of Prior Approval and Internal DOD Reprogramming Actions
From FY2000 through FY2019, the single-year value of prior approval and internal DOD
reprogramming actions peaked at $48.9 bil ion in FY2008, trended downward in subsequent
fiscal years, and decreased to $10.4 bil ion in FY2017 (see Figure 8). Following the surge of U.S.
forces in Iraq, multiple reprogramming actions in FY2008 realigned funds for combat operations
in the country, including ammunition, generators, mine-detection systems, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), and telecommunications technology.
Congressional Research Service
27

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Figure 8. Annual Value of DOD Prior Approval and Internal Reprogramming Actions,
FY2000-FY2019
(in bil ions of dol ars)

Source: CRS analysis of Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptrol er
(OUSD-C), Budget Execution, Implemented Reprogramming Actions, as of March 3, 2020,
https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Budget-Execution/ReprogrammingFY2020/; and Budget Execution Flexibility
Tutorial, https://comptrol er.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/Budget_Execution_Tutorial.pptx.
Notes: FY2000-FY2014 data from DOD Budget Execution Flexibility Tutorial; FY2015 -FY2019 data from CRS
analysis of DOD Implemented Reprogramming Actions. Years in fiscal years.
Congressionally Denied DOD Reprogramming Actions, FY2019
In FY2019, DOD transferred and reprogrammed more than $17 bil ion (excluding below
threshold reprogrammings), amounting to 2.5% of the department’s discretionary budget
authority, according to CRS analysis of DOD reprogramming actions and budget
documentation.88
In general, DOD documentation for prior-approval reprogramming actions reflect approval,
denial, or adjustments from the congressional defense committees. For example, denials or
adjustments wil include a strikethrough of requested changes to line-items and/or amounts.
According to DOD regulation, the department implements a prior-approval reprogramming action
after receiving written guidance from the congressional defense committees to reflect “the lowest

88 CRS analysis of Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secret ary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution,
Implemented Reprogramming Actions, as of March 3, 2020, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget -
Execution/ReprogrammingFY2019/; and White House Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives,
T able 24-1, “ Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category, and Program ,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/24-1_fy21.pdf. T he dollar figure includes $7.8 billion of internal reprogramming actions (44%
of the total amount), $4.5 billion of prior approval actions (26%), $2.5 billion of uncategoriz ed “ reprogramming
actions” for border-barrier transfers (14%), $2.2 billion in letter transfers for congressionally directed transfers; and
$0.6 billion in military construction and family housing reprogramming actions (4%).
Congressional Research Service
28

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

of the approvals received for proposed sources and increases. The action may be implemented for
less than original y requested due to the denial of increases or sources.”89
In FY2019, DOD submitted for congressional prior approval 13 reprogramming actions with a
combined value of $5.9 bil ion. Of those, committees approved $4.5 bil ion (76%). Committees
denied the reprogramming of some funds within four actions, including for the Cyber Excepted
Service (CES), a personnel system for managing civilian employees in cybersecurity jobs; a
classified project within the Military Intel igence Program; the deployment of forces to U.S.
Central Command; and the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization program to develop new Air
Force One aircraft, among other activities.
In response to DOD’s decision mentioned earlier not to submit for congressional prior approval
FY2019 transfers for barrier construction on the U.S.-Mexico border, Representatives Adam
Smith and Peter J. Visclosky, the respective chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee
and House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, wrote letters to then-DOD Comptroller David
Norquist, denying the department’s reprogramming “request.”90 In his letter, Visclosky wrote:
Article [I] states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law”. The reprogramming transmitted by the Department denies
the Congress and the Committee on Appropriations those stated Constitutional
prerogatives; these funds were neither requested nor appropriated for the activities
described in the reprogramming. With this unilateral action, the historic and unprecedented
comity that has existed between the Committee and the Department has been breached.
Legislative Activity
As the Smith and Visclosky letters suggest, in the 116th Congress, debate over DOD transfer
authority has largely centered on the legislative branch’s constitutional “power of the purse” in
the context of the Trump Administration’s decision to transfer FY2019 and FY2020 defense
appropriations for barrier construction on the southern border. Despite such concerns, however,
Congress has not decreased DOD general and special transfer authority limits primarily because
of a bipartisan compromise over unrelated spending caps.
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L. 116-37)
As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-37), which increased statutory caps on
defense and nondefense spending for FY2020 and FY2021, leaders in Congress and the White
House agreed to maintain existing transfer authorities, including those applicable to DOD.91 A
statement circulated by some Members describing the bil stated, in part: “Current transfer
funding levels and authorities shal be maintained, and any modifications must be agreed to on a
bipartisan basis by the four leaders with the approval of the President.”92

89 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060411, “ Congressional Committee Approval of DD 1415 Requests,” p. 6-15,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -16.pdf#page=1382.
90 Letters from Representatives Adam Smith and Peter J. Visclosky to then-Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller
David Norquist , March 26, 2019, on file with the author.
91 T he Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L. 116-37) increased statutory spending caps initially established
by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). For more information, see CRS Report R44039, The Defense
Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions, by Brendan W. McGarry.
92 Rep. Joe Courtney, “Bipartisan Budget Agreement for Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021 ,” link from press release, July 25,
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 37 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act
In addition to prohibiting DOD from transferring funds to construct barriers along the U.S.-
Mexico border, 93 the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2020 (H.R. 2500) would have reduced the department’s authorized general and special transfer
authority limits from FY2019 levels. As part of the enacted bil (P.L. 116-92), Congress
authorized a general transfer authority limit of $4 bil ion and a special transfer authority limit of
$2 bil ion (see Table 4).
Table 4. General and Special Transfer Authority Limits in the National Defense
Authorization Act, FY2020: Legislative Comparison
(amounts in bil ions)
Transfer
FY2019
Senate-
FY2020
Authority
Authorized
FY2020
House-Passed
Passed (S.
Authorized
(Section)
(P.L. 115-232)
Requested
(H.R. 2500)
1790)
(P.L. 116-92)
GTA (Sec.
$4.5
$5.0
$1.0
$4.0
$4.0
1001)
STA (Sec.
$3.5
$4.5
$0.5
$2.5a
$2.0a
1520A)a
Total
$8.0
$9.5
$1.5
$6.5
$6.0
Source: H.Rept. 115-874, conference report accompanying the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232); S.Rept. 116-48, Senate Armed Services Committee report accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 (S. 1790); House-passed National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2020 (H.R. 2500); and National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 (P.L. 116-92).
Notes:
a. GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority. The special transfer authority limit
appeared in Sec. 1512 of the FY2019 NDAA and House-passed FY2020 NDAA; Sec. 1522 of the Senate-
passed NDAA, and Sec. 1520A of the FY2020 NDAA (P.L. 116-92).
Selected FY2020 Appropriations
Defense
The House passed a Department of Defense Appropriations Bil , FY2020 (H.R. 2740) that, in
addition to prohibiting DOD from transferring funds to construct barriers along the U.S.-Mexico
border,94 would have reduced the department’s general and special transfer authority limits from
FY2019 levels. As part of the enacted version of the Department of Defense Appropriations Bil ,
FY2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93), the House agreed with the Senate’s version of the bil (S.
2474) to maintain a general transfer authority limit of $4 bil ion and a special transfer authority
limit of $2 bil ion (see Table 5).

2019, https://courtney.house.gov/sites/courtney.house.gov/files/Bipartisan%20Budget%20Act%202019.pdf .
93 Other sections of the bill would have prohibited or restricted funding for border barrier construction. For mo re
information, see T able 4 in CRS Report R45937, Military Funding for Southwest Border Barriers, by Christopher T .
Mann.
94 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
30

link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 38 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 5. General and Special Transfer Authority Limits in the DOD Appropriations
Act, 2020: Legislative Comparison
(amounts in bil ions)
Transfer
FY2019
Senate-
FY2020
Authority
Enacted (P.L.
FY2020
House-passed
introduced (S. Enacted (P.L.
(section)
115-245)
Requested
(H.R. 2740)
2474)
116-93)
GTA (Sec.
$4.0
$5.0
$1.0
$4.0
$4.0
8005)
STA (Sec. 9002)
$2.0
$4.5
$0.5
$2.0
$2.0
Total
$6.0
$9.5
$1.5
$6.0
$6.0
Sources: The Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations
Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245); S.Rept. 116-48, Senate Armed Services
Committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 (S. 1790); House-passed
version of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2740); Senate-introduced version of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (S. 2474); and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L.
116-93).
Notes: GTA is general transfer authority; STA is special transfer authority. The Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2020 (H.R. 2740) incorporated multiple regular appropriations, including the House Appropriation
Committee-reported version of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2968).
The House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-84) accompanying its version of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2968) directed the Secretary of Defense
to submit a prior approval reprogramming to the congressional defense committees for any
reprogramming of funding above a dollar amount threshold of $10 mil ion for military personnel,
operation and maintenance, procurement, or research, development, test and evaluation lines. The
Senate Appropriations Committee report (S.Rept. 116-103) accompanying its version of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (S. 2474) kept the dollar amount
reprogramming thresholds unchanged from FY2019 at $10 mil ion for MILPERS and RDT&E,
$15 mil ion for O&M, and $20 mil ion for procurement. The reprogramming thresholds in the
explanatory statement accompanying the enacted version of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93) matched those in the House Appropriations
Committee report (see Table 6).
Table 6. Reprogramming Thresholds by Appropriation Title, FY2020: Legislative
Comparison
(dol ar amounts in mil ions)
Appropriation
FY2019
FY2020 House
FY2020 Senate
FY2020
Title
Guidancea
Guidance
Guidance
Guidanceb
MILPERS
$10 mil ion
$10 mil ion
$10 mil ion
$10 mil ion
O&M
$15 mil ion
$10 mil ion
$15 mil ion
$10 mil ion
Procurement
$20 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
$20 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
RDT&E
$10 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
$10 mil ion or 20%c
Source: Joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019
(Division A of P.L. 115-245); House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-84) accompanying its
version of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 2968); Senate Appropriations Committee
report (S.Rept. 116-103) accompanying its version of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (S.
Congressional Research Service
31

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

2474 ); and explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division
A of P.L. 116-93).
Notes:
a. Joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division
A of P.L. 115-245) released by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 13, 2018, p. 2.
b. Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of
P.L. 116-93) published in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10613.
c. Threshold applies to whichever is less.
Emergency Supplemental
As previously mentioned, Section 13001 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act (P.L. 116-136)—the third FY2020 supplemental appropriations act that Congress passed in
response to COVID-19—al ows DOD to transfer, with an exception, the $10.5 bil ion provided to
the department in Title III of the act to other appropriation accounts for expenses incurred in
preventing, preparing for, or responding to COVID-19.
The exception applies to DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense account,
which the department has used to transfer defense funds to construct barriers along the U.S.-
Mexico border in support of the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284.
This provision effectively prevents DOD from transferring coronavirus relief funds to the Army
Corps of Engineers for the purpose of constructing additional barriers along the southwest border.
Of the $10.5 bil ion, DOD identified a total $3.2 bil ion for real ocation, including $1.9 bil ion for
transfer and $1.3 bil ion for reprogramming, according to a copy of the department’s CARES Act
spend plan published by The Washington Post.95 The department has detailed these transactions in
five internal reprogramming actions published on the DOD Comptroller website.
Context to FY2021 President’s Budget Request
Border Barrier
Congressional action on the FY2021 appropriations bil s comes amid ongoing efforts by the
Trump Administration to redirect DOD funding to construct barriers along the U.S.-Mexico
border.96 On February 13, 2020, the DOD transferred $3.8 bil ion from defense procurement
programs to the Army Operation and Maintenance account for use by the Army Corps of
Engineers to construct additional barriers along the southern border.97 The reprogramming
repeated, in part, a process the department undertook twice in 2019 (totaling $2.5 bil ion) in

95 Aaron Gregg and Erica Werner, “ Pentagon’s coronavirus plan includes millions for missile tubes and body armor,”
The Washington Post, June 4, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/pentagons-coronavirus-
plan-includes-millions-missile-tubes-body-armor/ (see link to “ Read the Pentagon's Cares Act spending plan in full” at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/defense-department-cares-act-spending-plan-may-29-2020/c3fcd775-711d-
440c-b198-f9caa8ce0687/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_14).
96 For more information and analysis on this topic, see CRS Report R45937, Military Funding for Southwest Border
Barriers, by Christopher T . Mann, CRS Report R46002, Military Funding for Border Barriers: Catalogue of
Interagency Decisionm aking, by Christopher T . Mann and Sofia Plagakis, and CRS Insight IN11210, Possible Use of
FY2020 Defense Funds for Border Barrier Construction: Context and Questions, by Christopher T . Mann.
97 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Budget Execution, Implemented
Reprogramming Actions – FY2020, “ Support for DHS Counter Drug Activity,” February 13, 2020,
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/execution/reprogramming/fy2020/reprogramming_action/20-
01_RA_Support_for_DHS_Counter_Drug_Activity.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
32

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

conjunction with a separate set of emergency transfers ($3.6 bil ion). DOD did not seek prior
approval from the congressional defense committees for the transfers in support of DHS counter-
drug activities pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §284, as required by DOD Financial Management
Regulation.98
The February 13, 2020, reprogramming action for border barrier construction drew bipartisan
criticism from Representatives Adam Smith, chairman the House Armed Services Committee,
and Mac Thornberry, ranking member of the panel.
Smith said of the action:
The Trump Administration claims that every military decision they make is in support of
the National Defense Strategy, and that their primary focus is the great power competition
with Russia and China. But their policy simply does not match their rhetoric. Rather than
investing in the procurement of critical platforms, this administration would rather dump
another $3.8 billion into a wall on our southern border.99
Thornberry said of the action:
Congress has the constitutional responsibility to determine how defense dollars are spent.
We take the Pentagon’s recommendations seriously during our deliberations, but the final
decisions are contained in the bills passed by Congress and signed into law. Once those
choices have been made, the Department of Defense cannot change them in pursuit of their
own priorities without the approval of Congress. Attempts to do so undermines the
principle of civilian control of the military and is in violation of the separation of powers
within the Constitution. The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress’s
constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action. I will be
working with my colleagues to determine the appropriate steps to take.100
The Administration has argued that funding transfers for border-barrier construction are
authorized by Sections 8005 and 9002 of the annual defense appropriations act, among other
federal laws. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said of the February 13, 2020, reprogramming
action: “I know that is legal y available to us.”101 In 2019, then-Assistant Defense Secretary for
Sustainment Robert H. McMahon defended the decision to transfer the funds without seeking
congressional prior approval in part by citing authority provided in Section 8005 of the defense
appropriations act: “It’s customary for DoD to share reprogramming documents with the
Congress, once they’re approved by OMB. My understanding is based on Section 8005, sir, that
DoD needs OMB’s approval, but approval from the Congress is not required by law in a
reprogramming a §284.”102 A DOD spokesman reportedly said of the decision: “When the

98 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense-Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation,
Volume 3, Chapter 6, Paragraph 060401, “ Reprogramming Actions Requiring Written Congressional Approval,”
subparagraph C, p. 6-7, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1 -
16.pdf#page=1374.
99 Representative Adam Smith, “ Smith Condemns Waste of DoD Funds on the Border Wall,” press release, February
13, 2020, https://armedservices.house.gov/press-releases?ID=39753EB6-44F7-4DF7-92CA-AEA9B0E8F1A6.
100 Representative Mac T hornberry, “Thornberry on DoD Reprogramming: Congress Must Act,” press release,
February 13, 2020, https://republicans-armedservices.house.gov/news/press-releases/thornberry-dod-reprogramming-
congress-must-act.
101 T estimony of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Armed Services, The
Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Departm ent of Defense, hearings, 116th
Cong., 2nd sess., February 26, 2020, text from Congressional Quarterly,
https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5844728?4.
102 T estimony of then-Assistant Defense Secretary for Sustainment Robert H. McMahon, in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, The President’s 2019
Congressional Research Service
33

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Department seeks committee approval, it does so as a matter of comity, not because it is required
by law.”103 The disagreement is the subject of lawsuits in federal courts.104
Space Force
Dr. Wil Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics,
reportedly said the Air Force plans to request authority from Congress in FY2021 to fund
multiple space-related RDT&E projects within a single program element (PE) to more easily
transfer funds between the activities.105
Issues for Congress
DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities present potential issues for Congress, including the
following:
DOD does not view congressional prior approval requirements as
legally binding
While DOD Financial Management Regulation requires congressional prior approval of certain
reprogramming actions, the department does not view the requirement as legal y binding.
Although explanatory statement language accompanying the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act typical y directs the Secretary of Defense to seek congressional prior approval
for reprogrammings above certain thresholds, the Supreme Court has held that report language,
alone, is not law and therefore not legal y binding.106 GAO has reached a similar conclusion.107
The ability of Congress to create legally binding prior approval requirements on reprogramming
actions may be limited by the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) v. Chadha. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a type of legislative veto—
a one-house veto provision then included in the Immigration and National Act. Even so, DOD
Financial Management Regulation reflects guidance and instruction from the congressional
defense committees and continues to require committee notification and approval for certain

National Em ergency Declaration Circum venting Congress to Build a Border Wall & its Effect on Military
Construction and Readiness, hearings, 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 27, 2019, text from Congressional Quarterly,
https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5473281?4.
103 Wesley Morgan, “Pentagon still plans to move $1B for border barriers, calling it ‘a matter of comity,’” Politico Pro,
March 27, 2019, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/03/pentagon -still-plans-to-move-1b-for-border-
barriers-calling-it-a-matter-of-comity-2953914.
104 For more information, see CRS Report R45908, Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier
Construction, by Jennifer K. Elsea and Edward C. Liu.
105 T heresa Hitchens, “AF Seeks Freedom t o Shift $$ Between Space Programs,” Breaking Defense, April 16, 2020,
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/af-seeks-freedom-to-shift-between-space-programs/.
106 Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192-193 (1993) (“‘Expressions of committees dealing with requests for
appropriations cannot be equated with statutes enacted by Congress’” (quoting T ennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437
U.S. 153, 191 (1978)). For more information, see CRS Report R46417, Congress’s Power Over Appropriations:
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions, by Sean M. Stiff.
107 Matter of the LT V Aero. Corp., 55 Comp. Gen. 307 (Comp. Gen. 1975) (“it is our view that when Congress merely
appropriates lump-sum amounts without statutorily restricting what can be done with those funds, a clear inference
arises that it does not intend to impose legally binding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports and ot her
legislative history as to how the funds should or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirement s on
Federal agencies”).
Congressional Research Service
34

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

transactions involving the use of funds for another purpose. In addition, some observers may view
prior approval requirements as practically binding because the annual appropriations process
provides a means for Congress to impose sanctions on violations of comity and trust.
Some Members have raised concerns that the use of DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities
to construct barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border may set a precedent for future presidents.
Senator Jack Reed, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said: “If
Congress al ows President Trump to continue down this path, it wil set a precedent that
emboldens future presidents to disregard Congress and redirect military spending to questionable
causes.”108 Representative Mac Thornberry, ranking member of the House Armed Services
Committee pointed to institutional consequences.109 At least one committee staff member once
described the reprogramming process as requiring “a degree of trust” between Congress and
DOD.110 The Section 809 Panel stated one of its reprogramming recommendations “would
require a certain degree of trust” on the part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military
services and defense agencies, and the congressional committees.111
Questions may include: How may Congress impose sanctions on violations of comity and trust?
How may efforts to do so be constrained? How may Congress and DOD seek to build comity and
trust?
Balancing congressional control and DOD fiscal flexibility
In the past, some Members have expressed concerns that DOD has relied more on transferring
and reprogramming funds and less on undertaking a deliberative budget formulation and fiscal
management process.112 The conference report accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2008, states, “The conferees have long held that better management and
budget preparation is the solution to DoD’s needs, not greater fiscal flexibility which would result
in less accountability to America’s taxpayers.”113
As a way to balance congressional control and DOD fiscal flexibility, Congress has general y
limited DOD general and special transfer authority to a specific dollar amount rather than a
percentage of the total budget authority.
Questions may include: Would a shift to percentage limits for transfer authority provide more or
less flexibility to DOD? Would a shift to percentage limits for transfer authority change
incentives for DOD or the President, or affect the ability of Congress to exercise its power of the
purse?

108 Senator Jack Reed, “ Reed Blasts T rump’s Effort to Divert Another $7.2 Billion from U.S. Military for a Wasteful
Border Wall,” press release, January 15, 2020, https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/reed-blasts-trumps-effort -to-
divert -another-72-billion-from-us-military-for-a-wasteful-border-wall.
109 Connor O’Brien, “On NDAA, progressive House lawmakers ready for battle,” Politico, March 6, 2020,
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2020/03/on-ndaa-progressive-house-lawmakers-ready-for-battle-1884570.
110 Government Accountability Office, BUDGET REPROGRAMMING: Department of Defense Process for
Reprogram m ing Funds, July 1986, p. 23, https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/75702.pdf.
111 Department of Defense, Defense T echnical Information Center, Section 809 Panel, “Report of the Advisory Panel
on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Volume 3 of 3,” January 2019, p. 185,
https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-Report_Jan2019_part-
1_0509.pdf#page=385.
112 H.Rept. 110-279, p. 9.
113 H.Rept. 108-283, p. 60.
Congressional Research Service
35

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Similarly, while some observers argue lower reprogramming thresholds al ow for greater
oversight, others say they potential y create delays and less flexibility for smal er programs.
Questions may include: Should Congress increase dollar amount reprogramming thresholds to
match their previous levels relative to inflation and the DOD budget, including to $20 mil ion for
RDT&E and to $40 mil ion for procurement, as recommended by the Section 809 panel?114
Should Congress increase to 50% from 20% the percentage limitation in reprogramming
thresholds for RDT&E and procurement, as recommended by the panel?
DOD opportunity costs in transferring and reprogramming funds
Dollar amount limits on DOD general and special transfer authority create a finite amount of
funding that DOD can transfer or reprogram in a given fiscal year. As a result, funding used for
certain reprogramming actions is funding that cannot be used on others.
Questions may include: What are the opportunity costs for transferring and reprogramming
funds—that is, what reprogramming actions were deferred or canceled to redirect FY2019 and
FY2020 funds for barrier construction along the U.S.-Mexico border? Did any of these transfers
result in disruptions to procurement or RDT&E programs? If so, how were programs and/or
contractors impacted? On the other hand, to what degree did these transfers enhance U.S. national
security? How does DOD determine which reprogramming actions should take priority over
others?
Level of effort needed for Congress to monitor DOD
reprogramming actions may be high
Some observers say the level of effort in Congress necessary to monitor DOD reprogramming
actions is high because of the manner in which the department provides the information to
Congress. Others argue that DOD has improved the quality and timeliness of reporting certain
types of reprogramming actions. The DOD Comptroller publishes DD 1415 reprogramming
action forms in portable document format (PDF). This format may make it difficult to search and
analyze reprogramming actions on a line-item level. As GAO has previously noted,
improvements in the forms used to process reprogramming actions may reduce the level of effort
needed for congressional review and oversight.115 To improve oversight, therefore, Congress may
wish to encourage or require DOD to publish reprogramming actions in a standardized, machine-
readable format—such as a comma-separated file, spreadsheet, or database—to reduce the level
of effort necessary for Congress and nonfederal stakeholders to monitor and analyze the
information.
DOD response to contingencies and emergencies, such as COVID-
19
DOD typical y responds to contingencies and emergencies, such as COVID-19, in part by
transferring and reprogramming funds to support higher priorities. As previously discussed, DOD

114 Department of Defense, Defense T echnical Information Center, Section 809 Panel, “ List of Section 809 Panel
Recommendations,” https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Promo-
Outreach/ImplementationTracker.pdf.
115 Government Accountability Office, BUDGET REPROGRAMMING, Opportunities to Review DOD’s
Reprogram m ing Process, July 1989, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-89-138.
Congressional Research Service
36

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

identified 30% in department funding from the CARES Act for real ocation.116 El en Lord, under
secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, has said the department may transfer O&M
funding for COVID-19 response: “There is the potential ... to use some of our O&M money for
that. However, we do have pretty significant needs in terms of readiness and modernization in
order to perform our primary mission, which is national security.”117 In response to the slowdown
in military training and recruiting during the pandemic, some analysts have said the department
may seek to transfer before the end of the fiscal year unobligated FY2020 operation and
maintenance and military personnel appropriations to other accounts for contracting purposes.118
Outlook
Debates in Congress over defense authorization and appropriations legislation may provide
opportunities for Members to influence DOD policy on transfer and reprogramming authorities.
Congress may consider how much transfer and reprogramming authority to provide DOD in
FY2021 and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump Administration’s requested FY2021
limits for general and special transfer authority. Congressional efforts to increase or decrease
DOD general and special transfer authority in FY2021 may be constrained by an agreement to
maintain existing transfer authorities for FY2020 and FY2021 as part of the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-37).119 The version of the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act
reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee would keep DOD general and special transfer
authority limits unchanged and totaling $6 bil ion ($4 bil ion for general transfer authority and $2
bil ion for special transfer authority), according to an executive summary of the legislation.120
U.S. policymakers may consider how changing DOD general and transfer authority limits could
affect, on one hand, its ability to control DOD action through appropriations and, on the other
hand, DOD’s ability to respond to unanticipated budgetary or national security conditions. U.S.
policymakers may also consider how changing DOD reprogramming thresholds—either by
increasing or decreasing dollar amount or percentage thresholds—could affect, on one hand, its
ability to direct and oversee DOD action through report language and, on the other hand, DOD’s
ability to respond to unanticipated budgetary or national security conditions. In FY2020,
Congress agreed to set the dollar amount reprogramming threshold at $10 mil ion, which
represented a decrease for certain appropriation titles.121 The Section 809 Panel has recommended

116 Aaron Gregg and Erica Werner, “ Pentagon’s coronavirus plan includes millions for missile tubes and body armor,”
The Washington Post, June 4, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/pentagons-coronavirus-
plan-includes-millions-missile-tubes-body-armor/ (see link to “ Read the Pentagon's Cares Act spending plan in full” at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/defense-department-cares-act-spending-plan-may-29-2020/c3fcd775-711d-
440c-b198-f9caa8ce0687/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_14).
117 Department of Defense, “Undersecretary Of Defense (A&S) Ellen Lord Holds a Press Briefing on COVID-19
Response Efforts,” transcript, April 30, 2020,
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/T ranscripts/T ranscript/Article/2172171/undersecretary-of-defense-as-ellen-lord-
holds-a-press-briefing-on-covid-19-resp/.
118 T ony Bertuca, “DOD sets internal deadline for budget reprogramming proposals,” Inside Defense, April 28, 2020,
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/dod-sets-internal-deadline-budget-reprogramming-proposals.
119 Rep. Joe Courtney, “Bipartisan Budget Agreement for Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021,” link from press release, July
25, 2019, https://courtney.house.gov/sites/courtney.house.gov/files/Bipartisan%20Budget%20Act%202019.pdf.
120 Senate Armed Services Commit tee, “SASC Complete Markup of Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization
Act,” press release, June 11, 2020, https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/sasc-complete-markup-of-
fiscal-year-2021-national-defense-authorization-act (see link at the bottom of the release to the Executive Summary at
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY%2021%20NDAA%20Summary.pdf ).
121 Explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-
Congressional Research Service
37

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

increasing dollar amount reprogramming thresholds to account for inflation and to match
previous levels of reprogramming thresholds relative to the DOD budget, including to $20 mil ion
for RDT&E and to $40 mil ion for procurement.122

93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165 (December 17, 2019), p. H10613,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk2.pdf.
122 Department of Defense, Defense T echnical Informat ion Center, Section 809 Panel, “Report of the Advisory Panel
on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, Vo lume 3 of 3,” January 2019, p. 192,
https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Volume3/Sec809Panel_Vol3-Report_Jan2019_part-
1_0509.pdf#page=392.
Congressional Research Service
38

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix A. Selected Law
10 U.S.C. §2214, “Transfer of Funds: Procedure and Limitations”
(a) PROCEDURE FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS.-Whenever authority is provided in an
appropriation Act to transfer amounts in working capital funds or to transfer amounts provided in
appropriation Acts for military functions of the Department of Defense (other than military
construction) between such funds or appropriations (or any subdivision thereof), amounts
transferred under such authority shal be merged with and be available for the same purposes and
for the same time period as the fund or appropriations to which transferred.
(b) LIMITATIONS ON PROGRAMS FOR WHICH AUTHORITY MAY BE USED.-Such
authority to transfer amounts-
(1) may not be used except to provide funds for a higher priority item, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than the items for which the funds were original y
appropriated; and
(2) may not be used if the item to which the funds would be transferred is an item for
which Congress has denied funds.
(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.-The Secretary of Defense shal promptly notify the Congress
of each transfer made under such authority to transfer amounts.
(d) Limitations on Requests to Congress for Reprogrammings.-Neither the Secretary of
Defense nor the Secretary of a military department may prepare or present to the Congress, or to
any committee of either House of the Congress, a request with respect to a reprogramming of
funds-
(1) unless the funds to be transferred are to be used for a higher priority item, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than the item for which the funds were original y
appropriated; or
(2) if the request would be for authority to reprogram amounts to an item for which the
Congress has denied funds.
Section 8005 of P.L. 116-93
SEC. 8005—Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the
national interest, he may, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not
to exceed $4,000,000,000 of working capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for military functions (except military
construction) between such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to be merged with
and to be available for the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation or
fund to which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer may not be used unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which original y
appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the
Congress: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shal notify the Congress promptly of
al transfers made pursuant to this authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided further,
That no part of the funds in this Act shal be available to prepare or present a request to the
Committees on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for higher priority items,
based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which original y appropriated and in no
case where the item for which reprogramming is requested has been denied by the Congress:
Congressional Research Service
39

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Provided further, That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority provided
in this section shal be made prior to June 30, 2020: Provided further, That transfers among
military personnel appropriations shal not be taken into account for purposes of the limitation on
the amount of funds that may be transferred under this section.
Section 9002 of P.L. 116-93
SEC. 9002. Upon the determination of the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in
the national interest, the Secretary may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer up to $2,000,000,000 between the appropriations or funds made available to the
Department of Defense in this title: Provided, That the Secretary shal notify the Congress
promptly of each transfer made pursuant to the authority in this section: Provided further, That
the authority provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the
Department of Defense and is subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority provided
in section 8005 of this Act.
Congressional Research Service
40

link to page 47 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix B. Supporting Data Tables
Table B-1. DOD Transfer Authority Limits for Base and Non-Base Funding in
Selected Provisions of Defense and Supplemental Appropriations Acts, FY2001-
FY2020
(dol ars amounts in bil ions)
Fiscal Year
Amount
Limit Type
Section
Public Law
Bill Type
2010
$4.5a
Base Limit
302
P.L. 111-212
Supplemental

$4.0
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 111-118
Regular
2011
$4.0
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 112-10
Regular

$4.0
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 112-10
Regular
2012
$3.75
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 112-74
Regular

$4.0
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 112-74
Regular
2013
$4.0
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 113-6
Regular

$3.5
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 113-6
Regular
2014
$5.0
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 113-76
Regular

$4.0
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 113-76
Regular
2015
$4.5
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 113-235
Regular

$3.5
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 113-235
Regular
2016
$4.5
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 114-113
Regular

$4.5
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 114-113
Regular
2017
$4.5
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 115-31
Regular

$2.5
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 115-31
Regular
2018
$4.25
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 115-141
Regular

$2.25
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 115-141
Regular
2019
$4.0
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 115-245
Regular

$2.0
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 115-245
Regular
2020
$4.0
Base Limit
8005
P.L. 116-93
Regular

$2.0
Non-Base Limit
9002
P.L. 116-93
Regular
Source: Regular Department of Defense Appropriations Acts and supplemental appropriations for FY2001 -
FY2020.
Notes: Figures exclude additional transfer authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer
accounts, working capital funds, and emergency requirements.
a. Original transfer authority limit revised in subsequent legislation.
Congressional Research Service
41

link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Table B-2. Requested, Authorized, and Appropriated DOD General and Special
Transfer Authority Limits, and Related Legislative Provisions, FY2013-FY2019
(amounts in bil ions of dol ars)
Fiscal Authority
Req.
Related
Auth.
Related
Approp.
Related
Year
Type
Amount
Provision
Amount
Provision
Amount
Provision
2013
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.0
Sec. 1001,
$4.0
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
Authority
112-705
239

Special
$4.0
Table,
$3.0
Sec. 1522,
$3.5
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 112-
P.L. 113-6
Authority
112-705
239

Subtotal
$9.0

$7.0

$7.5

2014
General
$4.0
Table,
$5.0
Sec. 1001,
$5.0
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
Committee
P.L. 113-66
P.L. 113-76
Authority
Print (86-
280)a

Special
$4.0
Table,
$4.0
Sec. 1522,
$4.0
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
Committee
P.L. 113-66
P.L. 113-76
Authority
Print (86-
280)a

Subtotal
$8.0

$9.0

$9.0

2015
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.5
Sec. 1001,
$4.5
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
Committee
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Authority
Print (92-
291
235
738)a

Special
$4.0
Table,
$3.5
Sec. 1522,
$3.5
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
Committee
P.L. 113-
P.L. 113-
Authority
Print (92-
291
235
738)a

Subtotal
$9.0

$8.0

$8.0

2016
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.5
Sec. 1001,
$4.5
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
Committee
P.L. 114-92
P.L. 114-
Authority
Print (97-
113
637)a

Special
$3.5
Table,
$3.5
Sec. 1522,
$4.5
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
Committee
P.L. 114-92
P.L. 114-
Authority
Print (97-
113
637)a

Subtotal
$8.5

$8.0

$9.0

2017
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.5
Sec. 1001,
$4.5
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 114-
P.L. 115-31
Authority
114-840
328

Special
$4.5
Table,
$3.5
Sec. 1512,
$2.5
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 114-
P.L. 115-31
Authority
114-840
328

Subtotal
$9.5

$8.0

$7.0

2018
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.5
Sec. 1001,
$4.25
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 115-91
P.L. 115-
Authority
115-404
141
Congressional Research Service
42

link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Fiscal Authority
Req.
Related
Auth.
Related
Approp.
Related
Year
Type
Amount
Provision
Amount
Provision
Amount
Provision

Special
$4.5
Table,
$2.5
Sec. 1512,
$2.25
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 115-91
P.L. 115-
Authority
115-404
141

Subtotal
$9.5

$7.0

$6.5

2019
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.5
Sec. 1001,
$4.0
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 115-
P.L. 115-
Authority
115-874
232
245

Special
$4.5
Table,
$3.5
Sec. 1512,
$2.0
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
H.Rept.
P.L. 115-
P.L. 115-
Authority
115-874
232
245

Subtotal
$9.5

$8.0

$6.0

2020
General
$5.0
Table,
$4.0
Sec. 1001,
$4.0
Sec. 8005,
Transfer
S.Rept.
P.L. 116-92
P.L. 116-93
Authority
116-48

Special
$4.5
Table,
$2.0
Sec.
$2.0
Sec. 9002,
Transfer
S.Rept.
1520A, P.L.
P.L. 116-93
Authority
116-48
116-92

Subtotal
$9.5

$6.0

$6.0

Source: CRS analysis of recurring general provision (Section 8005) of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act and the “General Transfer Authority” section of the annual National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), and recurring provision (Section 9002) of the defense appropriations act and the “Special Transfer
Authority” section of the NDAA, for the fiscal years FY2013-FY2020, as wel as accompanying conference
reports or explanatory statements.
Notes: Req. is requested; Auth. is authorized; Approp. is appropriated. Figures exclude additional transfer
authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer accounts, working capital funds, and
emergency requirements.
a. Number refers to jacket identification (jacket ID) as listed on the Government Printing Office (GPO)
GovInfo.gov website.
Table B-3. Requested and Appropriated General and Special Transfer Authority
Limits (Combined) and as a Percentage of Budget Authority in DOD Appropriations
Acts, FY2013-FY2020
(dol ar amounts in bil ions)

Requested

Appropriated

Fiscal Transfer
DOD
Transfer
Transfer
DOD
Transfer
Year
Authority
Appropriations
Authority %
Authority Appropriations
Authority %
2013
$9.0
$596.8a
1.5%
$7.5
$597.1a
1.3%
2014
$8.0
$589.4b
1.4%
$9.0
$565.1b
1.6%
2015
$9.0
$547.9c
1.6%
$8.0
$547.8c
1.5%
2016
$8.5
$571.7d
1.5%
$9.0
$566.6d
1.6%
2017
$9.5
$569.9e
1.7%
$7.0
$571.5e
1.2%
2018
$9.5
$623.3f
1.5%
$6.5
$647.4f
1.0%
2019
$9.5
$668.4g
1.4%
$6.0
$667.3g
0.9%
Congressional Research Service
43

link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 48 DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Requested

Appropriated

Fiscal Transfer
DOD
Transfer
Transfer
DOD
Transfer
Year
Authority
Appropriations
Authority %
Authority Appropriations
Authority %
2020
$9.5
$690.6h
1.4%
$6.0
$687.8h
0.9%
Source: CRS analysis of recurring general provision (Section 8005) of the annual Department of Defense
Appropriations Act and the “General Transfer Authority” section of the annual National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), and recurring provision (Section 9002) of the defense appropriations act and the “Special Transfer
Authority” section of the NDAA, for the fiscal years FY2013-FY2020, as wel as accompanying conference
reports or explanatory statements. For links to primary sources for requested and enacted transfer authority
amounts, see Table B-2. For links to conference reports or explanatory statements detailing enacted amounts
in the annual defense appropriations act, see table notes below.
Notes: DOD Appropriations is Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Figures exclude additional transfer
authority amounts in certain other provisions, including for transfer accounts, working capital funds, and
emergency requirements.
a. Figure from funding table in Senate explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2013 (Division C of P.L. 113-6) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 159
(March 11, 2013), p. S1546.
b. Figure from funding table in joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division C of P.L. 113-76) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160
(January 15, 2014), p. H832.
c. Figure from funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2015 (Division C of P.L. 113-235) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160
(December 11, 2014), p. H9647.
d. Figure from funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Division C of P.L. 114-113) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 161
(December 17, 2015), p. H10055.
e. Figure from funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Division C of P.L. 115-31) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 163 (May
3, 2017), p. H3702.
f.
Figure from funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division C of P.L. 115-141) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 164
(March 22, 2018), p. H2434.
g. Figure from funding table in joint explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2019 (Division A of P.L. 115-245) released by the Senate Appropriations Committee on
September 13, 2018, p. 147.
h. Figure from funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165
(December 17, 2019), p. H. 10960.
Table B-4. DOD Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Budget Subactivity Groups
(SAGs) Subject to Reprogramming Threshold, FY2020
Appropriation Account
Subactivity Group (SAG)
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Maneuver units

Modular support brigades

Land forces operations support

Aviation assets

Force readiness operations support

Land forces depot maintenance

Base operations support
Congressional Research Service
44

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Appropriation Account
Subactivity Group (SAG)

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization

Specialized skil training

Recruiting and advertising
Operation and Maintenance, Army National
Other personnel support/recruiting and advertising
Guard
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Mission and other flight operations

Fleet air training

Aircraft depot maintenance

Mission and other ship operations

Ship depot maintenance

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Operational forces

Field logistics

Depot maintenance

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Primary combat forces

Combat enhancement forces

Depot purchase equipment maintenance

Facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization

Contractor logistics support and system support

Flying hour program
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Primary combat forces
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Aircraft operations
Source: Figures from funding table in explanatory statement accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Division A of P.L. 116-93) in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165
(December 17, 2019), p. H10652.
Notes: These reprogramming thresholds are subject to change in conference reports or explanatory statements
accompanying future appropriations acts.

Author Information

Brendan W. McGarry

Analyst in U.S. Defense Budget

Congressional Research Service
45

DOD Transfer and Reprogramming Authorities: Background and Issues for Congress

Acknowledgments
This report references research previously compiled by Louis Fisher, former CRS Senior Specialist in
Separation of Powers; Edward C. Liu and Sean M. Stiff, Legislative Attorneys; Christopher T. Mann,
Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade; and Heidi M. Peters, Analyst in U.S. Defense Acquisition Policy.
David A. Blum, Research Librarian, helped compile historical research. Jamie Hutchinson and Amber
Hope Wilhelm, Visual Information Specialists, helped compile the graphics.

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 n ot 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
R46421 · VERSION 1 · NEW
46

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jun. 17, 2020

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

National Defense

Constitutional Questions

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON