Introduction Funding for new border barrier construction became the focal point of a partial government shutdown that began on December 22, 2018, and lasted 34 days, the longest on record. Congress ultimately did not accept President Donald Trump's demand for $5.7 billion in new funding for the construction of a proposed border wall, providing instead $1.375 billion for additional pedestrian fencing as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 (CAA). Unsatisfied with the negotiated agreement, the Trump Administration issued a Presidential Proclamation on February 15, 2019, declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States, a move that, among other things, allowed the President to invoke special authorities for redirecting military construction appropriations. Concurrently, the White House released a plan for reprogramming or transferring $6.7 billion to southwest border barrier projects, of which $6.1 billion would come from unobligated Department of Defense (DOD or Department) appropriations. Congress, noting the President's attempt to secure more funding than provided in the CAA, and concerned over a potential violation of its constitutional prerogatives to manage appropriations, acted quickly in an attempt to terminate the national emergency declaration. A joint resolution, H.J.Res. 46 , Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019 , was passed by both houses on March 14, 2019, but was subsequently vetoed by the President one day later. On March 26, 2019, an attempt to override the veto fell short of the required two-thirds majority in the House by a vote of 248-181. In September 2019, Congress again attempted to terminate the state of national emergency with a joint resolution ( S.J.Res. 54 ) passed by both chambers. The legislation has yet to be considered by the President. The national emergency remains in effect. This report outlines the Administration's FY2020 border barrier funding plans using defense funds, describes the various authorities involved, details the process for each budgetary action, indicates the status of appropriated funds, identifies recent congressional actions, and identifies potential issues for Congress. The report does not include a comprehensive overview of DHS funding for border barriers, or describe that agency's FY2020 request for related projects. It also does not address the deployment and concomitant expense of mobilizing active and reserve military personnel for service on the border. The Trump Administration's FY2020 Funding Plan On February 15, 2019, President Trump issued a proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border that required use of the Armed Forces. Concurrent with the announcement, the White House released a Fact Sheet entitled, President Donald J. Trump's Border Security Victory (hereafter referred to as the border security factsheet ) that described steps the Administration intended to take in order to provide $6.7 billion in appropriations outside of the regular legislative process for new border barrier projects. Drawing on both emergency and nonemergency authorities, the Administration outlined a number of steps it stated would be "used sequentially and as needed." In March 2019, the Administration delivered its annual budget to Congress. The FY2020 proposal included an additional $7.2 billion in Army Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) military construction funding, half of which ($3.6 billion) would replenish accounts affected by the Administration's b order security factsheet plan. The remainder, $3.6 billion, would fund future border barrier projects. According to Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Elaine McCusker: We have $3.6 billion -- up to $3.6 billion to backfill any MILCON projects that we end up having to fund in '20 instead of '19. And then we also have $3.6 billion for potential new construction for the border, and the reason we've done this is to reflect the fact that we have a presidential priority that has a macro funding level and we want to help get to that funding level. Overall, funding actions the Administration described between February and March 2019 included a complex mixture of realigned DOD program savings and unobligated military construction funds from past years ($6.1 billion), as well as a request for new defense appropriations in FY2020 ($7.2 billion). In its b order security factsheet plan, the Administration cited an additional $2 billion in non-DOD appropriations; $1.375 billion in previously enacted FY2019 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations (included in the CAA), and $601 million in contributions from a Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) that manages seized assets. Altogether, these defense and non-defense funds would total $15.3 billion, of which 87% would be DOD funds. The Table 1 indicates all such actions. Status of Funds Of the $601 million in FY2019 Treasury Forfeiture Funds described in the Administration's plan, at least $242 million has been transferred for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Treasury Department has stated that it will transfer the remaining $359 million when additional funds become available. Of the $2.5 billion the Administration has designated for transfer through the defense Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account (hereafter referred to as the defense Drug Interdiction account), $1.9 billion has been obligated. A substantial portion of the total amount, previously frozen by court injunctions, became available on July 26, 2019 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down lower court injunctions. Since then, DOD border barrier construction has been allowed to proceed, though the courts have made no final ruling. After an extended review process, on September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense invoked the emergency construction statute 10 U.S.C. 2808 and directed the Department to transfer appropriations from 127 previously authorized military construction projects to eleven barrier projects identified by DHS. The figure below illustrates the status of the Administration's border security factsheet plan as of September 2019. Of the $6.7 billion in newly introduced funds, approximately $2.1 billion has been obligated (or otherwise made available for obligation). For completeness, the figure also includes $1.375 billion in FY2019 DHS appropriations that were included in the President's Border security factsheet announcement, though these funds were previously enacted and do not represent a plan for future actions. Overview of DOD funds Available for Securing the Border Although the Secretary of the DHS is charged with preventing the entry of terrorists, securing the borders, and carrying out immigration enforcement functions, funding to carry out those missions may be supplemented in part by resources from other agencies. Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is chiefly responsible for securing the borders of the United States, preventing terrorists and their weapons from entering the country, and enforcing hundreds of U.S. trade and immigration laws. Because border security lies primarily within the jurisdiction of DHS, Congress has not generally provided DOD with significant funds to address that mission. Congress has instead authorized the military to support DHS (or local authorities) in certain situations, such as to assist with drug interdiction or with terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. According to DOD officials: Active-duty and National Guard personnel have supported Federal and State counterdrug activities (e.g., detection and monitoring of cross-border trafficking, aerial reconnaissance, transportation and communications support, and construction of fences and roads) beginning in the early 1990s. Most recently, U.S. Northern Command's Joint Task Force-North executed 53 counterdrug support missions in fiscal year (FY) 2017 and 23 missions in FY2018. When the Secretary of Defense approved the four border States' plans for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, DoD committed $21 million in funds in FY2017 and $53 million in FY2018. Congress has also permitted DOD special flexibility for undertaking military construction projects during periods of national crisis, such as when the President declares a national emergency. (The National Emergencies Act, or NEA, establishes procedures for how a President may declare a national emergency but does not explicitly define that term. ) Historically, emergency military construction has been used to support troops engaged in contingency operations overseas at locations that include Iraq and Afghanistan. DOD Funding Available Without a Declaration of a National Emergency The Administration's plan would tap funds for border barriers using both statutory military construction authorities and non-statutory general transfer authorities. This section provides an overview of those available to the Administration (both invoked and not invoked). Later sections examine the Administration's use of specific authorities in depth. Statutes Permitting Military Construction Statutes that would authorize DOD to undertake military construction activities along the border but that would not require a Presidential declaration of a national emergency include the items below. The Administration has invoked: 10 U . S . C . 284 Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime . Upon request by qualifying entities, this statute authorizes DOD to reprogram funds to construct roads, fences, and lighting along international drug smuggling corridors in order to support law domestic (and foreign) law enforcement. The Department's activities are funded from a central transfer account called the Drug Interdiction and Counter-D rug Activities , which also receives direct annual appropriations. The Administration has not invoked: 10 U . S . C . 2803 Emergency construction . This statute authorizes the Secretary of Defense, under conditions the Secretary determines to be vital to the national security or the protection of health, safety, or environmental quality, to obligate $50 million for military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law. This authority was not included in the Administration's Border security factsheet plan for wall funding. General and Special Transfer Authorities (Section 8005 and Section 9002) The Administration's use of the statute 10 U.S.C. 284 is predicated on accessing DOD funds made available by General Transfer Authority (GTA) transfers. GTA (sometimes colloquially referred to as Section 8005 , though the provision number may change ) , refers to the recurring provision in annual defense appropriations acts that set the maximum amount permitted for DOD's base reprogramming actions (usually around $4 billion). Section 9002 is the equivalent designation for war-related, Title IX Overseas Contingency Operations , funds (usually around $2 billion). Congress typically requires that reprogramming be undertaken within a specified timeframe (less than year) and meet the following additional criteria: That such authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress. Congress has generally considered reprogramming authority provided to Executive branch departments and agencies to be a privilege. Though the constitution invests Congress with the "powers of the purse," legislators typically provide executive branch agencies some limited flexibility to shift funds among various accounts in recognition of a complex budget execution process wherein estimated costs often vary based on unforeseen events. Such flexibility allows agencies to accommodate changing circumstances, while continuing to carry out the essential functions for the programs and activities for which funds have been provided. Congress can grant reprogramming and transfer authorities in a variety of forms. They may be statutory or non-statutory. Congress may establish a central transfer account for a special purpose, or alternately, apply a broader criteria that describe which funds may be exchanged, and in what specific circumstances. Historically, Congress has consistently provided some limit to the total amount of funds that may be used. DOD Funding Available With a Declaration of a National Emergency With the declaration of a national emergency, the President may invoke statutory authorities that allow DOD to fund military construction projects that support the national response. These authorities generally last only as long as the emergency is in effect (expiring immediately or within 180 days of termination). They include DOD military and civil works funds. In his February 2019 proclamation, the President invoked: 10 U.S.C. 2808 Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency . This broad authority permits the Secretary of Defense to undertake military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law that may be necessary to support the use of the Armed Forces after the declaration of a national emergency . New projects are funded from the unobligated balances of existing ones, with no other upper limit on the overall total. In his February 2019 proclamation, the President did not invoke: 33 U.S.C . 2293 Reprogramming during national emergencies . This statute permits the Secretary of the Army in the event of a declaration of war or a declaration of a national emergency that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces to terminate or defer Army civil works projects that the Secretary deems are nonessential to national defense, and apply the resources of the Department's civil works program to, "authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense." Figure 2 summarizes the main points of each of the statutes listed above as they pertain to the use of military construction. Use of Authorities to Fund Border Barrier Construction The following two subsections contain a detailed examination of DOD's proposed use of statutory and non-statutory authorities espoused in the Trump Administration border security factsheet . These include: 10 U.S.C. 2808, which would make $3.6 billion available, and; 10 U.S.C. 284, which would transfer $2.5 billion of defense program savings in concert with the non-statutory authority Section 8005 (General Transfer Authority). The final subsection addresses the use of Treasury Forfeiture Funds, which would provide $601 million for the Administration's border funding plan. 10 U.S.C. 2808: Military Projects Deferred by Emergency Statute Overview When the President declares a national emergency requiring the use of the Armed Forces and invokes the emergency statute 10 U.S.C. 2808, the Secretary of Defense is permitted to undertake military construction projects "not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." Such projects are funded using the unobligated appropriations of construction projects currently underwayâ effectively deferring them until Congress provides replenishing appropriations. On February 15, 2019, President Trump issued Proclamation 9844, Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States , to address what he described as a long-standing and worsening problem of large-scale, unlawful migration through the southern border. The Proclamation asserted that the severity of the crisis justified use of the Armed Forces, and invoked 10 U.S.C. 2808, thus unlocking emergency construction authority. On September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense determined that 11 construction projects requested by DHS were necessary to support the use of the Armed Forces along the southern border, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808. In a memorandum to the Department, the Secretary directed the DOD Comptroller to transfer $3.6 billion in unobligated military construction appropriations for the new construction, and urged the Secretary of Army to begin work expeditiously. The transfers indefinitely deferred 127 previously authorized military construction projects, roughly half of which were at overseas locations ($1.8 billion for 64 non-U.S. projects). Of the deferred military construction projects outside the United States, approximately 42% ($772 million; 21 projects) would have supported the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), a program intended to increase the capability of U.S. forces in Europe against non-NATO regional adversaries. In public remarks to the media on September 5, 2019, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper suggested allies reimburse the United States for the funding shortfalls. Of deferred military construction projects within the United States (and associated territories), the largest share of funds would come from Puerto Rico ($403 million, or 23% of total) and, to a lesser extent, Guam ($257 million, or 15% of the total). The Table 2 summarizes the total amount of deferred funds, grouped by U.S. State or affiliated territory. DOD has stated that it would make funds available to the Department of the Army for border barrier projects by prioritizing the deferral of $1.8 billion in non-U.S. projects . Funds associated with projects in the United States ($1.8 billion) would be made available at some later date. DOD's action has attracted warnings from Members of Congress concerned over military construction projects that may be affected in their states and districts. Critics have also expressed concerns that the President's use of emergency powers could circumvent (or be perceived as circumventing) the congressional appropriations process. DOD Imposed Non-Statutory Selection Criteria to Identify Project Funds as Sources for Potential Reprogramming DOD developed internal criteria not required by 10 U.S.C. 2808 that narrowed the pool of military construction projects eligible for deferment under the Administration's use of that statute. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies in February 2019, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment Robert McMahon explained the Department's reasoning for the additional guidelines: In order to protect military readiness, the projects that are most likely to be temporarily delayed include those that pose no or minimal operational or readiness risks if deferred, projects that were already scheduled to be awarded in the last six months of the fiscal year, and recapitalization projects of existing facilities that can be temporarily deferred for a period of months. The Department's internal criteria narrowed the scope of the project funding pool by applying the following selection criteria: No military construction projects would be considered that have already received a contract award; No military construction projects with FY2019 award dates would be considered; and No military housing, barracks, or dormitory projects would be considered. In official statements, DOD has said that if its FY2020 budget request for military construction is approved by Congress, it will use the funds provided to replenish funding for projects deferred in favor of newly funded border barrier construction. If the Department's FY2020 budget is enacted on time as requested, no military construction project used to source section 2808 projects would be delayed or cancelled. Nevertheless, projects deferred by use of the statute effectively remain underfunded (or unfunded) unless Congress enacts additional amounts to replenish the original appropriations. DOD has requested $3.6 billion in additional Army military construction funds as part of its FY2020 budget submission for this purpose. Congressional opponents have argued against replenishment and asserted that DOD transfers would be tantamount to cancellingânot deferringâ affected projects. DOD's Emergency Decision-making May Have Deviated from Precedent The current DOD decisionmaking process for construction in the event of a declaration national emergency appears to differ from the one described in the Department's Financial Management Regulation (FMR) and associated internal directives. The current process appears to have been driven by DHS requests, not generated internally by Military Departments in conjunction with Combatant Commanders (COCOMs). DOD's Internal Process on Use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 Remains Unclear Though DOD has not fully disclosed internal deliberations related to its 10 U.S.C. 2808 funding decisions, an approximate chronology of events has emerged from court records, media reporting and official briefings. (See Appendix A for detailed chronology.) On February 18, 2019, then-Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan requested DHS provide a prioritized list of construction projects that, according to its assessment, would improve the operational effectiveness of troops deployed to the border. DHS responded on March 20, 2019 with a prioritized list that included $5 billion in projects along 220 miles of both public and private U.S.-Mexico borderland. On April 11, 2019, then-Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan directed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a detailed evaluation of the DHS proposal by May 10th, 2019 and assess how the DHS-requested projects might support the mobilization of the Armed Forces to the southern border. Concurrently, the Acting Secretary instructed the DOD Comptroller and others to identify $3.6 billion in unobligated balances from existing military construction projects that might serve as a source of funding for border barriers. On May 6, 2019, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted his final report, Assessment of Whether the Construction of Barriers at the Southern Border is Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Forces in Securing the Border , which concluded that all DHS-identified construction projects were necessary to support the use of the Armed Forces. The report's methodology was based, in part, on the assumption that any construction along the border would provide necessary support, wherever troops may (or may not) be deployed: In general, construction projects in one sector of the border have ripple effects across all other sectors. This recognition drives our conclusion that any border barrier construction supports the use of the armed forces on the border to some extent, regardless of where the construction occurs relative to the current location of DoD operations. On August 21, 2019, Kenneth Rapuano, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense & Global Security (ASD/HDGS), recommended the Secretary of Defense adopt an action plan that would execute 11 DHS identified projects and defer $3.6 billion in existing military construction. The Secretary of Defense approved all these recommendations on September 3, 2019. DOD Directives on Use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 Describe a Process that Originates with Combatant Commanders Historically, DOD has used 10 U.S.C. 2808 to fund projects at overseas locations for war related infrastructure. Requests for emergency construction projects originate with the Secretaries of the Military Departments and COCOMs, who together make a preliminary assessment on whether use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 authorities is warranted. For each emergency project, officials must provide detailed justification materials that analyze possible alternatives to use of the emergency authority, give a history of the request and rationale for why the project may not be deferred, and submit a cost estimate and timeline for completion. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is then required to certify any proposed projects are consistent with current theater basing plans and do not conflict with other operational priorities. Having made these determinations, the Secretaries then forward their list of proposed emergency projects and detailed justification materials to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, or ASD (Sustainment). That office, in turn, provides the Secretary of Defense with its recommendations. The Secretary makes a final decision on projects to be undertaken and notifies all appropriate defense committees of the pending action, as required by statute. Following this notification, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) is permitted to issue funds for execution. 10 U.S.C. 284: DOD Transferred Funds Over Congressional Objections in Contravention of DOD Directives Overview To execute the plan described by the Administration's border security factsheet, DOD reprogrammed $2.5 billion from a variety of nondrug defense programs, through the Department's Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, and on to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency that both DHS and DOD have asked to manage border barrier construction activities. This two-stage processâtransferring funds into and out of the defense Drug Interdiction accountâwas permitted by multiple authorities: first by Section 8005 General Transfer Authority and Section 9002 Special Transfer Authority, and in the final stage by the statute 10 U.S.C. 284. By transferring funds from nondrug programs into the defense Drug Interdiction account, DOD was able to tap a larger pool of appropriations than might otherwise have been available by using the account's own funds. At the same time, the Drug Interdiction account's ongoing programs were safeguarded from diminishing transfers. DOD officials have stated they would not tap the account's own appropriations for wall-related projects: DOD will not use any DoD counter-narcotics funding for the drug-demand-reduction program, the National Guard counter-drug program, or the National Guard counter-drug schools program to provided support to DHS under 10 U.S.C. 284(b)(7). To accomplish the first stage of the $2.5 billion transfer processâtransferring savings from nondrug programs to the defense Drug Interdiction accountâDOD did not comply with internal regulations that require the Department to first seek congressional prior approval for general transfer authority (Section 8005) actions. DOD's process for submitting prior-approval requests to congressional defense committees is a non-statutory requirement intended to preserve comity with legislators who set the Department's reprogramming thresholds each year. Disapproval by any one of the four committees terminates further action, according to DOD regulations, though the Department may request reconsideration or submit a modified request. On March 25, 2019, the Department notified the four congressional defense committees of its plan to transfer $1 billion, the first of several reprogramming actions. The House Armed Services and House Committee on Appropriations immediately denied the request. DOD nevertheless completed its transfer on March 26, 2019, for the first time overriding congressional disapprovals. The Department followed up with an additional reprogramming action of $1.5 billion, which it completed on May 9, 2019. How DOD Transferred $2.5 billion in Two Reprogramming Actions DOD's first reprogramming action occurred on March 25, 2019, and included $1 billion for construction of high priority projects in Yuma Sector Arizona (Projects 1 and 2) and El Paso Sector Texas (Project 1). All projects were to be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The transfer of funds took place in two stages. In the first stage, the Department used General Transfer Authority (also known as Section 8005 authority) to shift $1 billion in Army military personnel program savings into the defense Drug Interdiction account. The funds consisted of: $812 million (81%) in excess appropriations due to a shortfall of 9,500 personnel from the Army's targeted end strength, and $188 million (19%) in program savings from several military benefits programs. In the second stage of the transfer action, the Department invoked 10 U.S.C. 284 to authorize moving the $1 billion into an Army Operation and Maintenance appropriation for use by the Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for managing all DOD approved border barrier projects. On May 9, 2019, DOD notified congressional defense committees of a second reprogramming action of $1.5 billion for four additional border barrier projects (El Centro California Project 1 and Tucson Sector Arizona Projects 1-3; see Appendix Table B-2 for complete list). Unlike the first action, the Department transferred both base and OCO funds: Base: $818.5 million (55%) drawn from a variety of accounts, including research and development technologies to reduce the U.S. chemical stockpile ($252 million), recovered savings related to lower than expected contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan retirement ($224 million), and the cancellation of a National Security Space Launch mission ($210 million). Overseas Contingency Operations: $681.5 million (approximately 45%) drawn from funding for training of Afghan security forces and reimbursement to Pakistan for logistics support. Base and OCO reprogramming authorities are derived from separate provisions with nearly identical legislative language; for base Section 8005 of P.L. 115-245 and Section 1001 of P.L. 115-232 ; and for OCO Section 9002 of PL. 115-245 and Section 1512 of P.L. 115-232. DOD Has Undertaken Six Border Barrier Projects Requested by DHS Under 10 U.S.C. 284 On February 25, 2019, DHS requested that DOD undertake 11 construction projects on the U.S.-Mexico southwest border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The projects involved construction or replacement of roads, lighting, and vehicle and pedestrian fencing along drug smuggling corridors that were also areas of high illegal entry. DHS stated the purpose: To support DHS's action under Section 102 of IIRIRA, DHS is requesting that DoD, pursuant to its authority under 10 U.S.C. Â§ 284(b)(7), assist with the construction of fences roads, and lighting within the Project Areas to block drug-smuggling corridors across the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. DOD initially agreed to fund seven of the 11 projects in multiple funding tranches (described above). The Defense Department subsequently cancelled one of these projects (Yuma Sector Project 2), which was later funded using the emergency authority 10 U.S.C. 2808. All the projects were to be managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). DOD's first reprogramming funding tranche of $1 billion supported: Yuma Sector Arizona Projects 1 and 2, and El Paso Sector Texas Project 1. DOD's second funding tranche of $1.5 billion supported: El Centro California Project 1 and Tucson Sector Arizona Projects 1-3. Court Challenges Delayed Project Execution While Funds Expire September 30, 2019 As of September 2019, DOD has obligated $1.9 billion of the $2.5 billion it reprogrammed for wall related construction under 10 U.S.C. 284. Until recently, operations were suspended due to multiple court injunctions in a legal case challenging DOD's reprogramming actions, Sierra Club v. Trump . The delays incurred additional costs as contractors that had received contract awards were compelled to idle their equipment and put laborers on standby. On July 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted all injunctions in the case, allowing construction to once again proceed. Nevertheless, the litigation remains unresolved. In the case of an unfavorable ruling, the government has suggested that it may be required to take down the new construction. DOD is under some pressure to complete the obligation of reprogrammed appropriations before funds are no longer available. Due to legislative language regarding the period of availability of transferred appropriations, all unobligated amounts expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on September 30, 2019, thus incentivizing quick action. Additionally, due to the complex funding structure of contracts under consideration, USACE requires some actions be taken within 100 days of the award date, according to Army officials: â¦contracts require definitization not later than 100 days from the date of contract awardâ¦If the Corps does not have sufficient time available prior to September 30, 2019, to definitize these contracts and thereby obligate the balance of the contract price, the remaining unobligated funds will become unavailable for obligationâ¦As a consequence, the Corps will be unable to complete the projects as planned, and the contracts will have to be significantly de-scoped or terminated. Treasury Forfeiture Funds (TFF) Available Established in 1992 for the purpose of managing cash and other resources seized as the result of civil or criminal asset forfeiture, the Treasury Forfeiture Funds (TFF) functions as a multi-Departmental source of funding for law enforcement interests of the Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security. With executive authority to define what fits within this broadly defined purpose, the Administration determined that it could be a source of wall funding. The TFF is managed by the Treasury Executive Office of Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF), which makes budget authority available to other federal agencies or bureaus via interagency agreements, reimbursing them upon the receipt of spending invoices. Payments are limited by the total value of seized property. TEOAF's mission statement is: To affirmatively influence the consistent and strategic use of asset forfeiture by law enforcement bureaus that participate in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (the Fund) to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. On February 15, 2019, the Treasury Department notified congressional appropriators that it had approved a DHS request (submitted in December 2018) to provide a total of $601 million in TFF to the CBP for border security purposes. The first tranche of $242 million was made available to CBP for obligation on March 14, 2019. The second tranche of $359 million is expected to be made available at a later date, upon Treasury's receipt of additional anticipated forfeitures. All funds the TFF provides to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may be used for various aspects of border security ânot only the construction of a physical wall. Congressional Actions Congressional response to the Administration's b order security factsheet plan has generally split by chamber, with the House Armed Services and Appropriations committees moving swiftly to pass legislative language that would block the President's actions and the Senate Armed Services and Appropriations committees expressing some support. In late July 2019, news outlets reported congressional leadership had come to an informal understanding as part of a settlement of the annual budget caps for FY2020 and FY2021 that might exclude legislative language restricting the use of federal funds for border barriers from annual appropriations measures. The deal would specifically prohibit legislative provisions limiting the use of transfer authorityâa key part of the President's Border security factsheet planâunless such language was adopted on a bipartisan basis. The effect of such language is still unclear as is how it may otherwise be used to modify ongoing legislative activity. House Authorization The House-passed version of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act ( H.R. 2500 ) contains a number of provisions that if enacted would limit or prohibit the use of DOD funds for construction of border barriers. Furthermore, it provides no funding for the Administration's request for replenishment of defunded projects or for related future projects. The bill targets each stage of the Administration's funding plan: Transfer Authority . Section 1001 would sharply curtail the total amount of base funds that may be used for reprogrammed, reducing the limit to $1 billion (from $4.5 billion in FY2019). Section 151 2, the equivalent transfer authority used for war-related funds, would be reduced to $500 million (from $3.5 billion in FY2019). 10 U.S.C. 284 . Section 1011 would remove fence construction as a permitted type of support authorized under 10 U.S.C. 284 and would impose additional congressional notification requirements associated with use of the statutory authority. 10 U.S.C. 2808 . Section 2802 would limit the total amount of funds that could be used under 10 U.S.C. 2808 emergency authorities to $500 million if used for construction "outside the United States," or $100 million if used for domestic construction projects. (Currently, transfers are only limited to the total amount of all unobligated military construction appropriations.) These changes would apply only to projects pursuant to a declared emergency and would not impact projects that support a declared war. General Prohibition . Section 1046 would prohibit the use of national defense funds appropriated between FY2015-FY2020 for the construction of any type of physical border barrier along the southern border. Section 2801 contains identical language that applies to military construction funds. On May 15, 2019, a group of legislators led by House Armed Services Committee members introduced H.R. 2762 , a bill that would modify 10 U.S.C. 2808 by imposing a $250 million cap on the total amount that could be used for emergency military construction projects in the event of a national emergency. Additionally, "The bill would only allow money that cannot be spent for its intended purpose to be used for an emergency, would require additional information in a congressional notification, and delay the start of construction until after a waiting period following the notification going to Congress." Senate Authorizations The Senate passed version of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act ( S. 1790 ) would support the actions described in the President's Border security factsheet plan by providing $3.6 billion in military construction funds to replenish projects deferred by the Administration's use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 and avoiding large cuts to DOD reprogramming thresholds. However, the Senate bill would not authorize the additional $3.6 billion requested by the Administration for future border barrier projects. Transfer Authority . Section 1001 and Section 1522 provide $4 billion in general transfer authorityâ a decrease of $0.5 billion from FY2019 authorized amountsâ and $2.5 billion in special transfer authorityâ a decrease of $1 billion from FY2019 authorized amounts, respectively. 10 U.S.C. 2808 Replenishment funding. Section 2906 would provide $3.6 billion to replenish military construction projects affected by the use of 10 U.S.C. 2808 transfers, fulfilling the Administration's entire request for that purpose. Authorization for the transfer of these funds into the depleted accounts would terminate at the end of FY2020 (September 30, 2020). House Appropriations The House has generally sought to limit the Administration's funding actions across multiple appropriations bills. In the first of two FY2020 appropriations minibus measures, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2020 ( H.R. 2740 ), Division C (Department of Defense Appropriations, H.R. 2968 ) and Division E (Energy And Water Development And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020, H.R. 2960 ) contained the following provisions that would affect the Administration's plan for funding border barrier construction: Transfer Authority. Section 8005 would limit general transfer authority of base funds to $1 billion (a reduction from $4 billion in FY2019 ) and require the Secretary of Defense and others to certify the transferred funds will be used for higher priority items. The Section 9002 special transfer authority for war funds would provide authority to transfer up to $500 million (a reduction from $2 billion in FY2019). 10 U.S.C. 284 . Though the legislation would provide $816.8 million for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities transfer account (for use under 10 U.S.C. 284), the bill prohibits use of any of those funds for construction of border barrier fencing, and further prohibits any transfer of these funds. General Prohibition. Section 8127 would broadly prohibit defense appropriations from being used for construction of a wall, fence, border barrier, or border security infrastructure along the southern border. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 108 of Division E would broadly prohibit USACE from using any civil works funds for border barrier construction: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this Act or any other prior appropriations Acts for the Civil Works Program of the United States Corps of Engineers may be committed, obligated, expended, or otherwise used to design or construct a wall, fence, border barriers, or border security infrastructure along the southern border of the United States. The House passed the second of two FY2019 appropriations mini-buses, H.R. 3055 on June 25, 2019. It contains a number of limiting restrictions in Division D (Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020) that would interrupt the Administration's plans for funding border barriers. Reprogramming Guidelines. Section 122 would require DOD to follow its own guidelines when reprogramming military construction funds, a directive that would make significant transfers contingent on congressional prior-approval. In committee language, the House cautioned DOD that "reprogramming is a courtesy provided to DOD and can be taken away if the authority is abused" and urged the Department to adhere to its own directives when seeking to reprogram funds. General Prohibition on Transfers. In committee language, the House underscored the absence of wall funding in the current appropriations language and its efforts to preserve previously appropriated projects from becoming a pool of funds for the Administration's efforts to construct border barriers. The Committee recommendation does not provide these requested funds. Also, the accompanying bill includes language that protects previously appropriated projects, as well as fiscal year 2020 projects included in this bill from being used as a source for wall funding. Prohibition on Design and Construction. Section 612 would prohibit the use of military construction appropriations provided in any act from FY2015-FY2020 to be used for the purpose of designing or constructing border barriers or access roads along the southern border. The provision uses the strongest possible legislative language by stating it would apply, "notwithstanding any other provision of law." The House-passed Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2020 ( H.R. 3351 ) contains a provision (Section 126) that would bar the Administration's use of Treasury Forfeiture Funds for planning, designing, or executing any kind of barrier or road along the southwest border. If enacted, this language would likely prevent the use of $601 million funds approved by the Treasury Department for these purposes. Senate Appropriations On September 12, 2019, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported the Defense Appropriations Act, 2020 ( S. 2474 , S.Rept. 116-103 ), which would retain transfer authorities at FY2019 levels ($4 billion for General Transfer Authority, or Section 8005; $2 billion for OCO related transfers) and contained no additional wall-related provisions. Issues for Congress Separation of Powers At the highest level, the President's statements regarding the use of emergency powers to supplement the congressional appropriations process have raised questions for some about the reach of the executive branch's lawful authority. "I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this [national emergency]. But I would rather do it much faster." â President Trump, February 15, 2019 Critics also assert the President's actions risk violating the constitutional separation of powers. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." Supporters have argued the President has lawfully reallocated funds to address a national crisis. On June 3, 2019, in a lawsuit brought by the House of Representatives that argued the Administration's actions to fund a border wall represented a breach of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, a federal judge ruled the legislature had no standing to sue. In the 116 th Congress, House authorizers and appropriators have inserted provisions into annual legislation that would broadly prohibit the use of defense funds for construction of a wall, fence, border barrier, or other security infrastructure along the southern border. Some of these prohibitions would appear to apply retroactively to all appropriations since FY2015. Section 8005 (and Related) Reprogramming Guidelines DOD's recent decision to undertake general and special reprogramming transfers (in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. 284), "without regard to comity-based DOD policies that prescribe prior approval from congressional committees" has introduced uncertainty into a historically uncontroversial process. For some, DOD's disregard for long-standing reprogramming agreements with congressional defense committees has signaled a challenge to the legislative branch's ability to conduct oversight of approximately $6 billion in annual defense appropriations. Consequently, the Department's actions have generated new congressional interest and actions (particularly in the House) that would sharply limit the annual budget flexibility provided to the Department in authorizations and appropriations acts. Others view DOD's recent reprogramming notifications in support of border wall construction as a justifiable anomaly in an otherwise unbroken agreement supported by the Department's own internal directives. In cases where DOD reprogramming actions do not reflect congressional intent (or adhere to DOD directives), Congress may consider what legislative recourse might be available to prohibit future violations. In some cases, decreasing the Department's budgetary flexibility may potentially undermine DOD's ability to effectively execute congressionally directed policies and programs. DOD's Emergency Military Construction Selection Criteria The emergency Military Construction statute (10 U.S.C. 2808) does not limit the types of military construction projects that may be deferred based on a set of criteria, including, for example, whether such delays will affect military readiness. Nevertheless, DOD has stated it will apply its own criteria to the 10 U.S.C. 2808 pool of eligible projects in order to preserve readiness. Congress may evaluate whether DOD's guidelines are sufficient and whether they serve as a sound basis for governing future decisions. Appendix A. Selected Communications and Documents The tables below contains a chronology of selected communications, correspondence, and documents relevant to the use of 10 U.S.C. Section 2808 and Section 284, drawn primarily from court records. This section is intended to identify milestones in the decision-making process. Appendix B. 10 U.S.C. 284 Reprogramming Requests DOD has submitted two reprogramming notifications to defense committees transferring a total of $2.5 billion to the Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities account. The Department's first action, on March 25, 2019, used general transfer authority to reallocate $1 billion. Approximately 82% of this total was taken from the active duty army pay and allowances (for officers and enlisted personnel), savings realized from service recruiting shortfalls. DOD's second action, on May 9, 2019, used a mix of $818.465 million in general transfer authority (base) and $881.535 in special transfer authority (OCO); a total of $2.5 billion. In the table below, reprogramming actions that use special transfer authority are indicated parenthetically with the (OCO) designation. Together, both reprograming actions reallocated $1.8 billion from base and $.7 billion from OCO defense funds. The majority of these funds were derived from Army personnel accounts and programs supporting the Afghanistan Security Forces. The Department's two actions were sourced exclusively from appropriations that began in FY2019 and had a one- to three-year lifespan, or period of availability . When these program savings were transferred to the Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug activities FY2019 appropriations, they became one-year appropriations. Following additional transfer actions, all appropriations were merged with an FY2019 Army Operations and Maintenance appropriations account, another one-year account. Appendix C. Wall Projects Requested by DHS Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284 On February 25, 2019, DHS formally requested DOD support its ability to impede and deny illegal entry and drug smuggling activities along the southwest U.S.-Mexico border by assisting with the construction (or replacement) of fences, roads, and lighting. DHS summarized the work required: The new pedestrian fencing includes a Linear Ground Detection System, which is intended to, among other functions, alert Border Patrol agents when individuals attempt to damage, destroy or otherwise harm the barrier. The road construction includes the construction of new roads and the improvement of existing roads. The lighting that is requested has an imbedded camera that works in conjunction with the pedestrian fence. The lighting must be supported by grid powerâ¦. DHS will provide DoD with more precise technical specifications as contract and project planning moves forward. DHS requested DOD undertake a total of 11 projects on federal lands, which the agency identified by geographic location and unique numeric id. The Border Patrol divides responsibility for its operations along the Southwest border into nine geographic sectors. Four of these were included as part of the DHS request: Yuma Sector Arizona. Composed primarily of desert terrain with vast deserts, mountain ranges, and sand dunes, the area encompasses 126 miles of U.S.-Mexico borderland (181,670 square miles) between California and Arizona. DHS requested DOD undertake 36 miles of vehicle barrier replacement, 6 miles of pedestrian fencing, and lighting in this sector. El Paso Sector Texas. This sector covers the entire state of New Mexico and two counties in western Texas; 268 miles of U.S.-Mexico borderland (125,500 square miles). DHS requested 70 miles of vehicle barrier (with pedestrian fencing) and lighting in this sector. El Centro California . Located in Southern California, the sector is characterized primarily by agricultural lands, eastern desert areas (where summer temperatures can exceed 120 degrees), and western mountain ranges. The sector stretches for 71 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border. DHS requested DOD undertake a mix of projects along 15 miles in this sector (vehicle, pedestrian, and lighting). Tucson Sector Arizona. Encompassing nearly all of Arizona, this areaâa particularly active one for illegal alien apprehension and marijuana seizuresâcovers 262 miles. DHS requested road construction, 86 miles of vehicle barrier (with pedestrian fencing), and lighting in this sector. Between March and April 2019, DOD approved seven of the eleven requested projects, funding them in two tranches. One of the approved projects, Yuma 2, was subsequently terminated due to contract complications. In August 2019, DHS notified DOD of anticipated contract savings and requested surplus 10 U.S.C. 284 funds be applied to the execution of three additional projects (Yuma 3-5). After evaluating the request, DOD agreed to undertake a modified set of projects (Yuma 4-5, Tucson 4). In September, the Department terminated the new projects after new estimates revealed the anticipated contract savings would be insufficient to undertake additional construction. The list below shows projects initially requested by DHS and those added by DOD in subsequent modified requests. The geographic sector is indicated in the "Project Name" column, along with the project's numeric designation. Several projects not funded by the use of 10 U.S.C. 284 funds were later funded by 10 U.S.C. 2808. For those approved for action by DOD, the funding tranche is also indicated. In a letter to Acting DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan stated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would undertake the planning and construction of approved projects and, upon completion, would hand over custody of all new infrastructure to DHS. Court Injunctions Temporarily Suspended Construction On May 24, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary injunction in Sierra Club v. Trump , barring use of DOD's first funding tranche of $1 billion. In compliance with the court's order, USACE immediately suspended ongoing operations for the two active border barrier projects. At the time of the suspension, $423,999,999 remained unobligated (of the original $1 billion): El Paso 1: An undefinitzed contract was awarded on April 9, 2019. At the time of the court's injunction, $389,999,999 remained unobligated. Yuma 1: An undefinitized contract was awarded on awarded May 15. At the time of the court's injunction, $35,000,000 remained unobligated. On May 25, 2019, DOD executed a second reprogramming action of $1.5 billion. On June 28, 2019, the California district court issued a second injunction that prohibited DOD from using either of the two funding tranches ($2.5 billion total). Again, USACE project managers suspended ongoing operations. At the time of the new suspension, approximately $752,750,000 remained unobligated from the second funding tranche ($1.5 billion): Tucson Sector Projects 1-3: An undefinitzed contract was awarded on May 15, 2019. At the time of the court's injunction, $646,000,000 remained unobligated. El Centro Sector Project 1: An undefinitzed contract was awarded on May 15, 2019. At the time of the court's injunction, $106,750,000 remained unobligated. Project delays have resulted in some additional costs to the government. DOD financial regulations recognize contractors are entitled to compensation for unreasonable contract suspensions, since costs continue to be incurred by idling equipment, site security, contract labor, material storage, or market fluctuations. The government is charged additional penalties for late payment (3.625% per annum). In the event an active contract is terminated, DOD would be held responsible for compensating contractors for sunk costs. On July 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the lower court injunctions, allowing construction to proceed. Appendix D. Wall Projects Requested by DHS Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808 On September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense, having determined that border barrier construction would serve as a "force multiplier" for reducing DHS's demand for DOD personnel and assets, directed the Acting Secretary of the Army to proceed with the construction of 11 border barrier projects. In a memorandum to the Department, the Secretary stated: Based on analysis and advice from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and input from the Commander. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of the Interior and pursuant to the authority granted to me in Section 2808, I have determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico with an estimated total cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use of the armed forces in connection with the national emergency. These projects will deter illegal entry, increase the vanishing time of those illegally crossing the border, and channel migrants to ports of entry. They will reduce the demand for DoD personnel and assets at the locations where the barriers are constructed and allow the redeployment of DoD personnel and assets to other high-traffic areas on the border without barriers. In short, these barriers will allow DoD to provide support to DHS more efficiently and effectively. In this respect, the contemplated construction projects are force multipliers. Of the eleven projects DOD selected for execution, seven were located (in whole or in part) on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior (DOI) that required an administrative transfer to the Department of Defense before construction could proceed. On September 18, 2019, DOI issued Public Land Orders that temporarily transferred jurisdiction of land required for five of these projects for a period of three years. In the table below, DOI-transferred lands have been indicated with an asterisk (see column marked "Jurisdiction"). Two of the eleven projects selected by DOD (El Centro 5 and Laredo 7) were located on non-public lands that will require either purchase or condemnation before construction may proceed. USACE representatives have stated that such a process would not be completed before April 2020. The remaining two projects (Yuma 2 and Yuma 10/27), are located exclusively on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), a military installation under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy where construction may begin immediately. The table below indicates the eleven projects DOD has agreed to fund using 10 U.S.C. 2808 funds, and describes the estimated cost of construction, the jurisdiction of associated lands, and a description of the parcel. Appendix E. Military Construction Projects Deferred Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808 On September 3, 2019, DOD delivered to congressional defense committees a list of ongoing military construction projects the Department had selected for deferral pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2808. The list had been preceded by two additional notifications that identified potential military construction projects that might be affected by use of the statute. The first of these three lists of military construction projects, delivered to defense committees in March 2019, identified all military construction projects that had not yet received contract awardsâmaking them vulnerable for selection under 10 U.S.C. and the Department's independent internal criteria. A second list, which DOD delivered to defense committees in late May 2019, selectively updated the contract award dates of some military construction projects. The final list, comprised of approximately 127 projects ($3.6 billion), updated the contract award dates for six projects ($209 million) located outside of the United States, making them newly eligible for selection. Additionally, the Department's final list included one planning and design project ($13.6 million) not included in previous notifications. The table below summarizes this final list.


Introduction Historic preservation is the practice of protecting and preserving sites, structures, objects, landscapes, and other cultural resources of historical significance. Various federal, state, and local government programs, as well as privately funded activities, support historic preservation in the United States. This report provides an overview of the federal role in historic preservation, including background and funding information for some of the major preservation programs authorized by Congress. In addition to establishing national policies governing historic preservation, Congress considers the federal government's role in financing many of these programs through the annual appropriations process. Some programs also periodically come before Congress for reauthorization. As a result, issues related to historic preservation are of perennial interest to Congress. Some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate the federal role in historic preservation, leaving such programs to be sustained by other levels of government or by private support. Other Members feel federal support for historic preservation should be maintained or increased. The heavy toll of recent natural disasters such as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma on historic resources has contributed to increased support for incorporating preservation needs in federal disaster relief planning and aid. This report includes a summary of the federal government's role in historic preservation activities, from its early efforts in the late 1890s to today. The report contains a list of many of the federal grant programs funded through the annual appropriations process (see Appendix ). It also includes overviews of historic preservation grants for tribal historic preservation, African American civil rights, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Japanese American confinement sites (JACS), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) programs, the Save America's Treasures grant program, and the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). The appendix includes eligibility requirements, matching fund guidelines, and statutory authorization for each program. It also includes an overview of federal funding for historic preservation activities from FY2016 to FY2020, along with requested totals for FY2021. Finally, the report outlines some potential issues facing the 116 th Congress in determining whether and how to address historic preservation needs at the federal level. Background on Federal Historic Preservation Legislation The federal role in historic preservation was limited for much of the country's early history, with no formal federal policy in place. The two most significant early efforts at federal historic preservation came in the 1890s. First, Congress passed laws intended to protect ancient Puebloan sites in the American Southwest. Soon thereafter, Congress acquired thousands of acres of private land to establish five Civil War national battlefield parks to be administered by the Department of War. These two distinct federal effortsâcommemorating very different moments in American historyâare often marked as the genesis of the United States' federal preservation program. In the 20 th century, a legislative campaign for a comprehensive historic preservation policy bolstered these efforts. Antiquities Act of 19065 The Antiquities Act of 1906 provided the executive branch with authority to identify and protect cultural resources on federal lands in an expeditious manner. Prior to its passage, federal law provided no means to preserve national cultural and historic resources that had not received specific legislative authorization from Congress. The Antiquities Act authorized the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest." The law also established guidelines around the future excavation of objects of antiquity found on land owned or controlled by the federal government. Since its passage in 1906, the Antiquities Act has been used to create more than 150 national monuments. Historic Sites Act of 1935 With the passage of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, Congress established a national policy on historic preservation. The act outlined a policy to "preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States" while also providing the Secretary of the Interior the authority to develop a program aimed at identifying and evaluating cultural resources. It placed the primary responsibility for administering federal historic preservation activities with the National Park Service (NPS). Efforts to survey and evaluate cultural resources of national historical significance eventually led to the designation of national historic landmarks (NHLs)âa federal recognition for historic properties that exists today. (See " National Historic Landmarks Program " section for more information on NHL designation.) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 In the aftermath of World War II, the United States saw an unprecedented transformation of the natural and built environment, thanks in part to a rapid growth in federal infrastructure projects. The construction of interstate highways, urban renewal projects, and large-scale development led to the destruction of numerous historic buildings, archaeological sites, and cultural resources not previously protected under the Historic Sites Act of 1935. In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson convened a special committee on historic preservation in 1965. The following year, the committee released its report, With Heritage So Rich , which called for a comprehensive national historic preservation program. The same year, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), which incorporated nearly every major recommendation included in the report. Broader than its two predecessors, NHPA is the most comprehensive piece of legislation addressing federal historic preservation. Among its many provisions, the law established the National Register of Historic Places and the procedures by which historic properties are placed on the register, funded the National Trust for Historic Preservation, created a grant program for state and tribal historic preservation, required federal agencies to manage and preserve their historic properties, and created a process for federal agencies to follow when their projects may affect a historic property. Congress has amended and expanded NHPA multiple times since its passage, most recently in 2016. Selected Historic Preservation Programs and Entities Various federal programs and federally established entities support historic preservation across the United States. Many of these programs and entities were established in NHPA and its subsequent amendments; however, Congress has authorized through separate legislation several other programs that also support activities related to historic preservation. Although it is beyond the scope of this report to discuss all federal programs and entities that support historic preservation, selected major programs and entities are highlighted. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Created by NHPA, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent agency consisting of federal, state, and tribal government members, as well as experts in historic preservation and members of the public. ACHP oversees the Section 106 review process, a process federal agencies must follow when their projects may affect a historic property. Federal agencies are required to review the potential impacts of their actions on historic sites, a process that is to be concluded before federal funding is provided or a federal license is issued. Section 106 applies only to federal or "federally assisted" undertakings, such as those receiving federal funding or a federal permit. As an independent agency, ACHP receives funding as part of the "Related Agencies" portion of the annual Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Historic Preservation Fund The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the primary source of funding for federal preservation awards to states, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit organizations. Although federal funding for historic preservation was available under the 1966 NHPA and subsequent amendments in 1970 and 1973, Congress did not officially establish the HPF to carry out the activities specified in NHPA until 1976. The HPF is funded through revenue generated by outer continental shelf mineral receipts, and it has been periodically reauthorized by Congress. Most recently, in 2016, Congress authorized the HPF to receive deposits of $150 million annually through FY2023. The funding is available only to the extent appropriated by Congress in discretionary appropriations laws. Since the HPF's establishment, Congress has never appropriated the full $150 million for the fund in a single fiscal year. The HPF funds historic preservation activities in two ways: (1) formula-based apportionment grants and (2) competitive grant programs. Most HPF appropriated funds are used to provide formula-based matching grants-in-aid to state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) and tribal historic preservation offices (THPOs) and sub-grants to certified local governments (CLGs). Congress also has provided appropriations for additional competitive grant programs that fund specific historic preservation activities. The Appendix to this report provides an overview of the various grant programs that have been funded through the HPF, eligibility requirements, and program goals. State Historic Preservation Office Program HPF grants are awarded annually to SHPOs of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and the territories. SHPOs are appointed officials responsible for administering and managing federal funds to conduct historic preservation activities. These activities may include surveys and inventories, nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, preservation education, architectural planning, historic structure reports, community preservation planning, and physical preservation of historic buildings, among others. States conducting these activities are statutorily required to provide a 40% match to the funds provided by the HPF. Guidelines allow each state the flexibility to design and shape its historic preservation program as long as the program meets the overall responsibilities outlined by NHPA. Typically, SHPOs do not use these funds to issue sub-grants to other entities for individual historic preservation projects; rather, SHPOs generally use these funds for their own operational and administrative costs, as well as programmatic activities (listed above) carried out directly by the SHPO. Under federal regulations, at least 10% of the allocations to SHPOs are sub-granted to assist CLGs with local preservation needs (see " Certified Local Government Program " below). Congress appropriated $49.7 million in FY2019 and $52.7 million in FY2020 for SHPO grants-in-aid. Tribal Historic Preservation Office Program Since 1996, NPS has awarded annual formula-based grants to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). Eligibility for grants under the THPO grant program is limited to federally recognized tribes that have signed agreements with NPS designating them as having an approved THPO. To become an approved THPO, a tribe submits a request to assume responsibilities from the SHPO and provides a program plan demonstrating how SHPO duties will be conducted. Once a program plan is completed and approved, an agreement between the tribe and the Secretary of the Interior is executed and the THPO becomes eligible for HPF grant support. Similar to SHPO grants, the THPO grant program requires at least a 40% nonfederal match. Activities funded through the program include staff salaries, archeological and architectural surveys, review and compliance activities, comprehensive preservation studies, National Register nominations, educational programs, and other preservation-related activities. Grants are not awarded competitively but instead are determined according to a formula in consultation with tribes. Congress appropriated $11.7 million in FY2019 and $13.7 million in FY2020 for THPO grants-in-aid. Certified Local Government Program NHPA requires that at least 10% of the annual HPF funding provided to each SHPO be sub-granted to local government entities known as certified local governments (CLGs). A CLG is a unit of local (town, city, or county) government that has undergone a certification process administered by NPS and the respective state SHPO, involving demonstration of a commitment to historic preservation. Under this certification process, local governments must meet NPS guidelines that include the establishment of a "qualified" historic preservation commission, inventory maintenance and surveys of local historic resources, and enforcement of state or local historic preservation laws, as well as additional requirements that may be established at the state level. Although CLGs receive at least 10% of the total annual apportionment from their respective SHPOs, states may provide more than the required minimum 10% pass-through should they choose to do so. States typically award grants to individual CLGs through a competitive application process established by the SHPO. National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (or National Register) stands as the United States' "official list" of properties significant in "American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture." The National Register is maintained by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and in particular by NPS under the authority of NHPA, as amended. NHPA requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain the register, develop guidelines and regulations for nominations, consider appeals, make determinations of eligibility of properties, and make the National Register accessible to the public. NPS has developed standards and guidelines to help federal, state, and local governments prepare nominations for the register. SHPOs, THPOs, or federal historic preservation offices typically coordinate nominations for the National Register. Property owners, historical societies, preservation organizations, government agencies, and other interested parties work through these offices to determine whether a given property meets the requisite criteria for listing, at which point a completed nomination and recommendation are submitted to NPS for review. NPS is to decide whether a property should be listed within 45 days after receiving a completed nomination. Benefits of listing on the National Register include honorary designation, access to federal preservation grant funds for planning and rehabilitation activities, possible tax benefits, and required application of Section 106 review should a federal or federally assisted action affect the property. Listing of a property places no restrictions on what nonfederal owners may do with their property, up to and including destruction of the property. Under federal regulations, should a property no longer meet the criteria for listing, the property shall be removed from the National Register. Currently, more than 94,000 properties are listed on the National Register. National Historic Landmarks Program The National Historic Landmarks (NHL) programâlike the National Registerâis a federal recognition program administered by NPS. The agency is responsible for overseeing the nomination process for new NHLs and providing technical assistance to existing landmarks. NHLs are places of national significance to the history of the United States (as opposed to National Register properties, which, according to NPS, "are primarily of state and local significance"). The Historic Sites Act of 1935 created the NHL program, and the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 clarified the role of NPS as the entity responsible for overseeing the designation of NHLs. All NHLs are also listed in the National Register. Funding for the NHL program falls under the National Register program, and NHLs are eligible for federal investment tax credits, technical assistance, and consideration in federal undertakings, similar to other properties on the National Register. With regard to federal undertakings, however, NHLs have a higher standard for protection than properties listed on the National Register. Whereas Section 106 of NHPA, applicable to properties on the National Register, requires only that agencies "take into account" the effects of an undertaking on historic properties, Section 110(f) of the law, applicable to NHLs, requires that agencies "to the maximum extent possible undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to the landmark." National Trust for Historic Preservation Congress chartered the National Trust for Historic Preservation (or National Trust) in 1949. It is a private nonprofit corporation, responsible for encouraging the protection and preservation of historic American sites, buildings, and objects that are significant to the cultural heritage of the United States. The trust provides technical and educational services, promotes historic preservation activities, and administers several historic preservation grant programs. Congress authorized federal funding for the National Trust in the NHPA of 1966. Federal funding for the trust largely continued until FY1996, at which point the Interior Appropriations bill conference report stated that the managers agreed "to a 3-year period of transition for the National Trust for Historic Preservation to replace federal funds with private funding." From FY1998 through FY2001, there was no federal funding for the National Trust. In FY2002, Congress appropriated from the HPF $2.5 million to use as an endowment to maintain and preserve National Trust historic properties. In FY2003, Congress appropriated an additional $2.0 million from the HPF for the endowment, and added $0.5 million more in FY2004. In FY2005, Congress stopped funding the National Trust, and currently the organization's funding comes largely from private donations. Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program In 1976, Congress passed the Tax Reform Act, which provided tax incentives for owners of historic structures to consider rehabilitation and preservation over demolition. Some argued that the law prior to 1976 encouraged the demolition and redevelopment of historic properties over their preservation. Since then, tax law has continued to evolve into what is now the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, which includes historic tax credits (HTCs) administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and NPS in partnership with SHPOs. The HTC program encourages private investment in historic preservation and rehabilitation initiatives by providing a 20% federal tax credit to property owners who undertake substantial rehabilitation of a certified historic structure, while maintaining its historic character. Eligible buildings include those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or architecturally contributing to a National Register district, that are rehabilitated for income-producing purposes. The program previously included a separate 10% rehabilitation credit for the rehabilitation of nonhistoric, nonresidential buildings built before 1936; however, the 2017 tax revision repealed this credit. Since 1976, over 44,000 projects have been completed under the program, with more than $96 billion leveraged in private investment for the rehabilitation of historic properties. National Heritage Areas Program50 Since 1984, Congress has designated 55 national heritage areas (NHAs) to recognize and assist efforts to protect, commemorate, and promote natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources that form distinctive landscapes. NHAs are partnerships among NPS, states, and local communities, in which NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance. Congress has established heritage areas for lands that are regarded as distinctive because of their resources, their built environment, and the culture and history associated with the land and its residents. In a majority of cases, NHAs have had a fundamental economic activity as their foundation, such as agriculture, water transportation, or industrial development. No comprehensive statute establishes criteria for designating NHAs or provides standards for their funding and management. Rather, particulars for each area are provided in the area's enabling legislation. Congress designates a management entity, usually nonfederal, to coordinate the work of the partners.Â NHAs are not part of the National Park System, in which lands are primarily federally owned and managed. Historic Federal Property Disposal Programs52 Real property disposal is the process by which federal agencies identify and then transfer, donate, or sell real property they no longer need. The federal government has several programs that enable state, county, and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, to acquire at no cost properties deemed excess to the needs of a federal agency. Two programs in particular address the disposal of historic properties under federal ownership: the Historic Surplus Property Program and the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act Program. Historic Surplus Property Program The NPS Historic Surplus Property Program is administered in partnership with the General Services Administration (GSA) and was authorized under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. When federally owned historic buildings are no longer needed by their respective agencies, the GSA declares the buildings to be surplus. Applicants interested in obtaining these propertiesâwhich must be listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Registerâsubmit an application to the GSA. Eligible applicants include state and public agencies, tribal entities, and nonprofit organizations. NPS then makes a formal recommendation to the GSA (or the Department of Defense, in the case of military properties) to effect the transfer of property. Once conveyed, a property must be managed and maintained in accordance with the terms of the transfer and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act Program The NPS also administers a program to oversee the transfer of surplus historic lighthouses under federal ownership. Federal lighthouses and light stations were previously transferred to eligible entities through the Historic Surplus Property Program. In 2000, however, Congress passed the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA), an amendment to NHPA. The NHLPA provides a mechanism for the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to dispose of historic lighthouses that are listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the National Register. Similarly to other historic federal properties deemed to be excess, the NHLPA directs the USCG to issue a R eport of E xcess for historic light stations to the GSA, which then releases a notice of availability. At this point, interested parties looking to acquire the light station in questionâat no costâwork with NPS to submit a formal application, which is then reviewed by an internal NPS review committee that makes a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior and the GSA Administrator. If there are no interested partiesâor if no applicant meets the requirements set forth by the review committeeâthe property is offered for sale by competitive bid or auction. National Historic Networks Congress occasionally has passed legislation authorizing NPS to establish national networks aimed at coordinating the preservation and education efforts of various places, museums, and interpretive programs associated with specific historical moments or movements in U.S. history. To date, Congress has authorized the establishment of three such networks: the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom ( P.L. 105-203 ), the African American Civil Rights Network ( P.L. 115-104 ), and the Reconstruction Era National Historic Network ( P.L. 116-9 ). Legislation in the 116 th Congress ( H.R. 1179 and S. 2827 ) would establish a fourth network, the African-American Burial Grounds Network. These laws have provided that network sites can include federal, state, local, and privately owned properties, although inclusion in the network requires consent from property owners. Congress has authorized the Secretary of the Interior to produce and disseminate educational materials and provide technical assistance to network sites, and to develop an official symbol or logo for use across the network. Federal Historic Preservation Grant Programs The federal government currently supports historic preservation through a variety of grant programs. The largest source of funding for federal historic preservation programs is the HPF, which currently funds state, tribal, and local historic preservation, African American civil rights grant programs, grants to underrepresented communities, tribal heritage grants, the Save America's Treasures program, disaster recovery grants, historic revitalization grants, and grants to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Several other historic preservation grant programs are funded through annual appropriations under other NPS and non-NPS accounts rather than through the HPF. These programs include grants for Japanese American confinement sites, Native American grave protection and repatriation, and preservation and acquisition grants for American battlefields. For a complete list of these programs and their guidelines, refer to the Appendix . National Historic Designations Table 1 , below, compares selected designations used by Congress and the executive branch for historic properties and sites. The table provides information on the entity that confers each designation (e.g., Congress, the President, the Interior or Agriculture Secretary); statutory authorities for the designation; the agency or agencies that administer each type of area (also noting designations for which the area typically is under nonfederal management); selected characteristics of the areas; and examples of each type of area. Designations for nonfederally owned and managed sites are listed according to the agency with administrative responsibility for the designation (e.g., responsibility for evaluating site qualifications and providing technical and/or financial assistance to designated sites). Federal Funding for Historic Preservation The federal government supports historic preservation through direct appropriations for federally protected sites and grants to nonfederal entities. Grant funding is typically provided to NPS-administered accounts within the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. These accounts provide technical and financial assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations with the goal of protecting cultural resources and promoting historic preservation activities across the United States. The majority of the funding is split between two NPS accounts: the HPF account, the primary source of funding for federal historic preservation programs, and the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) account, which provides funding for a variety of other congressionally authorized grant programs. Funding for historic preservation programs is not limited to these two accounts, however, nor does Congress exclusively fund grant programs as part of the Interior appropriations bill. Table 2 and Table 3 provide FY2016-FY2020 appropriations figures and the FY2021 budget request for programs funded as part of the HPF and NR&P accounts. HPF Appropriations: FY2016-FY2020 and FY2021 Request In 2016, Congress reauthorized deposits of $150 million annually into the HPF for FY2017 through FY2023. Congress has never appropriated the full $150 million for the HPF since its establishment; however, regular appropriations to NPS's HPF account increased each year from FY2016 to FY2020. The FY2021 budget justification for NPS requests $40.7 million for HPFâa roughly 66% reduction in funding from FY2020 enacted amounts. This request would provide funding only for the core grant-in-aid programs to SHPOs ($26.9 million) and THPOs ($5.7 million), as well as $8 million for grants to HBCUs. It would not provide funding for additional competitive or non-formula-based grant programs. National Recreation and Preservation Appropriations: FY2016-FY2020 and FY2021 Request In addition to grant funds through the HPF account, Congress provides funding to other NPS-administered historic preservation grant programs under the National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) account. This account provides for a broad range of activities related to historic and cultural preservation, as well as programs for recreational activities, natural resource conservation, environmental compliance, operations of the Office of International Affairs, and national heritage areas. Administration of grants funded through the NR&P account and HPF grant administration are included within the NR&P account under the "Cultural Programs" line item and the sub-activity "Grants Administration." Congress appropriates direct funding for NPS-administered grant programs under the Cultural Programs line item. The Administration requested $33.9 million for NR&P in FY2021âa roughly 52% reduction from FY2020 enacted amounts. Selected Issues for the 116th Congress Historic preservation programs are of perennial interest to Congress and have been the subject of congressional oversight and legislation in the 116 th Congress. Some Members of Congress support proposals to eliminate a federal government role in both administering and financing historic preservation programs, leaving such programs to be sustained by other levels of government or by private support. Others feel that a federal role in supporting historic preservation should be maintained or expanded. Similarly, some advocates believe there may be an inherent or increased tension between preservationist goals and federally controlled or licensed infrastructure projects. The majority of federal grant programs for historic preservation receive funding through the annual appropriations process. Members of Congress as well as both current and past Administrations have expressed various opinions as to how federal funding for these programs should be allocated and at what levels. Both the FY2020 and the FY2021 budget requests from NPS would have significantly reduced funding for the HPF and would provide no funding for African American civil rights grant programs, grants to underrepresented communities, the Save America's Treasures program, or historic revitalization grants. In response to the FY2020 budget proposal, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the Committee on Natural Resources held oversight hearings in April 2019 on the spending priorities and mission of NPS. During these hearings, some Members expressed concern that the proposed reduction in grant funding would impact the ability of communities to protect and maintain culturally and historically important resources. Othersâincluding witnesses from NPSâexpressed the position that "core" NPS priorities such as infrastructure and the NPS maintenance backlog should take priority over historic preservation when considering the appropriation of federal funds. Other issues Congress may consider are specific to NHPA and current historic preservation laws and regulations. For instance, some have argued that the "stop, look, and listen" approach under Section 106 of NHPA does not provide adequate protection for historic resources, since the law only establishes a procedural requirement for federal agencies. According to a study commissioned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 2010, NPS reported to Congress that only 2% of all SHPO reviews for Section 106 compliance included findings of adverse effects to historic properties. For those undertakings that are deemed to have an adverse effect on a given historic property, the agency in question is only required to consider these effectsâwith no explicit legal mandate requiring them to address these potential impacts. In other words, although agencies are compelled to consult with the SHPO/THPO to develop solutions to mitigate effects, agency officials are not required to pursue the solutions, regardless of any adverse effects. As a result, some preservation advocates have charged that NHPA fails in its purported mission to protect cultural and historic sites. Others suggest that Section 106 compliance results in unnecessary and costly delays and have suggested that in some cases, opponents of specific federal projects may invoke Section 106 procedural steps in the hopes of delaying approval for a projectâsometimes to the point of impacting a project's feasibility. Although federal regulations provide certain ways for agencies to tailor the Section 106 process to their needs, some stakeholders have asserted that these options are time-consuming to implement and not flexible enough for undertakings that involve new or emerging technologies. Multiple bills have been introduced to exempt or limit NHPA reviews for certain projects, such as rail and transit infrastructure projects and Federal Communications Commission construction projects for communications facilities following a major disaster. Many of the programs that directly or indirectly support historic preservation also have received attention in recent years. For example, in 2013, the Federal Railroad Administration published a study that concluded "there is no consistent approach on how to address the National Register eligibility of railroad corridors." Although federal regulations outline the criteria for inclusion of a property on the National Register, the report states that inconsistent standards still abound, due to the multitude of entities conducting National Register evaluations. Another program of congressional interest has been the National Heritage Areas program. Legislation has been introduced in recent Congresses to establish a National Heritage Areas System governing the designation, management, and funding of NHAs, to replace the stand-alone approach currently in place. Additionally, some Membersâas well as past and current Administrationsâhave expressed interest in ensuring that NHAs eventually become financially self-sufficient and in limiting the federal funding for long-standing areas. In addition, Congress often considers bills to designate specific properties or areas as historically important, under various designations. For example, in the 116 th Congress, P.L. 116-9 included provisions that designated three new historical sites as units of the National Park System and six new national heritage areas, as well as stand-alone provisions that recognized the historical importance of sites across the United States. Although many of the programs described in this report provide for properties to receive historical designation administratively, Congress has at times conferred individual designations in law. Certain programs or designations require congressional action to establish new areas or to designate properties as historically significant. Appendix. Selected Federal Grant Programs for Historic Preservation Table A-1 is an overview of selected federal historic preservation grant programs. This overview focuses on programs with the primary mission of historic preservation and is not a complete representation of all federal grant programs that support historic preservation activities. Most of the programs listed here are subject to annual appropriations and therefore may not be currently funded, despite some programs having congressional authorization to administer grants. Programs authorized or funded in FY2020 for the first time may not be listed below. For example, as part of the FY2020 funding bill ( P.L. 116-94 ), Congress provided funding for a new civil rights grant program that would preserve and highlight the sites and stories associated with women, American Latino, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ Americans. NPS has not yet published eligibility requirements or program guidelines. P.L. 116-94 also authorized two new grant programs as part of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP): a battlefield interpretation modernization grant program and a battlefield restoration grant program. As these new programs have yet to receive appropriations from Congress, they are not listed below.