State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 59

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Virginia, Dana Nessel, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Wisconsin. Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2019 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor before Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr.. Responses due by 4/18/2019. Replies due by 4/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix re Environmental Harms, # 3 Appendix re TFF Harms, # 4 Request for Judicial Notice and Exhibits 1-50, # 5 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 4/8/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:

May 9, 2019
2:00 pm
2
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr.
Trial Date:
None Set
Action Filed: February 18, 2019

Plaintiffs,

26
27

Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG

v.

28
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARK T.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, that this
Court take judicial notice of the following documents.
1.

Trump on March 8, 2019.1

4
5

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a tweet posted by President

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a declaration signed by

6

Loren Flossman, Acquisition Program Manager for the Wall Program Management

7

Office (Wall PMO), U.S. Border Patrol Program Management Directorate, U.S.

8

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and filed in Alvarez v. Trump, Case No. 19-

9

cv-00404 [ECF 8-2] (D.D.C. April 2, 2019).

10

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript

11

of a speech President Trump delivered when he announced his candidacy for

12

president on June 16, 2015.

13

4.

14
15

Trump on July 13, 2016.
5.

16
17

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a tweet posted by President
Trump on August 27, 2016.

6.

18
19

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a tweet posted by President

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript
of a speech delivered by President Trump on September 1, 2016.

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript

20

of remarks delivered by President Trump on April 3, 2018. As of April 4, 2019, the

21

complete transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

22

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-working-

23

lunch-heads-baltic-states/.

24

8.

25

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript
of a speech delivered by President Trump on February 28, 2017. As of April 4, 2019,

26
1

27
28

The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that President Trump’s tweets are “official
statements of the President of the United States,” since “a tweet can be the equivalent of a public
statement or speech.” James Madison Project v. Dep’t of Justice, Case No. 1:17-cv-00144, Def.
Supp. Mem., at 2, 5-6 & n.4 [ECF No. 29] (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2017).
1
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

the transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

2

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-joint-

3

address-congress/.

4

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript

5

of a speech delivered by President Trump on April 28, 2017. As of April 4, 2019, the

6

transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

7

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-national-

8

rifle-association-leadership-forum/.

9

10.

10
11

of a speech delivered by President Trump on August 23, 2017.
11.

12
13

Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a tweet posted by
President Trump on February 23, 2018.

12.

14
15

Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript

Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a tweet posted by
President Trump on June 21, 2018.

13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript

16

of remarks delivered by President Trump on January 10, 2019. As of April 4, 2019,

17

the complete transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

18

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-

19

one-departure-30/.

20

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of The WALL

21

Act of 2018, S. 3713, 115th Cong. (2018). No action was taken on the bill after

22

referral to the Senate Committee on Finance. As of April 4, 2019, the complete text

23

of the bill is posted on the United States Congress’s official website, at

24

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s3713/BILLS-115s3713is.pdf; and the history of

25

the bill is posted on Congress’s official website, at

26

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3713/all-actions.

27
28

15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of the 50 Votes for the Wall
Act, H.R. 7073, 115th Cong. (2018). No action was taken on the bill after referral to
2
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. As of April 4, 2019, the

2

complete text of the bill is posted on the United States Congress’s official website, at

3

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr7073/BILLS-115hr7073ih.pdf; and the history

4

of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website, at

5

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7073/all-actions.

6

16.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Build the

7

Wall, Enforce the Law Act of 2018, H.R. 7059, 115th Cong. (2018). No action was

8

taken on the bill after referral to the House Subcommittee on Trade. As of April 4,

9

2019, the complete text of the bill is posted on the United States Congress’s official

10

website, at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr7059/BILLS-115hr7059ih.pdf; and

11

the history of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website, at

12

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7059/all-actions.

13

17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Fund and

14

Complete the Border Wall Act, H.R. 6657, 115th Cong. (2018). No action was taken

15

on the bill after referral to the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border

16

Security. As of April 4, 2019, the complete text of the bill is posted on the United

17

States Congress’s official website, at

18

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr6657/BILLS-115hr6657ih.pdf; and the history

19

of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website, at

20

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6657/all-actions.

21

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the

22

American Border Act, H.R. 6415, 115th Cong. (2018). No action was taken on the

23

bill after referral to the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security. As

24

of April 4, 2019, the complete text of the bill is posted on the United States

25

Congress’s official website, at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr6415/BILLS-

26

115hr6415ih.pdf; and the history of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website,

27

at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6415/all-actions.

28
3
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Border

2

Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018, H.R. 6136, 115th Cong. (2018). On

3

June 27, 2018, this bill failed in the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of

4

121 – 301. As of April 4, 2019, the complete text of the bill is posted on the United

5

States Congress’s official website, at

6

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr6136/BILLS-115hr6136ih.pdf; and the history

7

of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website, at

8

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6136/all-actions.

9

20.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Securing

10

America’s Future Act of 2018, H.R. 4760, 115th Cong. (2018). On June 21, 2018, this

11

bill failed in the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 193 – 231. As of

12

April 4, 2019, the complete text of the bill is posted on the United States Congress’s

13

official website, at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr4760/BILLS-

14

115hr4760ih.pdf; and the history of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website,

15

at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4760/all-actions.

16

21.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript

17

of a December 11, 2018, meeting between President Trump, Senate Minority Leader

18

Chuck Schumer, and House Speaker-Designate Nancy Pelosi. As of April 4, 2019, the

19

complete transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

20

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-

21

senate-minority-leader-chuck-schumer-house-speaker-designate-nancy-pelosi/.

22

22.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of the Senate Amendment to

23

House Amendment to Senate Amendment of the Further Additional Continuing

24

Appropriations Act, 2019, H.R. 695, 115th Cong. (2018). On December 19, 2018, the

25

Senate approved the bill with an amendment by a voice vote; the House did not adopt

26

the bill. As of April 4, 2019, the complete text of the bill with the Senate’s

27

amendments is posted on the United States Congress’s official website at

28

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr695/BILLS-115hr695eas2.pdf; the history of
4
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

the bill is posted on Congress’s official website (under the heading “Department of

2

Defense Appropriations Act of 2018”) at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-

3

congress/house-bill/695/all-actions.

4

23.

5
6

Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy an article containing quotes
from President Trump during an event on December 20, 2018.

24.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the House

7

Amendment to Senate Amendment to House Amendment to Senate Amendment of

8

the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, H.R. 695, 115th Cong.

9

(2018). On December 20, 2018, the House approved the bill with an amendment by a

10

vote of 217 – 185, which the Senate did not adopt. As of April 4, 2019, the complete

11

text of the bill with the House’s amendments is posted on the United States

12

Congress’s official website, at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr695/BILLS-

13

115hr695eah2.pdf; the history of the bill is posted on Congress’s official website

14

(under the heading “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2018”) at

15

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr695/BILLS-115hr695eah2.pdf.

16

25.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of a January 6, 2019 letter

17

sent from Office of Management and Budget Acting Director Russell T. Vought to

18

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby.

19

26.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of a transcript of remarks

20

delivered by President Trump on January 25, 2019. As of April 4, 2019, the complete

21

transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

22

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-

23

government-shutdown/.

24

27.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of a memorandum issued by

25

President Trump on April 4, 2018. As of April 4, 2019, the complete memorandum is

26

posted on the White House’s official website, at

27

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-

28

secretary-defense-attorney-general-secretary-homeland-security/.
5
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

28.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of a memorandum issued by

2

President Trump on February 15, 2019, referred to in Plaintiffs States’ Notice of

3

Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction as the “Executive Action.” As of April

4

4, 2019, the Executive Action is posted on the White House’s official website, at

5

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-border-

6

security-victory/.

7

29.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of the Office of the Inspector

8

General’s Audit of the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund’s Financial

9

Statements for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2017 dated December 13, 2018. As of April 4,

10

2019, the complete Audit Report is posted on the Treasury’s official website, at

11

https://www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-

12

structure/ig/Audit%20Reports%20and%20Testimonies/OIG-19-022.pdf.

13

30.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of a February 15, 2019 letter

14

and attachment sent from Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management David

15

F. Eisner to the chairs and ranking members of congressional appropriations

16

committees.

17

31.

18
19

the White House on March 4, 2019.
32.

20
21

Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of a memorandum issued by

Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of a reprogramming action
issued by the Department of Defense on March 25, 2019.

33.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of a February 25, 2019 letter

22

from Department of Homeland Security Executive Secretary Christina Bobb to

23

Department of Defense Executive Secretary Capt. Hallock N. Mohler, Jr.

24

34.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is a true and correct copy of a March 25, 2019 letter

25

from Acting Department of Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan to Department of

26

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

27
28

35.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a true and correct copy of a March 26, 2019 letter
from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith to Department of
6
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Defense Under Secretary David L. Norquist. As of April 4, 2019, this letter is

2

available on the House Armed Service Committee’s official website, at

3

https://armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/5/7/57ea01fb-9872-4a49-b878-

4

9b844ca0b030/B5C69226DA76BB0F77AC9E06052FA8AC.fy-19-01-ra.pdf.

5

36.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 36 is a true and correct copy of a March 26, 2019 letter

6

from Peter J. Visclosky, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense

7

Subcommittee, to Department of Defense Under Secretary David L. Norquist.

8

37.

9

Attached hereto as Exhibit 37 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the
Department of Defense’s Fiscal Law Deskbook. As of April 4, 2019, the complete

10

document is posted on the Library of Congress’s official website, at

11

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/fiscal-law-deskbook_2014.pdf.

12

38.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 38 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the

13

Department of Defense’s Financial Management Regulations. As of April 4, 2019,

14

the complete Regulations are posted on the Department of Defense’s official website,

15

at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/Combined_Volume1-

16

16.pdf.

17

39.

18
19

Attached hereto as Exhibit 39 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript
of a March 26, 2019, hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

40.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 40 is a true and correct copy of a page from the

20

Department of Homeland Security’s website entitled “Walls Work” that is dated

21

December 12, 2018. As of April 4, 2019, the complete document is posted on the

22

Department of Homeland Security’s website, at

23

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work.

24

41.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 41 is a true and correct copy of a page from the

25

Department of Homeland Security’s website entitled “El Paso Sector.” As of April 4,

26

2019, this information is posted on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s

27

website, at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-

28

sectors/el-paso-sector-texas.
7
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

42.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 42 is a true and correct copy of a document published by

2

the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture entitled “Treasury Forfeiture

3

Fund, Program Summary by Budget Activity.” As of April 4, 2019, the complete

4

document is posted on the Department of Treasury’s website, at

5

https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/budget-in-

6

brief/BIB19/20.%20TEOAF%20BIB.pdf.

7

43.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 43 is a true and correct copy of a report published by the

8

Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture entitled “Congressional Budget

9

Justification and Annual Performance Report and Plan FY 2019.” As of April 4,

10

2019, the complete report is posted on the Department of Treasury’s website, at

11

https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-

12

performance/CJ19/21.%20TEOAF%202019%20CJ.pdf.

13

44.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 44 is a true and correct copy of a December 21, 2015,

14

press release issued by the U.S. Department of Justice entitled “Assets [sic] Forfeiture

15

Fund Rescission Impact on Equitable Sharing Program.” As of April 4, 2019, this

16

press release is posted on the U.S. Department of Justice’s website, at

17

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-afmls/file/801381/download.2

18

45.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 45 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of a

19

memorandum issued by the Government Accountability Office entitled “Secure

20

Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs” dated January 29, 2009. As of April 4,

21

2019, the complete memorandum is posted on the Government Accountability

22

Office’s official website, at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09244r.pdf.

23

46.

24

Attached hereto as Exhibit 46 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript
of a March 14, 2019, hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

25
26
2

27
28

Note that this document is different than the document that was filed with Plaintiffs’
Request for Judicial Notice filed April 4, 2019; the latter was erroneously included in the exhibits.
Other minor typographical and citation errors in the April 4, 2019 Request for Judicial Notice
have also been corrected in this version.
8
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

47.

2
3

Attached hereto as Exhibit 47 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the transcript
of a February 26, 2019, hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

48.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 48 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the Director

4

of National Intelligence’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment,” dated on January 29,

5

2019. As of April 4, 2019, the complete report is posted on the Director of National

6

Intelligence’s official website, at https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-

7

ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf.

8

49.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 49 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the

9

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction regarding DOD Counterdrug

10

Support dated January 26, 2007. As of April 4, 2019, the complete document is

11

posted on the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s official website, at

12

https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/3710_01.pdf?ver=20

13

16-02-05-175036-593.

14

50.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 50 is a true and correct copy an excerpt of the transcript of

15

remarks delivered by President Trump on February 15, 2019. As of April 4, 2019, the

16

complete transcript is posted on the White House’s official website, at

17

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-national-

18

security-humanitarian-crisis-southern-border/.

19

Each of these exhibits is a matter of public record and is therefore subject to judicial notice.

20

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (a court may

21

judicially notice matters of public record unless the matter is a fact subject to reasonable dispute).

22

Exhibit 2 is judicially noticeable because it is a court record from a proceeding that

23

addresses issues relevant to this litigation. U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v.

24

Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a court “may take notice of

25

proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those

26

proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”).

27
28

Exhibits 7-9, 13, 25-38, 40-45, 48-50 are judicially noticeable because government
memoranda, bulletins, letters, statements and opinions are matters of public record appropriate for
9
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

judicial notice. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 933 n.9 (9th Cir. 2005) (judicially noticing an

2

administrative bulletin); Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)

3

(court may take judicial notice of records and reports of state administrative bodies), overruled on

4

other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111 (1991);

5

Interstate Nat. Gas. Co. v. S. Cal. Gas. Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953) (judicially noticing

6

government agency records and reports); Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497,

7

520 nn.5, 8, 11 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (taking judicial notice of government memoranda and letters).

8

Exhibits 7-9, 13-22, 24, 26-29, 35, 37-38, 40-45, 48-50 are judicially noticeable because

9

they are posted on official government websites. See Daniels–Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d

10

992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2010) (judicially noticing information contained on a government website);

11

Paralyzed Veterans of America v. McPherson, No. C 06–4670 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, at *5

12

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) (finding that courts commonly take judicial notice of information and

13

documents on government websites, citing cases from various jurisdictions). Thus, the statements

14

of government departments and agencies contained within these exhibits are not subject to

15

reasonable dispute, as the statements “can be accurately and readily determined from sources

16

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b)(2).

17

Exhibits 1-13, 21, 23, 25-36, 39-50 are judicially noticeable because the statements of

18

government officials or entities that these documents contain are not subject to reasonable

19

dispute, as the statements “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

20

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. § 201(b)(2).

21

Exhibits 14-20, 22, 24, 39, 46-47 are judicially noticeable because they are either bills

22

considered by Congress or transcripts of congressional testimony. In general, “[l]egislative

23

history is properly a subject of judicial notice.” Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n.1 (9th

24

Cir. 2012). This is also true of testimony given at congressional hearings. See Adarand

25

Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1168 n.12 (10th Cir. 2000) (taking “judicial notice of

26

the content of hearings and testimony before [] congressional committees and subcommittees”);

27

see also Cnty. of Santa Clara, 250 F. Supp. 3d at 520 nn. 4, 6, 7, 10 (taking judicial notice of

28

government officials’ press conference statements, press briefings, and interview statements).
10
Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Dated: April 8, 2019

Respectfully Submitted,

2

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General

3
4
5
6
7

/s/ Lee I. Sherman
LEE SHERMAN
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
Deputy Attorneys General
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11

Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT 1

Donald J. Trump

Follow

@realDonaldTrump

The Wall is being built and is well under
construction. Big impact will be made. Many
Many
g p
additional contracts are close t b i
to being
dditi
l
t t
l
signed. Far ahead of schedule despite all of
i
d
the Democrat Obstruction and Fake News!
4:24 AM - 8 Mar 2019
26,376 Retweets 109,887 Likes
23K

26K

110K

Brian Krassenstein @krassenstein · Mar 8
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
YOUR wall is not being built. Parts of the FENCE is being renovated, which were

778

951

6.3K

Brian Krassenstein @krassenstein · Mar 8
You can keep telling lies to your base, trying to convince them that you are
building the wall you promised Mexico would pay for, but as you lie you lose

278

176

2.2K

Brian Krassenstein @krassenstein · Mar 8
America is WAKING UP!
541

84

1.8K

Mitch Andresen @Mitch_Andresen · Mar 8

3

1

50

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:19-cv-00404-TNM Document 8-2 Filed 04/02/19 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:19-cv-00404-TNM Document 8-2 Filed 04/02/19 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:19-cv-00404-TNM Document 8-2 Filed 04/02/19 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:19-cv-00404-TNM Document 8-2 Filed 04/02/19 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:19-cv-00404-TNM Document 8-2 Filed 04/02/19 Page 5 of 5

Loren
Flossman

Digitally signed by Loren Flossman
DN: cn=Loren Flossman, o=Border
Wall PMO, ou=Portfolio Manager,
email=[e-mail]
v, c=US
Date: 2019.04.01 07:46:58 -04'00'

EXHIBIT

Here's Donald Trump's Presidential Announcement Speech

BY TIME STAFF JUNE 16, 2015

Wow. Whoa. That is some group of people. Thousands.
So nice, thank you very much. That’s really nice. Thank you. It’s great to be at
Trump Tower. It’s great to be in a wonderful city, New York. And it’s an honor
to have everybody here. This is beyond anybody’s expectations. There’s been
no crowd like this.
And, I can tell, some of the candidates, they went in. They didn’t know the airconditioner didn’t work. They sweated like dogs.
They didn’t know the room was too big, because they didn’t have anybody
there. How are they going to beat ISIS? I don’t think it’s gonna happen.
Our country is in serious trouble. We don’t have victories anymore. We used to
have victories, but we don’t have them. When was the last time anybody saw us
beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time.
All the time.
When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions,
and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It
doesn’t exist, folks. They beat us all the time.
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our
stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend,
believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

The Brief Newsletter
Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now. View Sample

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends
its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not
sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re
bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing
crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

SIGN UP NOW

According to the economists— who I’m not big believers in, but, nevertheless,
this is what they’re saying— that $24 trillion— we’re very close— that’s the
point of no return. $24 trillion. We will be there soon. That’s when we become
Greece. That’s when we become a country that’s unsalvageable. And we’re
gonna be there very soon. We’re gonna be there very soon.
So, just to sum up, I would do various things very quickly. I would repeal and
replace the big lie, Obamacare.
I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me,
and I’ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our
southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.
Mark my words.
Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump. Nobody.
I will find — within our military, I will find the General Patton or I will find
General MacArthur, I will find the right guy. I will find the guy that’s going to
take that military and make it really work. Nobody, nobody will be pushing us
around.
I will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And we won’t be using a man
like Secretary Kerry that has absolutely no concept of negotiation, who’s
making a horrible and laughable deal, who’s just being tapped along as they
make weapons right now, and then goes into a bicycle race at 72 years old, and
falls and breaks his leg. I won’t be doing that. And I promise I will never be in a
bicycle race. That I can tell you.
I will immediately terminate President Obama’s illegal executive order on
immigration, immediately.
Fully support and back up the Second Amendment.
Now, it’s very interesting. Today I heard it. Through stupidity, in a very, very
hard core prison, interestingly named Clinton, two vicious murderers, two
vicious people escaped, and nobody knows where they are. And a woman was
on television this morning, and she said, “You know, Mr. Trump,” and she was
telling other people, and I actually called her, and she said, “You know, Mr.
Trump, I always was against guns. I didn’t want guns. And now since this
happened”— it’s up in the prison area— “my husband and I are finally in
agreement, because he wanted the guns. We now have a gun on every table.
We’re ready to start shooting.”
I said, “Very interesting.”
So protect the Second Amendment.

Reduce our $18 trillion in debt, because, believe me, we’re in a bubble. We have
artificially low interest rates. We have a stock market that, frankly, has been
good to me, but I still hate to see what’s happening. We have a stock market
that is so bloated.
Be careful of a bubble because what you’ve seen in the past might be small
potatoes compared to what happens. So be very, very careful.
And strengthen our military and take care of our vets. So, so important.
Sadly, the American dream is dead.
But if I get elected president I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger
than ever before, and we will make America great again.
Thank you. Thank you very much.

Read next: How Donald Trump Stole Jeb Bush’s Moment
Listen to the most important stories of the day.
Contact us at [e-mail].

IDEAS

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We
welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

EXHIBIT

Donald J. Trump

Follow

@realDonaldTrump

New GOP platform now includes language
g g
that supports the border wall. W will b ild
p
We ill build
the wall and MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!
th
ll
2:56 PM - 13 Jul 2016
5,219 Retweets 15,838 Likes
2.0K

5.2K

16K

Mike @toneloque · 13 Jul 2016
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
#neverhillary #buildthewall #maga #nevertpp

4

24

Lori Patriot/Nationalist

30

@LiberatedCit · 13 Jul 2016

EXHIBIT 5

Donald J. Trump

Follow

@realDonaldTrump

Heroin overdoses are taking over our children
and others in the MIDWEST. Coming in from
g
our southern border. W need strong b d
We
d t
border
& WALL!
7:17 AM - 27 Aug 2016
10,288 Retweets 30,780 Likes
3.5K

10K

31K

This Tweet is unavailable

Mary Salesses Wright @StillWaiting_JH · 27 Aug 2016
Can't wait until November to vote this SOB out of existence @tkdmike
@realDonaldTrump
5

6

21

Patti Coppersmith @coppertime · 27 Aug 2016
If only voting him out wd get rid of him. I think his hateful big mouth is just
getting started.
3

2

9

Mary Salesses Wright @StillWaiting_JH · 27 Aug 2016
Hopefully he'll just be an insignificant blip on the radar of history @coppertime
@tkdmike @
2

1

3

Ellen Gray @Electro_Gal · 27 Aug 2016

2

EXHIBIT

Transcript of Donald Trump s
Immigration Speech
Sept. 1, 2016

Following is a transcript of the remarks by Donald J. Trump on immigration in Phoenix on
Wednesday, as transcribed by the Federal News Service.
TRUMP: Wow. Thank you. That’s a lot of people, Phoenix, that’s a lot of people.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Phoenix. I am so glad to be back in Arizona.
(APPLAUSE)
The state that has a very, very special place in my heart. I love people of Arizona and
together we are going to win the White House in November.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, you know this is where it all began for me. Remember that massive crowd also? So,
I said let’s go and have some fun tonight. We’re going to Arizona, O.K.?
This will be a little bit different. This won’t be a rally speech, per se. Instead, I’m going to
deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our country
today, illegal immigration.
(APPLAUSE)
I’ve just landed having returned from a very important and special meeting with the
president of Mexico, a man I like and respect very much. And a man who truly loves his
country, Mexico.

You have 4 free articles remaining.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE TIMES

While Hillary Clinton meets only with donors and lobbyists, my plan was crafted with the
input from Federal Immigration offices, very great people. Among the top immigration
experts anywhere in this country, who represent workers, not corporations, very
important to us.
I also worked with lawmakers, who’ve led on this issue on behalf of American citizens for
many years. And most importantly I’ve met with the people directly impacted by these
policies. So important.
Number one, are you ready? Are you ready?
(APPLAUSE)
We will build a great wall along the southern border.
(APPLAUSE)
AUDIENCE: Build the wall! Build the wall! Build the wall!
And Mexico will pay for the wall.
(APPLAUSE)
One hundred percent. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for it. And they’re
great people and great leaders but they’re going to pay for the wall.
On day one, we will begin working on an impenetrable, physical, tall, power, beautiful
southern border wall.
(APPLAUSE)
We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors that’s the
tunnels. Remember that, above and below.
(APPLAUSE)
Above and below ground sensors. Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to
supplement the wall, find and dislocate tunnels and keep out criminal cartels and Mexico
you know that, will work with us. I really believe it. Mexico will work with us. I
absolutely believe it. And especially after meeting with their wonderful, wonderful
president today. I really believe they want to solve this problem along with us, and I’m
sure they will.
(APPLAUSE)

I will get this done for you and for your family. We’ll do it right. You’ll be proud of our
country again. We’ll do it right. We will accomplish all of the steps outlined above. And,
when we do, peace and law and justice and prosperity will prevail. Crime will go down.
Border crossings will plummet. Gangs will disappear.
And the gangs are all over the place. And welfare use will decrease. We will have a peace
dividend to spend on rebuilding America, beginning with our American inner cities.
We’re going to rebuild them, for once and for all.
For those here illegally today, who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and
one route only. To return home and apply for reentry like everybody else, under the
rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above. Those who have
left to seek entry —
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Those who have left to seek entry under this new system — and
it will be an efficient system — will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to apply
for entry under the immigration caps or limits that will be established in the
future.TRUMP: We will break the cycle of amnesty and illegal immigration. We will
break the cycle. There will be no amnesty.
(APPLAUSE)
Our message to the world will be this. You cannot obtain legal status or become a citizen
of the United States by illegally entering our country. Can’t do it.
(APPLAUSE)
This declaration alone will help stop the crisis of illegal crossings and illegal overstays,
l
very importantly. People will know that you can’t just smuggle in, hunker down and wait
to be legalized. It’s not going to work that way. Those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)
Importantly, in several years when we have accomplished all of our enforcement and
deportation goals and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the
construction of a great wall, which we will have built in record time. And at a reasonable
cost, which you never hear from the government.
(APPLAUSE)
And the establishment of our new lawful immigration system then and only then will we

I want to thank Phoenix for the support you’ve always given me, and I want to tell you
what. I’m supporting the man who will — who is the only man who is going to save our
country, and what we our going to be leaving our children.
(APPLAUSE)
(SPEAKER’S VOICE): I’m Steve Ronnebeck, father of Grant Ronnebeck, 21 years old.
Killed January 22, 2015 by an illegal immigrant who shot him in the face. I truly believe
that Mr. Trump is going to change things. He’s going to fight for my family, and he’s
going to fight for America.
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: These are amazing people, and I am not asking for their endorsement, believe
me that. I just think I’ve gotten to know so many of them, and many more, from our
group. But they are incredible people and what they’re going through is incredible, and
there’s just no reason for it. Let’s give them a really tremendous hand.
(APPLAUSE)
That’s tough stuff, I will tell you. That is tough stuff. Incredible people.
So, now is the time for these voices to be heard. Now is the time for the media to begin
asking questions on their behalf. Now is the time for all of us as one country, Democrat,
Republican, liberal, conservative to band together to deliver justice, and safety, and
security for all Americans.
Let’s fix this horrible, horrible, problem. It can be fixed quickly. Let’s our secure our
border.
(APPLAUSE)
Let’s stop the drugs and the crime from pouring into our country. Let’s protect our social
security and Medicare. Let’s get unemployed Americans off the welfare and back to
work in their own country.
This has been an incredible evening. We’re going to remember this evening. November
8, we have to get everybody. This is such an important state. November 8 we have to get
everybody to go out and vote.
We’re going to bring — thank you, thank you. We’re going to take our country back,
folks. This is a movement. We’re going to take our country back.
Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
This is an incredible movement. The world is talking about it. The world is talking about
it and by the way, if you haven’t been looking to what’s been happening at the polls over
the last three or four days I think you should start looking. You should start looking.
(APPLAUSE)
Together we can save American lives, American jobs, and American futures. Together
we can save America itself. Join me in this mission, we’re going to make America great
again.
Thank you. I love you. God bless you, everybody. God bless you. God bless you, thank
you.
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via
Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.

EXHIBIT 7

REMARKS

Remarks by President Trump Before a Working
Lunch with Heads of the Baltic States
FOREIGN POLICY

Issued on: April 3, 2018

Cabinet Room
12:12 P.M. EDT
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, thank you very much. Today, it’s my pleasure to congratulate
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the 100th anniversary of their independence. That’s
really quite a great achievement, and congratulations. And I’m honored to have you with
us in the White House and the Oval Office. We covered a little territory today. Right?
Really tremendous. One hundred years.
We’re thrilled to celebrate this historic milestone by welcoming all of you to our country.
And I know you’ve been here a little bit before, but this is something special. So we really
enjoy having you.
From the very beginning of your countries’ independence, the United States never — and
this is, like, never — and I think you know that better than anybody — never ceased to
recognize the sovereignty of the three Baltic republics, even though, throughout the

Thank you very much for being here. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I have to say this: China. I have great respect for President Xi. Two of the most incredible
days of my life were spent in China, and many of you were with me. He’s a tremendous
person. But we have a problem with China. They’ve created a trade deficit, and I really
blame our representatives and, frankly, our preceding Presidents for this. We have a
trade deficit of $500 billion a year. It’s not something we can live with.
So we’ll be working with China. We’ll be negotiating with China. Again, our relationship
is very good with China, and we intend to keep it that way. But we have to do something
to seriously relieve that trade deficit. We can’t have a $500 billion-a-year trade deficit.
We also have the theft of intellectual property, and that probably is in the neighborhood
of $200 [billion] to $300 billion a year.
So whether we like it or not, we have a great stock market. We have a very, very powerful
country. We have our country, militarily, as you know, Presidents. We have just received
$700 billion. Our military will be stronger than ever before. But we have to do something
on trade with certain countries. And, obviously, China is the leader in terms of deficits.
We’ve never had a situation where a country — nor has there ever been in history a
situation where a country has done that to another country.
We’ve helped rebuild China over the last 25 years, if you take a look at what’s happened.
We have helped rebuild China. So we intend to get along with China, but we have to do
something very substantial about the trade deficit. And with that, nothing is easy. I
campaigned on that, I talked about that. China won’t be the only country, but I did, in
fact, campaign on it.
Mexico — if you look at the caravan of thousands of people coming across — I told
Mexico, look, you have a cash cow in NAFTA. NAFTA has been great for Mexico; it has not
been good for the United States. A lot of businesses have closed down because of

NAFTA. You look at empty plants all over the place — and this is from years ago — and
they still haven’t recovered. NAFTA has been a terrible deal for the United States. We’re
renegotiating the deal right now, but it will still be good for Mexico and for Canada.
And when this caravan came in — and this is a caravan of a lot of people coming in — in
this case, from Honduras. If it reaches our border, our laws are so weak and so pathetic,
you would not understand this because — I know how strong your laws are at the
border. It’s like we have no border because we had Obama make changes. President
Obama made changes that basically created no border. It’s called catch-and-release.
You catch them, you register them, they go into our country and we can’t throw them
out. And, in many cases, they shouldn’t be here. In many, many cases, they shouldn’t be
here. And after they get whatever happens over the next two or three years, they’re
supposed to come back to court. Almost nobody comes back to court. They’re in our
country, and we can’t do anything about it because the laws that were created by
Democrats are so pathetic and so weak.
So I told Mexico — and I respect what they did — I said, look, your laws are very powerful;
your laws are very strong. We have very bad laws for our border, and we are going to be
doing some things — I’ve been speaking with General Mattis — we’re going to be doing
things militarily. Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be
guarding our border with the military. That’s a big step. We really haven’t done that
before — certainly not very much before.
But we will be doing things with Mexico, and they have to do this, otherwise I’m not
going to do the NAFTA deal. NAFTA has been fantastic for Mexico, bad for us. We’ve had
our car plants moved to Mexico — many of them. We make tremendous numbers —
millions of cars in Mexico that years ago didn’t exist. They closed in Michigan, they
closed in Ohio, they closed in other places. Now they’re starting to move back. Because
of what we’ve done with regulation and with taxes, they’re starting to come back into
our country in a big way.

But I told Mexico very strongly: You’re going to have to do something about these
caravans that are coming up. And I just noticed that the caravan now, which is toward
the middle of Mexico coming up from Honduras, is breaking up very rapidly. That’s
because Mexico has very strong immigration laws, as we should have. We should have
those laws. We don’t have — we have immigration laws that are laughed at by
everybody. And it’s going to be changed. We need the wall, we need the protection, and
we have to change our immigration laws at the border and elsewhere.
So Mexico has — at this moment, it seems they’ve broken up large numbers of that
particular caravan. And we’ll see what happens. But we’re prepared at our border. We
cannot have people flowing into our country illegally, disappearing, and, by the way,
never showing up to court. So the court case will be set for two years or three years, if
you can believe this, and they never show up, for the most part. Very rarely do they show
up.
Plus, if you notice, they’re trying to hire thousands of judges so every person that walks
across — and they’re taught to say the right thing — they walk across, and then they go
and they’re supposed to go to court. So we’re supposed to have thousands of judges
because we cannot have them take it out. We have to bring them before a ridiculous
court system.
We have to change our policies fast — just like we have to change on sanctuary cities. If
you look at what’s happening in California, they’re having revolts out there because
there are a lot of areas — Orange County and others — they don’t want to have sanctuary
cities, which are guarding criminals.
So a lot of things are changing. But I’ve just heard that the caravan coming up from
Honduras is broken up, and Mexico did that. And they did it because, frankly, I said, “You
really have to do it.” We’re going to have a relationship with NAFTA. We’re going to have
to include security in NAFTA. So Mexico has very strong laws, and that’s the way it is. So
it looks like it’s been broken up. So that will be good.

not fair to the United States. It’s not fair to our taxpayers. And Amazon has the money to
pay the fair rate at the Post Office, which would be much more than they’re paying right
now.
The other thing is a lot of retail businesses all over the country are going out of business,
so that’s a different problem, and it’s a big problem. You have retailers all over the
United States that are going out of business. You look at some of these small towns
where they had a beautiful Main Street with stores — the stores are all gone. So that’s a
different problem that we’re going to have to talk about.
But if you look at the cost that we’re subsidizing — we’re giving a subsidy to Amazon.
And we’re talking about billions of dollars a year. The real cost. And a report just came
out; they said, $1.47, I believe, or about that — for every time they deliver a package, the
United States government — meaning, the Post Office — loses a $1.47. So Amazon is
going to have to pay much more money to the Post Office, there’s no doubt about that.
Thank you all very much. Thank you.
Q Scott Pruitt, sir? Do you support Scott Pruitt?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I hope he’s going to be great.
END
12:30 P.M. EDT

EXHIBIT

REMARKS

Remarks by President Trump in Joint Address
to Congress
Issued on: February 28, 2017

U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
9:09 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of
Congress, the First Lady of the United States — (applause) — and citizens of America:
Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are
reminded of our nation’s path towards civil rights and the work that still remains to be
done. (Applause.) Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of
Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while
we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in
condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms. (Applause.)
Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice in an unbroken
chain all the way down to the present. That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it
to light up the world. I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it

regulations must be eliminated. (Applause.) We’re going to stop the regulations that
threaten the future and livelihood of our great coal miners. (Applause.)
We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access
Pipelines — (applause) — thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs. And I’ve issued a
new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel. (Applause.)
We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership.
(Applause.) And with the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a
council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have
access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out
their financial dreams. (Applause.)
To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a Task Force on
Reducing Violent Crime. I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security
and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National
Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that
have spread all across our nation. (Applause.) We will stop the drugs from pouring into
our country and poisoning our youth, and we will expand treatment for those who have
become so badly addicted. (Applause.)
At the same time, my administration has answered the pleas of the American people for
immigration enforcement and border security. (Applause.) By finally enforcing our
immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of
dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. (Applause.) We want all
Americans to succeed, but that can’t happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We
must restore integrity and the rule of law at our borders. (Applause.)
For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great, great wall along our
southern border. (Applause.) As we speak tonight, we are removing gang members,
drug dealers, and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very

children learn in peace, and jobs where Americans prosper and grow are not too much to
ask. (Applause.)
When we have all of this, we will have made America greater than ever before — for all
Americans. This is our vision. This is our mission. But we can only get there together.
We are one people, with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the
same great American flag. And we all are made by the same God. (Applause.)
When we fulfill this vision, when we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom, we will
look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American Greatness began. The time
for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the
courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts, the bravery to express the hopes that
stir our souls, and the confidence to turn those hopes and those dreams into action.
From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears;
inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past; and guided by our vision,
not blinded by our doubts.
I am asking all citizens to embrace this renewal of the American spirit. I am asking all
members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold, and daring things for our
country. I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment. Believe in
yourselves, believe in your future, and believe, once more, in America.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States. (Applause.)
END
10:09 P.M. EST

EXHIBIT

REMARKS

Remarks by President Trump at the National
Rifle Association Leadership Forum
LAW & JUSTICE

Issued on: April 28, 2017

Georgia World Congress Center
Atlanta, Georgia
2:06 P.M. EDT
Thank you, Chris, for that kind introduction and for your tremendous work on behalf of
our Second Amendment. Thank you very much. (Applause.) I want to also thank Wayne
LaPierre for his unflinching leadership in the fight for freedom. Wayne, thank you very
much. Great. (Applause.)
I’d also like to congratulate Karen Handel on her incredible fight in Georgia 6.
(Applause.) The election takes place on June 20th. And, by the way, on primaries, let’s
not have 11 Republicans running for the same position, okay? (Laughter.) It’s too nerveshattering. She’s totally for the NRA and she’s totally for the Second Amendment. So get
out and vote. She’s running against someone who’s going to raise your taxes to the sky,
destroy your healthcare, and he’s for open borders — lots of crime, and he’s not even
able to vote in the district that he’s running in. Other than that, I think he’s doing a
fantastic job, right? (Laughter.) So get out and vote for Karen.

for them anymore. That’s a bad group. (Applause.) Not pleasant for MS-13. Get them
the hell out of here, right? Get them out.
(Applause.)
We are protecting the freedoms of law-abiding Americans, and we are going after the
criminal gangs and cartels that prey on our innocent citizens. And we are really going
after them. (Applause.)
As members of the NRA know well, some of the most important decisions a President can
make are appointments — and I’ve appointed people who believe in law, order, and
justice. (Applause.)
That is why I have selected as your Attorney General, number one, a really fine person, a
really good man, a man who has spent his career fighting crime, supporting the police,
and defending the Second Amendment. For the first time in a long time, you now have a
pro-Second-Amendment, tough-on-crime Attorney General, and his name is Jeff
Sessions. (Applause.)
And Attorney General Sessions is putting our priorities into action. He’s going after the
drug dealers who are peddling their poison all over our streets and destroying our youth.
He’s going after the gang members who threaten our children. And he’s fully enforcing
our immigration laws in all 50 states. And you know what? It’s about time. (Applause.)
Heading up the effort to secure America’s borders is a great military general, a man of
action: Homeland Security Director [sic], John Kelly. (Applause.)
Secretary Kelly, who used to be General Kelly, is following through on my pledge to
protect the borders, remove criminal aliens, and stop the drugs from pouring into our
country. We’ve already seen — listen to this; it never happened before, people can’t
even believe it. And, by the way, we will build the wall no matter how low this number
,
gets or how this goes. Don’t even think about it. Don’t even think about it. (Applause.)

I greatly appreciated your support on November 8th, in what will hopefully be one of the
most important and positive elections for the United States of all time. And to the NRA, I
can proudly say I will never, ever let you down.
Thank you. God Bless you. God Bless our Constitution, and God bless America.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)
END
2:35 P.M. EDT

EXHIBIT

President Trump Ranted For 77 Minutes in Phoenix. Here’s What
He Said

AUGUST 23, 2017

President Donald Trump on Tuesday lambasted his critics in a 77-minute
speech at a rally in Phoenix, as protesters gathered outside.
He attacked Arizona’s two Republican senators, though he didn’t directly name
either of them, and fired back at the widespread criticism of his remarks on the
clashes in Charlottesville, Va. Trump also hinted that he plans to pardon
former Sheriff Joe Arpaio and threatened to shut down the government over
funding for a Mexican border wall.
Trump tweeted about the rally Wednesday morning, calling the crowd
“amazing.”

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Phoenix crowd last night was amazing - a packed house. I love the
Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime &
border!
87.6K 6:20 AM - Aug 23, 2017
41.4K people are talking about this

Read his full remarks from the Phoenix rally below:

TRUMP: What a crowd.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And just so you know from the Secret Service, there aren’t too many people outside
protesting, OK. That I can tell you.

(APPLAUSE)

A lot of people in here, a lot of people pouring right now. They can get them in. Whatever
you can do, fire marshals, we’ll appreciate it.

TRUMP: And I want to thank our great vice president, Mike Pence, for the introduction.

(APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

But it was great. And I met with the Border Patrol and I met with ICE, and these are
incredible people; the job they do.

(APPLAUSE)

And in fact, General Kelly, who was in charge of Homeland Security, where people coming
in down 78 and almost 80 percent. He did so good, I made him my chief of staff, right? That
made sense.

John, where’s John? Where is he? Where’s General Kelly? Get him out here. He’s great. He’s
doing a great job.

But we did a lot before anything happened, we did a lot. We respect and cherish our ICE
officers and our Border Patrol agents, and we respect and cherish our police officers, and
our firemen, and all of our uniform services.

(APPLAUSE)

But during that visit, I heard first hand from the frontline agents about the security threats
they confront each and every day, and I pledged my continued resolve to them, and all of
you, to keep our country safe. All around the nation, I have spent time with the wonderful
Americans whose children were killed for the simple reason that our government failed to
enforce our immigration laws, already existing laws.

And I promised these families, the deaths of their loved ones will not have been in vain. I
promised them. I know so many of them.

(APPLAUSE)

One by one we are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminals who prey
on our people. We are throwing them out of the country or we’re putting the hell, fast in
jail.

(APPLAUSE)

We are cracking down on these sanctuary cities that shield criminal aliens, finally.

(APPLAUSE)

And we are building a wall on the southern border which is absolutely necessary.

(APPLAUSE)

CROWD: Build that wall! Build that wall! Build that wall!

(APPLAUSE)

This is our moment. This is our chance. This is our opportunity to recapture our dynasty
like never before, to rebuild our future, to deliver justice for every forgotten man and
woman and child in America.

Freedom will prevail, our values will endure, our citizens will prosper, Arizona will thrive,
and our beloved nation will succeed like never, ever before.

So to Americans young and old, near and far, in cities small and large, we say these words
again tonight: We will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again.
We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make
America great again.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you Arizona. God bless you. Thank you. Thank you.

Contact us at [e-mail].

EXHIBIT 1

Donald J. Trump

Follow

@realDonaldTrump

MS-13 gang members are being removed by
our Great ICE and Border Patrol Agents by the
thousands, but these killers come back in
from El Salvador, and through Mexico, like
water. El Salvador just takes our money, and
Mexico must help MORE with this problem.
p
We need The Wall!
3:28 AM - 23 Feb 2018
25,596 Retweets 117,302 Likes
22K

26K

117K

Dr. Scheidenberg @Dr_Scheidenberg · 24 Feb 2018
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Start building that Wall then. What are you doing all day long? Playing golf and
watching TV?
24

3

62

RC @droody · 24 Feb 2018

8

1

54

odalis rivas @ooodalisss · 24 Feb 2018

2

12

1 more reply
Robin Sinclair @RobinSinclair10 · 24 Feb 2018

EXHIBIT 1

Donald J. Trump

Follow

@realDonaldTrump

We shouldn’t be hiring judges by the
thousands, as our ridiculous immigration laws
demand, we should b changing our laws,
h ld be
building th W ll hire Border Agents and Ice
b ildi the Wall,
and not let people come into our country
based on the legal phrase they are told to say
as their password.
5:12 AM - 21 Jun 2018
25,659 Retweets 99,746 Likes
15K

26K

100K

Cheryl @Cherylmm2 · 22 Jun 2018
Replying to @realDonaldTrump @magickSword
American citizens are clear. We want the Wall fully funded! We want an end to
diversity lottery & chain migration. We want E-verify & true voter ID! In POTUS,
we have the only opportunity we are likely to have to save our country! We are
behind you!
8

11

51

Katherine Goetchius @KatherineGoetc1 · 22 Jun 2018
Hell yeah!
1

Peter Fox

11

@Peter_Fox59 · 22 Jun 2018

Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Here's a novel idea. How about helping Central American nations to lift their
living standards, employment & create incentives to stay instead imposing tariffs
& poverty.

EXHIBIT 1

REMARKS

Remarks by President Trump Before Marine
One Departure
Issued on: January 10, 2019

South Lawn
9:32 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: So, we’re going to Texas. We’re going to the border. Just spoke with
some of my friends in Arizona. We have tremendous support. The Republicans are
extremely united. They all want to see something happen, but they’re extremely united.
And I don’t think I’ve ever seen unity like this in the Republican Party.
The media — which I call the “opposition party,” a lot of the media — in coordination
with the Democrats, they’re not talking about the Democrats folding. For instance, this
morning, a number of people came out and said, “You do need very strong border
security, and that includes a wall or whatever it is.” A number of Democrats said that,
but people don’t like to report on it.
We have tremendous unity in the Republican Party. It’s really a beautiful thing to see. I
don’t think there will be any breakaway because they know we need border security and
we have to have it. And the only you’re going to have border security — there’s only way:
You can have all the technology in the world. I’m a professional at technology. But if you
don’t have a steel barrier or a wall of some kind — strong, powerful — you’re going to

Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t hear you.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: We have plenty of funds that. If there’s a national emergency, there’s a
lot of funds.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: If we declare a national emergency, we have a tremendous amount of
funds — tremendous — if we want to do that, if we want to go that route. Again, there is
no reason why we can’t come to a deal. But you have another side that doesn’t care
about border security. The Democrats — which I’ve been saying all along — they don’t
give a damn about crime. They don’t care about crime. They don’t care about gang
members coming in and stabbing people, and cutting people up. They don’t care about
crime.
And if they’re not going to care about crime, then I agree they shouldn’t do anything at
the border. But I care about crime and I care about drugs. We’re spending a fortune on
trying to stop drugs, and they pour in through the border. But I see it more now than
ever before. The Democrats don’t care about the border and they don’t care about
crime.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Say it? Say it?
Q This emergency on the border, this crisis, when did it begin?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, it began a long time. Ask President Obama. Obama used to call it a
,
crisis at the border, too. I think he said it in 2014.
Look, look. You can all play cute. And I say 80 percent of you are possibly in
coordination with the opposition party. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. All you
have to do is look at the border. Rent a helicopter — except you don’t want to know the
truth — and watch.
And, by the way, here’s the story: There is another major caravan forming right now in
Honduras. And so far — we’re trying to break it up. But so far, it’s bigger than anything
we’ve seen. And a drone isn’t going to stop it. And a sensor isn’t going to stop it. But
you know what’s going to stop it in its tracks? A nice, powerful wall.
Q Does the buck stop with you over this shutdown?
THE PRESIDENT: The buck stops with everybody. They could solve this problem in
literally 15 minutes. We could be back. We could have border security. They could stop
this problem in 15 minutes if they wanted to. I really believe now that they don’t want
to. I really believe that. I really believe that they don’t care about crime. I really believe
this. The Democrats don’t care about crime.
They’ve been taken over by a group of young people who, frankly, in some cases — I’ve
been watching — I actually think they’re crazy. But they’ve been taken over by a group
that is so far left. I really don’t think they care about crime. And, you know, sadly,
they’re viewing this as the beginning of the 2020 presidential race, and that’s okay with
me. But they have been taken over by a group of people that don’t care about gangs.
They don’t care about human trafficking and drugs. They don’t care about anything. I’ll
tell you what — they have gone crazy.
Q How much longer is this shutdown going to last?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish him luck. It’s going to be a beauty.
END

9:47 A.M. EST

EXHIBIT 1

II

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

S. 3713

To appropriate $25,000,000,000 for the construction of a border wall between
the United States and Mexico, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 5, 2018
Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL
To appropriate $25,000,000,000 for the construction of a
border wall between the United States and Mexico, and
for other purposes.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4
5

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘WALL Act of 2018’’.
SEC. 2. MANDATORY SPENDING FOR BORDER WALL.

6

(a)

IN

GENERAL.—There
—There

is

appropriated

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS

7 $
$25,000,000,000 for the purpose of constructing a phys8 ical barrier along the southern border of the United
9 S
States.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

01:53 Dec 07, 2018

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\S3713.IS

S3713

EXHIBIT 1

I

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 7073

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2019.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 19, 2018
Mr. BYRNE (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. BROOKS
of Alabama, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. FRANCIS ROONEY of Florida, Mr. BABIN,
Mr. BANKS of Indiana, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. NORMAN, Mr.
BIGGS, Mr. POSEY, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. DESJARLAIS, and
Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Homeland Security

A BILL
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2019.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘50 Votes for the Wall

5 Act’’.
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

6

SEC. 2. BORDER WALL AND SECURITY TRUST FUND.

7

(a) ESTABLISHMENT

OF

FUND.—There is estab-

8 lished a fund, to be known as the ‘‘Border Wall and Secu-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

20:20 Oct 19, 2018

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H7073.IH

H7073

2
1 rity Trust Fund’’, consisting of such amounts as may be
2 appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) to construct a
3 wall (including physical barriers and associated detection
4 technology, roads, and lighting) along the international
5 border between the United States and Mexico by January
6 19, 2021.
7

(b) APPROPRIATION

OF

AMOUNTS.—There is hereby
—There

8 appropriated to the Border Wall and Security Trust Fund
9 established under subsection (a), out of any money in the
10 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as the
11 Secretary of Homeland Security may request of the Sec12 retary of Treasury on or after October 1, 2018, up to a
13 total of $25,000,000,000, to remain available until ex14 pended to carry out the purpose described in subsection
15 (a).
16

(c) SUNSET.—The authority provided by this Act

17 shall terminate on September 30, 2028, and the unobli18 gated balance of any amounts in the Border Wall and Se19 curity Trust Fund on such date shall be returned to the
20 general fund of the Treasury.

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

Æ

•HR 7073 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

20:20 Oct 19, 2018

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6301

E:\BILLS\H7073.IH

H7073

EXHIBIT 1

I

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 7059

To fund construction of the southern border wall and to ensure compliance
with Federal immigration law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 12, 2018
Mr. MCCARTHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland
Security, Ways and Means, Armed Services, and the Budget, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned

A BILL
To fund construction of the southern border wall and to
ensure compliance with Federal immigration law.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Build the Wall, En-

5 force the Law Act of 2018’’.

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

6

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7

VerDate Sep 11 2014

04:16 Oct 17, 2018

Congress finds the following:

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H7059.IH

H7059

41
1

212(a)(2)(J) or section 237(a)(2)(G)

2

shall be eligible for any immigration

3

benefit under this subparagraph;’’.

4

(i)

PAROLE.—An

alien

described

in

section

5 212(a)(2)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
6 added by subsection (b), shall not be eligible for parole
7 under section 212(d)(5)(A) of such Act unless—
8

(1) the alien is assisting or has assisted the

9

United States Government in a law enforcement

10

matter, including a criminal investigation; and

11

(2) the alien’s presence in the United States is

12

required by the Government with respect to such as-

13

sistance.

14

(j) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
16 of this Act and shall apply to acts that occur before, on,
17 or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
18

SEC. 9. BORDER SECURITY FUNDING.

19

(a) FUNDING.—In addition to amounts otherwise

20 made available by this Act or any other provision of law,
21 there is hereby appropriated to the ‘‘U.S. Customs and
22 Border Protection—Procurement, Construction, and Im-

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

23 provements’’ account, out of any amounts in the Treasury
24 not otherwise appropriated, $23,400,000,000, to be avail25 able as described in subsections (b) and (c), of which—

•HR 7059 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

04:16 Oct 17, 2018

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H7059.IH

H7059

42
1

(1) $16,625,000,000 shall be for a border wall

2

system along the southern border of the United

3

States, including physical barriers and associated de-

4

tection technology, roads, and lighting; and

5

(2) $6,775,000,000 shall be for infrastructure,

6

assets, operations, and technology to enhance border

7

security along the southern border of the United

8

States, including—

9

(A) border security technology, including

10

surveillance technology, at and between ports of

11

entry;

12

(B) new roads and improvements to exist-

13

ing roads;

14

(C) U.S. Border Patrol facilities and ports

15

of entry;

16

(D) aircraft, aircraft-based sensors and as-

17

sociated technology, vessels, spare parts, and

18

equipment to maintain such assets;

19

(E) a biometric entry and exit system; and

20

(F) family residential centers.

21

(b) AVAILABILITY

OF

BORDER WALL SYSTEM

22 FUNDS.—

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

23
24

(1) IN

GENERAL.—Of

the amount appropriated

in subsection (a)(1)—

•HR 7059 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

04:16 Oct 17, 2018

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H7059.IH

H7059

46
1 House of Representatives regarding activities under and
2 progress made in carrying out this section.
3

(g) RULES

OF

CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec-

4 tion may be construed to limit the availability of funds
5 made available by any other provision of law for carrying
6 out the requirements of this Act or the amendments made
7 by this Act. Any reference in this section to an appropria8 tion account shall be construed to include any successor
9 accounts.
10

(h) DISCRETIONARY AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding

11 any other provision of law, the amounts appropriated
12 under subsection (a) are discretionary appropriations (as
13 that term is defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced
14 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
15 U.S.C. 900(c)(7)).
16

SEC. 10. EXCLUSION FROM PAYGO SCORECARDS.

17

The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered

18 on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to sec19 tion 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

Æ

•HR 7059 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

04:16 Oct 17, 2018

Jkt 089200

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6301

E:\BILLS\H7059.IH

H7059

EXHIBIT 1

I

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 6657

To establish a separate account in the Treasury to hold deposits to be
used to secure the southern border of the United States, and for other
purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AUGUST 7, 2018
Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. GAETZ,
Mr. DESJARLAIS, and Mr. NORMAN) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to
the Committees on Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Education and the Workforce, and Appropriations, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To establish a separate account in the Treasury to hold
deposits to be used to secure the southern border of
the United States, and for other purposes.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

4

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fund and Complete

5 the Border Wall Act’’.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

22:30 Aug 14, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6657.IH

H6657

2
1

SEC. 2. BORDER WALL TRUST FUND.

2

(a) ESTABLISHMENT

OF

FUND.—At the end of sub-

3 chapter III of chapter 33 of title 31, United States Code,
4 insert the following:
5 ‘‘§ 3344. Secure the Southern Border Fund.
6

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the

7 date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of the
8 Treasury shall establish an account in the Treasury of the
9 United States, to be known as the ‘Secure the Southern
10 Border Fund’, into which funds shall be deposited in ac11 cordance with the Fund and Complete the Border Wall
12 Act and the amendments made by that Act.
13

‘‘(b) APPROPRIATION.—Funds deposited in the Se-

14 cure the Southern Border Fund shall be available until
15 expended. Such funds are authorized to be appropriated,
16 and are appropriated, to the Secretary of Homeland Secu17 rity only—
18

‘‘(1) to plan, design, construct, or maintain a

19

barrier along the international border between the

20

United States and Mexico; and
‘‘(2) to purchase and maintain necessary vehi-

22

cles and equipment for U.S. Border Patrol agents.

23
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

21

‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Not more than 5 percent of the

24 funds deposited in the Secure the Southern Border Fund
25 may be used for the purpose described in subsection
26 (b)(2).’’.
•HR 6657 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

22:30 Aug 14, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6657.IH

H6657

7
1 essing U.S. Customs and Border Protection Form I–94
2 shall be allocated as follows:
3

(1) $6 shall be deposited in the Land Border

4

Inspection Fee Account and used in accordance with

5

such section 286(q).

6

(2) To the extent provided in advance in appro-

7

priations Acts, $10 shall be used for salaries for

8

U.S. Border Patrol agents.

9

(3) $9 shall be deposited in the Secure the

10

Southern Border Fund established by the amend-

11

ment made by section 2 of this Act.

12

SEC. 6. CONSTRUCTION OF BORDER WALL.

13

(a) IMPROVEMENT

OF

BARRIERS

AT

BORDER.—Sec-

14 tion 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immi15 grant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Division C of Public
16 Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended—
17

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol-

18

lows:

19

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31,

20 2019, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such
21 actions as may be necessary (including the removal of ob22 stacles to detection of illegal entrants) to design, test, con-

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

23 struct, and install physical barriers, roads, and technology
24 along the international land border between the United

•HR 6657 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

22:30 Aug 14, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6657.IH

H6657

8
1 States and Mexico to prevent illegal crossings in all
2 areas.’’;
areas.
a
3

(2) in subsection (b)—

4

(A) in paragraph (1)—

5

(i) in the paragraph heading, by strik-

6

ing ‘‘ADDITIONAL

7

‘‘FENCING’’;

8

FENCING’’

and inserting

(ii) by striking subparagraph (A) and

9

inserting the following:

10

‘‘(A) PHYSICAL

BARRIERS.—In

carrying

11

out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland

12

Security shall construct physical barriers, in-

13

cluding secondary barriers in locations where

14

there is already a fence, along the international

15

land border between the United States and

16

Mexico that will prevent illegal entry and will

17

assist in gaining operational control of the bor-

18

der (as defined in section 2(b) of the Secure

19

Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note; Public

20

109–367)).’’;
Law 109–367)).
(iii) by striking subparagraph (B) and

22

redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D)

23
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

21

as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respec-

24

tively;

•HR 6657 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

22:30 Aug 14, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6657.IH

H6657

14
1 the remainder of this Act, or an amendment made by this
2 Act, or the application of such provision to other persons
3 or circumstances, shall not be affected.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

Æ

•HR 6657 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

22:30 Aug 14, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6301

E:\BILLS\H6657.IH

H6657

EXHIBIT 1

I

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 6415

To provide for border security, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 18, 2018
Mr. FERGUSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committees on the
Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and Government
Reform, Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Armed Services, Natural Resources, the Budget, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To provide for border security, and for other purposes.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3
4

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘American Border Act’’.
6

(b) TABLE

OF

CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

7 this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I—BORDER SECURITY
Sec. 1101. Definitions.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:02 Jul 21, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6211

E:\BILLS\H6415.IH

H6415

125
1

or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or

2

both.

3

‘‘(3) If the injury or depredation was described

4

under paragraph (2) and, in the commission of the

5

offense, the offender used or carried a firearm or, in

6

furtherance of any such offense, possessed a firearm,

7

by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not

8

more than 20 years, or both.’’.

9
10
11
12

TITLE IV—BORDER SECURITY
FUNDING
SEC. 4101. BORDER SECURITY FUNDING.

(a) FUNDING.—In addition to amounts otherwise

13 made available by this Act or any other provision of law,
14 there is hereby appropriated to the ‘‘U.S. Customs and
15 Border Protection—Procurement, Construction, and Im16 provements’’ account, out of any amounts in the Treasury
17 not otherwise appropriated, $23,400,000,000, to be avail18 able as described in subsections (b) and (c), of which—
19

(1) $16,625,000,000 shall be for a border wall

20

system along the southern border of the United

21

States, including physical barriers and associated de-

22

tection technology, roads, and lighting; and

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

23

(2) $6,775,000,000 shall be for infrastructure,

24

assets, operations, and technology to enhance border

•HR 6415 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:02 Jul 21, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6415.IH

H6415

130
1

(g) RULES

OF

CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec-

2 tion may be construed to limit the availability of funds
3 made available by any other provision of law for carrying
4 out the requirements of this Act or the amendments made
5 by this Act. Any reference in this section to an appropria6 tion account shall be construed to include any successor
7 accounts.
8

(h) DISCRETIONARY AMOUNTS.—Notwithstanding

9 any other provision of law, the amounts appropriated
10 under subsection (a) are discretionary appropriations (as
11 that term is defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced
12 Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
13 U.S.C. 900(c)(7))).
14
15

SEC. 4102. EXCLUSION FROM PAYGO SCORECARDS.

The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered

16 on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to sec17 tion 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS

Æ

•HR 6415 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:02 Jul 21, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6301

E:\BILLS\H6415.IH

H6415

EXHIBIT 1

I

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 6136

To amend the immigration laws and provide for border security, and for
other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 19, 2018
Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. CURBELO of Florida, Mr. MCCAUL, and
Mr. DENHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Homeland Security, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Armed Services,
Foreign Affairs, the Budget, and Oversight and Government Reform, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To amend the immigration laws and provide for border
security, and for other purposes.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS

5 ‘‘Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018’’.
6

(b) TABLE

OF

CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

7 this Act is as follows:

VerDate Sep 11 2014

01:46 Jun 20, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6136.IH

H6136

152
1

‘‘(3) If the injury or depredation was described

2

under paragraph (2) and, in the commission of the

3

offense, the offender used or carried a firearm or, in

4

furtherance of any such offense, possessed a firearm,

5

by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not

6

more than 20 years, or both.’’.

TITLE V—BORDER SECURITY
FUNDING

7
8
9

SEC. 5101. BORDER SECURITY FUNDING.

10

(a) FUNDING.—In addition to amounts otherwise

11 made available by this Act or any other provision of law,
12 there is hereby appropriated to the ‘‘U.S. Customs and
13 Border Protection—Procurement, Construction, and Im14 provements’’ account, out of any amounts in the Treasury
15 not otherwise appropriated, $23,400,000,000, to be avail16 able as described in subsections (b) and (c), of which—
17

(1) $16,625,000,000 shall be for a border wall

18

system along the southern border of the United

19

States, including physical barriers and associated de-

20

tection technology, roads, and lighting; and
(2) $6,775,000,000 shall be for infrastructure,

22

assets, operations, and technology to enhance border

23
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS

21

security along the southern border of the United

24

States, including—

•HR 6136 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

01:46 Jun 20, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00152

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H6136.IH

H6136

EXHIBIT

I

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 4760

To amend the immigration laws and the homeland security laws, and for
other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 10, 2018
Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. LABRADOR, Ms. MCSALLY,
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. CARTER of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, Armed Services, Oversight and Government Reform, Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To amend the immigration laws and the homeland security
laws, and for other purposes.
1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS

5 ‘‘Securing America’s Future Act of 2018’’.
6

(b) TABLE

OF

CONTENTS.—The table of contents for

7 this Act is as follows:

VerDate Sep 11 2014

21:40 Jan 11, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H4760.IH

H4760

254
1

(11) UNMANNED

AERIAL VEHICLE.—The

term

2

‘‘unmanned aerial vehicle’’ has the meaning given

3

the term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ in section 331 of the

4

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public

5

Law 112–95; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note).

7

Subtitle A—Infrastructure and
Equipment

8

SEC. 1111. STRENGTHENING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BAR-

6

9
10

RIERS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and

11 Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Division C of Pub12 lic Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended—
13

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol-

14

lows:

15

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Se-

16 curity shall take such actions as may be necessary (includ17 ing the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal en18 trants) to design, test, construct, install, deploy, and oper19 ate physical barriers, tactical infrastructure, and tech20 nology in the vicinity of the United States border to
21 achieve situational awareness and operational control of
22 the border and deter, impede, and detect illegal activity

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS

areas.’’;
23 in high traffic areas.
24

(2) in subsection (b)—

•HR 4760 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

21:40 Jan 11, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00254

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H4760.IH

H4760

255
1

(A) in the subsection heading, by striking

2

‘‘FENCING

3

serting ‘‘PHYSICAL BARRIERS’’;
’

4

(B) in paragraph (1)—

5

AND

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS’’ and in-

(i) in subparagraph (A)—

6

(I) by striking ‘‘subsection (a)’’

7

and inserting ‘‘this section’’;

8

(II) by striking ‘‘roads, lighting,

9

cameras, and sensors’’ and inserting

10

‘‘tactical infrastructure, and tech-

11

nology’’; and

12

(III) by striking ‘‘gain’’ inserting

13

‘‘achieve situational awareness and’’;

14

and

15

(ii) by amending subparagraph (B) to

16

read as follows:

17

‘‘(B) PHYSICAL

18

INFRASTRUCTURE.—

19

‘‘(i) IN

BARRIERS AND TACTICAL

GENERAL.—Not

later than

September 30, 2022, the Secretary of

21

Homeland Security, in carrying out this

22

section, shall deploy along the United

23
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS

20

States border the most practical and effec-

24

tive physical barriers and tactical infra-

25

structure available for achieving situational

•HR 4760 IH
VerDate Sep 11 2014

21:40 Jan 11, 2018

Jkt 079200

PO 00000

Frm 00255

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\H4760.IH

H4760

EXHIBIT 2

REMARKS

Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and
House Speaker-Designate Nancy Pelosi
NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENSE

Issued on: December 11, 2018

Oval Office
11:40 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you very much. It’s a great honor to have Nancy Pelosi
with us and Chuck Schumer with us. And we’ve actually worked very hard on a couple of
things that are happening. Criminal justice reform — as you know, we’ve just heard word
— got word that Mitch McConnell and the group, we’re going to be putting it up for a
vote. We have great Democrat support, great Republican support. So, criminal justice
reform, something that people have been trying to get — how long, Nancy? Many years.
HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: A long time.
THE PRESIDENT: Many, many years. Looks like it’s going to be passing, hopefully —
famous last words — on a very bipartisan way. And it’s really something we’re all very
proud of. And again, tremendous support from Republicans and tremendous support

Chuck, did you want to say something?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Yeah. Here’s what I want to say: We have a lot of
disagreements here. The Washington Post today gave you a whole lot of Pinocchios
because they say you constantly misstate how much the wall is — how much of the wall
is built and how much is there.
But that’s not the point here. We have a disagreement about the wall —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Washington Post — (laughs) —
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: — whether it’s effective or it isn’t. Not on border
security, but on the wall.
We do not want to shut down the government. You have called 20 times to shut down
the government. You say, “I want to shut down the government.” We don’t. We want to
come to an agreement. If we can’t come to an agreement, we have solutions that will
pass the House and Senate right now, and will not shut down the government. And
that’s what we’re urging you to do. Not threaten to shut down the government —
THE PRESIDENT: Chuck —
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: — because you —
THE PRESIDENT: You don’t want to shut down the government, Chuck.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Let me just finish. Because you can’t get your
way.
THE PRESIDENT: Because the last time you shut it down you got killed.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We do.
THE PRESIDENT: See? We get along.
Thank you, everybody.
Q (Inaudible), Mr. President. You say border security and the wall. Can you have border
security without the wall? There’s a commonality on border security.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you need the wall. The wall is a part of border security.
Q Are you re-defining what it means to have border security?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. We need border security. The wall is a part of border security.
You can’t have very good border security without the wall, no.
HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: That’s simply not true. That is a political
promise. Border security is a way to effectively honor our responsibilities.
f
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: And the experts say you can do border security
without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn’t solve the problem.
THE PRESIDENT: It totally solves the problem.
HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: Again, but I don’t want to take this —
THE PRESIDENT: And it’s very important.
HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: Unfortunately, this has spiraled downward from
— we came at a place to say, “How do we meet the needs of American people who have

THE PRESIDENT: You know what I’ll say: Yes, if we don’t get what we want, one way or
the other — whether it’s through you, through a military, through anything you want to
call — I will shut down the government. Absolutely.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Okay. Fair enough. We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: And I am proud — and I’ll tell you what —
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck,
because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of
problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one
to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it
didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.
HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: That is (inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: And I’m going to shut it down for border security.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: But we believe you shouldn’t shut it down.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you very much everybody. Thank you.
HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE PELOSI: (Inaudible) shut down the government.
Q Chief of Staff?
Q Have you picked a Chief of Staff, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Yeah, we’re interviewing a lot of — we have a lot
of great people for Chief of Staff. A lot of people want the job. A lot of people want the

job. And I have some great people. A lot of friends of mine want it. A lot of people that
Chuck and Nancy know very well want it. I think people you’d like. We have a lot of
people that want the job — Chief of Staff. So we’ll be seeing what happens very soon.
We’re in no rush. We’re in no rush.
Q Why? Why no rush, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Why? Because we have a wonderful Chief of Staff right now. Just no —
we are in no rush. Over a period of a week or two, or maybe less, we’ll announce who it’s
going to be. But we have a lot of people that want the position.
Thank you very much everybody. Thanks.
END
11:58 A.M. EST

EXHIBIT 2

In the Senate of the United States,
December 19, 2018.
Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of
the House of Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 695), entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish a national
criminal history background check system and criminal history review program for certain individuals who, related to
their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes.’’, with the
following

SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
House amendment, insert the following:
1

DIVISION A—FURTHER ADDITIONAL

2

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

3

SEC. 101. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019

4 (division C of Public Law 115–245) is further amended—
5
6

(1) by striking the date specified in section
105(3) and inserting ‘‘February 8, 2019’’; and

2
1

(2) by adding after section 136 the following:

2

‘‘SEC. 137. Notwithstanding section 251(a)(1) of the

3 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
4 1985 and the timetable in section 254(a) of such Act, the
5 final sequestration report for fiscal year 2019 pursuant to
6 section 254(f)(1) of such Act and any order for fiscal year
7 2019 pursuant to section 254(f)(5) of such Act shall be
8 issued, for the Congressional Budget Office, 10 days after
9 the date specified in section 105(3), and for the Office of
10 Management and Budget, 15 days after the date specified
11 in section 105(3).
12

‘‘SEC. 138. The authority provided under title XXI of

13 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 621 et seq.),
14 as amended by section 2(a) of the Protecting and Securing
15 Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014
16 (Public Law 113–254), shall continue in effect through the
17 date specified in section 105(3).
18

‘‘SEC. 139. Section 319L(e)(1)(A) of the Public Health

19 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–7e(e)(1)(A)) shall continue in
20 effect through the date specified in section 105(3) of this
21 Act.
22

‘‘SEC. 140. Section 405(a) of the Pandemic and All-

23 Hazards Preparedness Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–6a note) shall
24 continue in effect through the date specified in section
25 105(3) of this Act.’’.

† HR 695 EAS2

3
1

This division may be cited as the ‘‘Further Additional

2 Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019’’.

4

DIVISION B—MEDICAID
EXTENDERS

5

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF MONEY FOLLOWS THE PERSON RE-

3

6
7

BALANCING DEMONSTRATION.

(a) GENERAL FUNDING.—Section 6071(h) of the Def-

8 icit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 1396a note) is
9 amended—
10

(1) in paragraph (1)—

11
12

(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘and’’
after the semicolon;

13
14

(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the
period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

15

(C) by adding at the end the following:

16

‘‘(F) subject to paragraph (3), $112,000,000

17

for fiscal year 2019.’’;

18

(2) in paragraph (2)—

19

(A) by striking ‘‘Amounts made’’ and in-

20

serting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (3), amounts

21

made’’; and

22

(B) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2016’’ and

23

inserting ‘‘September 30, 2021’’; and

24

(3) by adding at the end the following new para-

25

graph:

† HR 695 EAS2

4
1

‘‘(3) SPECIAL

RULE FOR FY

2019.—Funds ap-

2

propriated under paragraph (1)(F) shall be made

3

available for grants to States only if such States have

4

an approved MFP demonstration project under this

5

section as of December 31, 2018.’’.

6

(b) FUNDING FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVE-

7

MENT;

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; OVERSIGHT.—Section

8 6071(f) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
9 1396a note) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and in10 serting the following:
11

‘‘(2) FUNDING.—From the amounts appropriated

12

under subsection (h)(1)(F) for fiscal year 2019,

13

$500,000 shall be available to the Secretary for such

14

fiscal year to carry out this subsection.’’.

15

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 6071(b) of the

16 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 1396a note) is
17 amended by adding at the end the following:
18
19

‘‘(10) SECRETARY.—The term ‘Secretary’ means
the Secretary of Health and Human Services.’’.

20

SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF PROTECTION FOR MEDICAID RE-

21

CIPIENTS OF HOME AND COMMUNITY-BASED

22

SERVICES AGAINST SPOUSAL IMPOVERISH-

23

MENT.

24

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2404 of Public Law 111–

25 148 (42 U.S.C. 1396r–5 note) is amended by striking ‘‘the

† HR 695 EAS2

5
1 5-year period that begins on January 1, 2014,’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘the period beginning on January 1, 2014, and ending
3 on March 31, 2019,’’.
4
5

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—
(1) PROTECTING

STATE SPOUSAL INCOME AND

6

ASSET DISREGARD FLEXIBILITY UNDER WAIVERS AND

7

PLAN AMENDMENTS.—Nothing

8

lic Law 111–148 (42 U.S.C. 1396r–5 note) or section

9

1924 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–5)

10

shall be construed as prohibiting a State from dis-

11

regarding an individual’s spousal income and assets

12

under a State waiver or plan amendment described

13

in paragraph (2) for purposes of making determina-

14

tions of eligibility for home and community-based

15

services or home and community-based attendant

16

services and supports under such waiver or plan

17

amendment.

18

(2) STATE

in section 2404 of Pub-

WAIVER OR PLAN AMENDMENT DE-

19

SCRIBED.—A

20

scribed in this paragraph is any of the following:

State waiver or plan amendment de-

21

(A) A waiver or plan amendment to provide

22

medical assistance for home and community-

23

based services under a waiver or plan amend-

24

ment under subsection (c), (d), or (i) of section

25

1915 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

† HR 695 EAS2

6
1

1396n) or under section 1115 of such Act (42

2

U.S.C. 1315).

3

(B) A plan amendment to provide medical

4

assistance for home and community-based serv-

5

ices for individuals by reason of being deter-

6

mined eligible under section 1902(a)(10)(C) of

7

such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)) or by rea-

8

son of section 1902(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

9

1396a(f)) or otherwise on the basis of a reduction

10

of income based on costs incurred for medical or

11

other remedial care under which the State dis-

12

regarded the income and assets of the individ-

13

ual’s spouse in determining the initial and ongo-

14

ing financial eligibility of an individual for such

15

services in place of the spousal impoverishment

16

provisions applied under section 1924 of such

17

Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–5).

18

(C) A plan amendment to provide medical

19

assistance for home and community-based at-

20

tendant services and supports under section

21

1915(k) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396n(k)).

† HR 695 EAS2

7
1

SEC. 103. REDUCTION IN FMAP AFTER 2020 FOR STATES

2
3

WITHOUT ASSET VERIFICATION PROGRAM.

Section 1940 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

4 1396w) is amended by adding at the end the following new
5 subsection:
6

‘‘(k) REDUCTION

IN

FMAP AFTER 2020

FOR

NON-

7 COMPLIANT STATES.—
8

‘‘(1) IN

GENERAL.—With

respect to a calendar

9

quarter beginning on or after January 1, 2021, the

10

Federal medical assistance percentage otherwise deter-

11

mined under section 1905(b) for a non-compliant

12

State shall be reduced—

13
14

‘‘(A) for calendar quarters in 2021 and
2022, by 0.12 percentage points;

15
16

‘‘(B) for calendar quarters in 2023, by 0.25
percentage points;

17
18

‘‘(C) for calendar quarters in 2024, by 0.35
percentage points; and

19

‘‘(D) for calendar quarters in 2025 and

20

each year thereafter, by 0.5 percentage points.

21

‘‘(2)

NON-COMPLIANT

STATE

DEFINED.—For

22

purposes of this subsection, the term ‘non-compliant

23

State’ means a State—

24
25

‘‘(A) that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia;

† HR 695 EAS2

8
1

‘‘(B) with respect to which the Secretary

2

has not approved a State plan amendment sub-

3

mitted under subsection (a)(2); and

4

‘‘(C) that is not operating, on an ongoing

5

basis, an asset verification program in accord-

6

ance with this section.’’.

7
8

SEC. 104. MEDICAID IMPROVEMENT FUND.

Section 1941(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42

9 U.S.C.

1396w–1(b)(1))

is

amended

by

striking

10 ‘‘$31,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$6,000,000’’.
11
12

SEC. 105. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

(a) STATUTORY PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary

13 effects of this division shall not be entered on either PAYGO
14 scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statu15 tory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)).
16

(b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary ef-

17 fects of this division shall not be entered on any PAYGO
18 scorecard maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H.
19 Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress).
20

(c) CLASSIFICATION

OF

BUDGETARY EFFECTS.—Not-

21 withstanding Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines
22 set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee
23 of conference accompanying Conference Report 105–217
24 and section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emer-

† HR 695 EAS2

9
1 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the budgetary effects of
2 this division shall not be estimated—
3

(1) for purposes of section 251 of such Act; and

4

(2) for purposes of paragraph (4)(C) of section

5

3 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 as

6

being included in an appropriation Act.

7

(d) PAYGO ANNUAL REPORT.—For the purposes of

8 the annual report issued pursuant to section 5 of the Statu9 tory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 934) after ad10 journment of the second session of the 115th Congress, and
11 for determining whether a sequestration order is necessary
12 under such section, the debit for the budget year on the 513 year scorecard, if any, and the 10-year scorecard, if any,
14 shall be deducted from such scorecard in 2019 and added
15 to such scorecard in 2020.
Attest:

Secretary.

† HR 695 EAS2

115TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H.R. 695

SENATE AMENDMENT TO
HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT

EXHIBIT 2

The Washington Post

Business

Trump says he won’t sign Senate deal to avert shutdown, demands funds for border security
By Erica Werner ,
Damian Paletta and
Mike DeBonis
December 21, 2018

President Trump threatened Thursday to veto a stopgap spending bill unless it includes billions of
dollars to build a wall along the border with Mexico, sending large parts of the federal government
lurching toward a shutdown starting Saturday.
His comments came after an emergency meeting with House Republican leaders, where Trump revealed
he would reject a measure passed in the Senate the night before. That measure would fund many
government agencies through Feb. 8, but it would not include any new money for Trump’s border wall.
“I’ve made my position very clear. Any measure that funds the government must include border
security,” Trump said in an event at the White House. He added, “Walls work, whether we like it or not.
T
They work better than anything.”
Trump’s comments on Thursday completely overturned the plan GOP leaders were patching together
earlier in the day. With no other viable options available, they had hoped to pass the short-term
spending bill approved by the Senate, averting a government shutdown set to start days before
Christmas.
Many lawmakers had expected Trump to grudgingly accept the stopgap measure with Republicans
about to lose their majority in the House, and his rejection set off a chaotic day in the Capitol.
House Republican leaders hurried to appease the president, pulling together a bill that would keep the
government funded through Feb. 8 while also allocating $5.7 billion for the border wall. The House bill
also included nearly $8 billion for disaster relief for hurricanes and wildfires.
The legislation passed the House on a near-party-line vote of 217 to 185 Thursday night, over strident
objections from Democrats who criticized the wall as immoral and ineffective and declared the
legislation dead on arrival in the Senate. No Democrats voted for the House measure, and eight
Republicans voted against it.
In a late-night tweet, Trump thanked “our GREAT Republican Members of Congress” for the vote,
adding: “Now on to the Senate!”
Trump also mocked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said in an Oval Office meeting
last week that she did not think Trump could corral the votes to pass a spending bill with his requested
wall funding.
“Nancy does not have to apologize. All I want is GREAT BORDER SECURITY!” Trump wrote.
Barely 24 hours away from a shutdown set to start at the end of Friday, the House vote only hardened
Washington’s budget impasse: Democrats have the Senate votes to block any bill that includes funding
for Trump’s wall, and Trump says he’ll veto any bill that doesn’t.
The chances of a shutdown are “certainly higher than they were this morning,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
said after Thursday night’s House vote.
Funding for roughly 25 percent of the federal agencies whose budgets rely on Congress will expire at the
end of Friday. The agencies affected deal with homeland security, law enforcement, national parks,
transportation and housing, among others.
The rest of the government, including the military, would not be affected, as it’s funded through
September by bills lawmakers passed earlier this year.

The impacted agencies would continue to perform some of their functions, but more than 100,000
employees are expected to be sent home without pay.
The White House hasn’t yet revealed the full impact of a partial shutdown, as it is up to each agency to
implement its own plan. But it is clear the effects would be widespread: Close to 80,000 Internal
Revenue Service employees would no longer come into work, and national parks that are locked at night
would not reopen in the morning.
It can occasionally take several days for the full impact of a shutdown to kick in, and some agencies
could remain open on Saturday but close by Monday.
Numerous agencies would be affected immediately, and some on Thursday seemed unprepared for the
brinkmanship.
Officials from the Smithsonian Institution, Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate National Park and Gateway
Arch either said they weren’t sure whether they would be open Saturday or didn’t respond to requests
for comment.
A government shutdown could drag on for days or weeks, as Democrats have shown no willingness to
budge from their refusal to finance a wall. Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in
early January, giving them even more leverage in negotiations.
As Thursday night wore on, a partial government shutdown began to appear all but inevitable to many
on Capitol Hill, though House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) insisted that “there’s still
plenty of time” to avoid one.
“I think you’ll find that we’ll be able to move forward and make sure we keep the government open,”
McCarthy said after returning from the White House. “And also we believe we need border security.”
But the path forward was far from clear, and the 115th Congress threatened to end on a bitter note of
dysfunction as House conservatives, who’ve waged numerous futile battles over the years, picked one
last fight before sinking into the minority, this time backed up by the president.
Trump is scheduled to leave Friday afternoon for two weeks in Florida, but it was unclear whether he
would do so amid a partial government shutdown.
He has repeatedly threatened a government shutdown since taking office, telling advisers it would be
good politics for Republicans to demonstrate their resolve in building a border wall.
But many in the party saw it as impractical and have repeatedly worked to persuade the president to
keep the government open. Trump was prepared for a shutdown this fall, but GOP leaders, fearful of a
government closure weeks before the midterm elections, convinced him to sign legislation extending
funding through December — in part by promising to fight for wall money at the next budget deadline.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday warned Republicans they may have to
return for a vote Friday. But it’s impossible for McConnell to pass a spending bill without support from
Democrats, who have locked arms in opposition to any money for a border wall.
Trump’s opposition to the short-term deal brings him full-circle. Last week, he told Pelosi, who is
expected to return as House speaker in January, and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer
(D-N.Y.) that he would be “proud” to shut the government down if he did not get the $5 billion for the
wall.
On Tuesday, when it became clear that Trump did not have enough support in Congress for the
$5 billion, the White House began backing down from the ultimatum. White House press secretary
Sarah Sanders said Trump would find other ways to fund the construction of the wall.
On Wednesday, Trump wrote in a tweet that the military would build it, though a number of budget
experts said that would be illegal, as money can’t be redirected without Congress’s approval.

When Trump appeared to be backing down, conservative media outlets and Congress’s most
conservative members revolted, demanding the president rethink his decision. By Thursday, Trump was
back to demanding his wall and insisting the money come from Congress.
Conservatives including members of the House Freedom Caucus encouraged the president to take a
hard-line stance, arguing this was his last opportunity to try to extract any money for the wall.
“We have to fight now or America will never believe we’ll fight,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told
Republicans at a closed-door meeting Thursday.
“The time to fight is now. I mean, this is stupid,” said Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.).
As GOP leaders moved to adjust to Trump’s shifting stances, Democrats ridiculed the spectacle, even as
they repeated promises that they would provide no money for Trump’s wall.
“I don’t know that anyone ever has any assurances from the White House on any subject including this
one,” said Pelosi. “We’re right in the middle of a sort of a meltdown on the part of Republicans.”
The construction of a wall along the Mexican border was one of Trump’s top campaign promises in
2016, and he vowed to somehow make Mexico pay for it all. Since he won the election, he has demanded
the money come from Congress, seeking between $1.6 billion and $5 billion. At one point, he even
insisted Democrats give him $25 billion for the wall.
In tweets early Thursday, Trump had ripped Democrats and promised to fight for wall funding but still
appeared ready to sign a measure to keep the government open. He claimed his initiatives to move more
agents along the Mexican border had made it “tight” and said he would not support infrastructure
legislation next year unless Democrats eventually agree to finance the construction of a wall.
“Remember the Caravans?” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Well, they didn’t get through and none are
forming or on their way. Border is tight. Fake News silent!”
The government’s Department of Homeland Security painted a much different picture of the situation
just a few weeks ago. It reported that the number of people arrested or detained along the Mexico border
reached a new high for the Trump presidency in November, as arrests of juveniles and parents with
children continued to rise. U.S. Customs and Border Protection detained 25,172 members of “family
units” in November, the highest number ever recorded.
Last week, Trump said terrorists were crossing the U.S. border and he also offered the unfounded claim
that people with contagious diseases were entering the country. At Trump’s meeting with Pelosi and
Schumer, the president said he would take responsibility for a government shutdown, upsetting many
Republicans who had wanted to blame Democrats for any impasse.
Seung Min Kim, John Wagner, Josh Dawsey, Paul Kane and Sean Sullivan contributed to this report.

Erica Werner
Erica Werner has worked at The Washington Post since 2017, covering Congress with a focus on economic policy. Previously, she worked at the Associated Press for more than 17 y

Damian Paletta
Damian Paletta is White House economic policy reporter for The Washington Post. Before joining The Post, he covered the White House for the Wall Street Journal. Follow

Mike DeBonis
Mike DeBonis covers Congress, with a focus on the House, for The Washington Post. He previously covered D.C. politics and government from 2007 to 2015. Follow

Our journalism keeps watch on Washington and the world.
Try 1 month for $10 $1
Send me this offer
Already a subscriber? Sign in

EXHIBIT 2

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
December 20, 2018.
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 695) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend
the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish a national criminal history background check system and criminal
history review program for certain individuals who, related to
their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes.’’, with the
following

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE
AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
Senate, insert the following:
1

DIVISION A—FURTHER ADDITIONAL

2

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

3

SEC. 101. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019

4 (division C of Public Law 115–245) is further amended—
5
6

(1) by striking the date specified in section
105(3) and inserting ‘‘February 8, 2019’’; and

7

(2) by adding after section 136 the following:

8

‘‘SEC. 137. Notwithstanding section 251(a)(1) of the

9 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
10 1985 and the timetable in section 254(a) of such Act, the

2
1 final sequestration report for fiscal year 2019 pursuant to
2 section 254(f)(1) of such Act and any order for fiscal year
3 2019 pursuant to section 254(f)(5) of such Act shall be
4 issued, for the Congressional Budget Office, 10 days after
5 the date specified in section 105(3), and for the Office of
6 Management and Budget, 15 days after the date specified
7 in section 105(3).
8

‘‘SEC. 138. The authority provided under title XXI of

9 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 621 et seq.),
10 as amended by section 2(a) of the Protecting and Securing
11 Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014
12 (Public Law 113–254), shall continue in effect through the
13 date specified in section 105(3).
14

‘‘SEC. 139. Section 319L(e)(1)(A) of the Public Health

15 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–7e(e)(1)(A)) shall continue in
16 effect through the date specified in section 105(3) of this
17 Act.
18

‘‘SEC. 140. Section 405(a) of the Pandemic and All

19 Hazards Preparedness Act (42 U.S.C. 247d–6a note) shall
20 continue in effect through the date specified in section
21 105(3) of this Act.
22

‘‘SEC. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of

23 this Act, there is appropriated for ‘U.S. Customs and Bor24 der Protection—Procurement, Construction, and Improve-

•HR 695 EAH2

3
1 ments’ $5,710,357,000 for fiscal year 2019, to remain avail2 able until September 30, 2023.
3

‘‘SEC. 142. Notwithstanding section 101, section 230

4 of division F of Public Law 115–141 shall not apply to
5 amounts made available by this Act.’’.
6

This division may be cited as the ‘‘Further Additional

7 Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019’’.
8
9
10

DIVISION B—MEDICAID
EXTENDERS
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF MONEY FOLLOWS THE PERSON RE-

11
12

BALANCING DEMONSTRATION.

(a) GENERAL FUNDING.—Section 6071(h) of the Def-

13 icit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 1396a note) is
14 amended—
15

(1) in paragraph (1)—

16
17

(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘and’’
after the semicolon;

18
19

(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the
period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

20

(C) by adding at the end the following:

21

‘‘(F) subject to paragraph (3), $112,000,000

22

for fiscal year 2019.’’;

23

(2) in paragraph (2)—

•HR 695 EAH2

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

Rose Garden
2:17 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. My fellow Americans, I am very proud to
announce today that we have reached a deal to end the shutdown and re-open the
federal government. (Applause.) As everyone knows, I have a very powerful
alternative, but I didn’t want to use it at this time. Hopefully it will be unnecessary.
I want to thank all of the incredible federal workers, and their amazing families, who
have shown such extraordinary devotion in the face of this recent hardship. You are
fantastic people. You are incredible patriots. Many of you have suffered far greater
than anyone, but your families would know or understand. And not only did you not
complain, but in many cases you encouraged me to keep going because you care so
much about our country and about its border security.
Again, I thank you. All Americans, I thank you. You are very, very special people. I
am so proud that you are citizens of our country. When I say “Make America Great
Again,” it could never be done without you. Great people.
In a short while, I will sign a bill to open our government for three weeks until
February 15th. I will make sure that all employees receive their back pay very quickly,
or as soon as possible. It’ll happen fast. I am asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell to put this proposal on the floor immediately.
After 36 days of spirited debate and dialogue, I have seen and heard from enough
Democrats and Republicans that they are willing to put partisanship aside — I think
— and put the security of the American people first. I do believe they’re going to do
that. They have said they are for complete border security, and they have finally and
fully acknowledged that having barriers, fencing, or walls — or whatever you want to
call it — will be an important part of the solution.
A bipartisan Conference Committee of House and Senate lawmakers and leaders will
immediately begin reviewing the requests of our Homeland Security experts — and
experts they are — and also law enforcement professionals, who have worked with us
so closely. We want to thank Border Patrol, ICE, and all law enforcement. Been
incredible. (Applause.)
Based on operational guidance from the experts in the field, they will put together a
Homeland Security package for me to shortly sign into law.
Over the next 21 days, I expect that both Democrats and Republicans will operate in
good faith. This is an opportunity for all parties to work together for the benefit of
our whole beautiful, wonderful nation.
If we make a fair deal, the American people will be proud of their government for
proving that we can put country before party. We can show all Americans, and people
all around the world, that both political parties are united when it comes to protecting

our country and protecting our people.
Many disagree, but I really feel that, working with Democrats and Republicans, we
can make a truly great and secure deal happen for everyone.
Walls should not be controversial. Our country has built 654 miles of barrier over the
last 15 years, and every career Border Patrol agent I have spoken with has told me
that walls work. They do work. No matter where you go, they work. Israel built a
wall — 99.9 percent successful. Won’t be any different for us.
They keep criminals out. They save good people from attempting a very dangerous
journey from other countries — thousands of miles — because they think they have a
glimmer of hope of coming through. With a wall, they don’t have that hope. They
keep drugs out, and they dramatically increase efficiency by allowing us to patrol far
larger areas with far fewer people. It’s just common sense. Walls work.
That’s why most of the Democrats in Congress have voted in the past for bills that
include walls and physical barriers and very powerful fences. The walls we are
building are not medieval walls. They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of
frontline border agents, and are operationally effective. These barriers are made of
steel, have see-through visibility, which is very important, and are equipped with
sensors, monitors, and cutting-edge technology, including state-of-the-art drones.
We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea — we never did;
we never proposed that; we never wanted that — because we have barriers at the
border where natural structures are as good as anything that we can build. They’re
already there. They’ve been there for millions of years.
Our proposed structures will be in pre-determined high-risk locations that have been
specifically identified by the Border Patrol to stop illicit flows of people and drugs.
No border security plan can ever work without a physical barrier. Just doesn’t
happen.
At the same time, we need to increase drug detection technology and manpower to
modernize our ports of entry, which are obsolete. The equipment is obsolete. They’re
old. They’re tired. This is something we have all come to agree on, and will allow for
quicker and safer commerce. These critical investments will improve and facilitate
legal trade and travel through our lawful ports of entry.
Our plan also includes desperately needed humanitarian assistance for those being
exploited and abused by coyotes, smugglers, and the dangerous journey north.
The requests we have put before Congress are vital to ending the humanitarian and
security crisis on our southern border. Absolutely vital. Will not work without it.
This crisis threatens the safety of our country and thousands of American lives.
Criminal cartels, narco-terrorists, transnational gangs like MS-13, and human
traffickers are brazenly violating U.S. laws and terrorizing innocent communities.
Human traffickers — the victims are women and children. Maybe to a lesser extent,
believe or not, children. Women are tied up. They’re bound. Duct tape put around
their faces, around their mouths. In many cases, they can’t even breathe. They’re put
in the backs of cars or vans or trucks. They don’t go through your port of entry. They
make a right turn going very quickly. They go into the desert areas, or whatever areas

you can look at. And as soon as there’s no protection, they make a left or a right into
the United States of America. There’s nobody to catch them. There’s nobody to find
them.
They can’t come through the port, because if they come through the port, people will
see four women sitting in a van with tape around their face and around their mouth.
Can’t have that.
And that problem, because of the Internet, is the biggest problem — it’s never been
like this before — that you can imagine. It’s at the worst level — human trafficking —
in the history of the world. This is not a United States problem; this is a world
problem. But they come through areas where they have no protection, where they
have no steel barriers, where they have no walls. And we can stop almost 100 percent
of that.
The profits reaped by these murderous organizations are used to fund their malign
and destabilizing conduct throughout this hemisphere.
Last year alone, ICE officers removed 10,000 known or suspected gang members, like
MS-13 and members as bad as them. Horrible people. Tough. Mean. Sadistic. In
the last two years, ICE officers arrested a total of 266,000 criminal aliens inside of the
United States, including those charged or convicted of nearly 100,000 assaults,
30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 homicides or, as you would call them, violent, vicious
killings. It can be stopped.
Vast quantities of lethal drugs — including meth, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine — are
smuggled across our southern border and into U.S. schools and communities. Drugs
kill much more than 70,000 Americans a year and cost our society in excess of $700
billion.
The sheer volume of illegal immigration has overwhelmed federal authorities and
stretched our immigration system beyond the breaking point. Nearly 50 migrants a
day are being referred for medical assistance — they are very, very sick — making this
a health crisis as well. It’s a very big health crisis. People have no idea how big it is,
unless you’re there.
Our backlog in the immigration courts is now far greater than the 800,000 cases that
you’ve been hearing about over the last couple of years. Think of that, though:
800,000 cases because our laws are obsolete. So obsolete. They’re the laughing stock
all over the world. Our immigration laws, all over the world — they’ve been there for
a long time — are the laughing stock, all over the world.
We do not have the necessary space or resources to detain, house, vet, screen, and
safely process this tremendous influx of people. In short, we do not have control over
who is entering our country, where they come from, who they are, or why they are
coming.
The result, for many years, is a colossal danger to public safety. We’re going to
straighten it out. It’s not hard. It’s easy, if given the resources.
Last month was the third straight month in a row with 60,000 apprehensions on our
southern border. Think of that. we apprehended 60,000 people. That’s like a
stadium full of people. A big stadium.

There are many criminals being apprehended, but vast numbers are coming because
our economy is so strong. We have the strongest economy now in the entire world.
You see what’s happening. We have nowhere left to house them and no way to
promptly remove them. We can’t get them out because our laws are so obsolete, so
antiquated, and so bad.
Without new resources from Congress, we will be forced to release these people into
communities — something we don’t want to do — called catch-and-release. You catch
them. Even if they are criminals, you then release them. And you can’t release them
from where they came, so they go into our country and end up in places you would
least suspect. And we do as little releasing as possible, by they’re coming by the
hundreds of thousands.
I have had zero Democrat lawmakers volunteer to have them released into their
districts or states. And I think they know that, and that’s what we’re going to be
discussing over the next three weeks.
The painful reality is that the tremendous economic and financial burdens of illegal
immigration fall on the shoulders of low-income Americans, including millions of
wonderful, patriotic, law-abiding immigrants who enrich our nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the defense of our great country. We
cannot surrender operational control over the nation’s borders to foreign cartels,
traffickers, and smugglers. We want future Americans to come to our country legally
and through a system based on merit. We need people to come to our country. We
have great companies moving back into the United States. And we have the lowest
employment and the best employment numbers that we’ve ever had. There are more
people working today in the United States than have ever worked in our country. We
need people to come in to help us — the farms, and with all of these great companies
that are moving back. Finally, they’re moving back. People said it couldn’t happen.
It’s happening.
And we want them to enjoy the blessings of safety and liberty, and the rule of law. We
cannot protect and deliver these blessings without a strong and secure border.
I believe that crime in this country can go down by a massive percentage if we have
great security on our southern border. I believe drugs, large percentages of which
come through the southern border, will be cut by a number that nobody will believe.
So let me be very clear: We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel
y
y
p
barrier. If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut
g
g
g
down on February 15th, again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws
y 5
g
p
f
and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency. We will have
great security.
And I want to thank you all very much. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END

2:35 P.M. EST

EXHIBIT 2

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBJECT:

Securing the Southern Border of the United States

1. The security of the United States is imperiled by a drastic surge of illegal activity on
the southern border. Large quantities of fentanyl, other opioids, and other dangerous
and illicit drugs are flowing across our southern border and into our country at
unprecedented levels, destroying the lives of our families and loved ones. Mara
Salvatrucha (MS-13) and other deadly transnational gangs are systematically
exploiting our unsecured southern border to enter our country and develop
operational capacity in American communities throughout the country. The
anticipated rapid rise in illegal crossings as we head into the spring and summer
months threatens to overwhelm our Nation’s law enforcement capacities.
2. The combination of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity, and extensive illegal
immigration not only threatens our safety but also undermines the rule of law. Our
American way of life hinges on our ability as a Nation to adequately and effectively
enforce our laws and protect our borders. A key and undeniable attribute of a
sovereign nation is the ability to control who and what enters its territory.
3. Our professional and dedicated U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and
officers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and other Federal,
State, and local law enforcement personnel work tirelessly to defend our homeland
against these threats. They risk their lives daily to protect the people of this country.
Theirs is a record of dedication and sacrifice, meriting the unwavering support of the
entire United States Government.
4. The situation at the border has now reached a point of crisis. The lawlessness that
continues at our southern border is fundamentally incompatible with the safety,
security, and sovereignty of the American people. My Administration has no choice
but to act.
5. The Department of Defense currently assists other nations in many respects,
including assisting with border security, but the highest sovereign duty of the
President is to defend this Nation, which includes the defense of our borders.
6. The President may assign a mission to the Secretary of Defense to support the
operations of the Department of Homeland Security in securing our southern border,
including by requesting use of the National Guard, and to take other necessary steps
to stop the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other
criminals, and illegal aliens into the country. The Secretary of Defense may use all

available authorities as appropriate, including use of National Guard forces, to fulfill
this mission. During the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack
Obama, the National Guard provided support for efforts to secure our southern
border. The crisis at our southern border once again calls for the National Guard to
help secure our border and protect our homeland.
Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States, including section 502 of title 32, United States Code, and section
301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby direct as follows:
Section 1. The Secretary of Defense shall support the Department of Homeland
y
pp
p
Security in securing the southern border and taking other necessary actions to stop
y
g
g
y
p
the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other criminals,
y
g
and illegal aliens into this country. The Secretary of Defense shall request use of
National Guard personnel to assist in fulfilling this mission, pursuant to section 502
of title 32, United States Code, and may use such other authorities as appropriate and
consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 2. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall work with the Secretary of Defense
to provide any training or instruction necessary for any military personnel, including
National Guard units, to effectively support Department of Homeland Security
personnel in securing the border.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Attorney General, are directed to determine what other
resources and actions are necessary to protect our southern border, including Federal
law enforcement and United States military resources. Within 30 days of the date of
this memorandum, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security,
in coordination with the Attorney General, shall submit to the President a report
detailing their findings and an action plan, including specific recommendations as to
any other executive authorities that should be invoked to defend the border and
security of the United States.
Sec. 4. Any provision of any previous proclamation, memorandum, or Executive
Order that is inconsistent with the actions taken in this memorandum is superseded
to the extent of such inconsistency.
Sec. 5. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise
affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head
thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to
budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the
United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents,
or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

EXHIBIT 2

President Donald J. Trump

SECURING OUR BORDER: President Donald J. Trump is following
through on his promise to secure the border with legislation and
Executive action.
President Trump was elected partly on his promise to secure the Southern
Border with a barrier and, since his first day in office, he has been following
through on that promise.
As the President has said, sections of the border wall are already being built,
and legislation and Executive actions are building on that progress.
Executive action being taken by the President makes available additional
funding to secure our border that is essential to our national security.
LEGISLATIVE WINS: President Trump secured a number of significant
legislative victories in the Homeland Security appropriations bill that
further his effort to secure the Southern Border and protect our country.
The funding bill contains robust resources and additional provisions to secure
the border and strengthen immigration enforcement.
The bill provides $1.375 billion for approximately 55 miles of border barrier in
highly dangerous and drug smuggling areas in the Rio Grande Valley, where it is
desperately needed.
More than 40 percent of all border apprehensions occurred in the Rio
Grande Valley sector in fiscal year (FY) 2018.
The Rio Grande Valley was the border sector with the most known deaths
of illegal border crossers in FY 2018.
$415 million will go toward addressing the humanitarian crisis at the border by
providing medical care, transportation, processing centers, and consumables.
President Trump successfully rejected efforts by some to undercut Immigration
and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) ability to uphold our laws and detain illegal
aliens, including criminals.
ICE funding supports nearly 5,000 additional beds to detain illegal aliens
and keep criminals off our streets.
Customs and Border Protection will receive funding for 600 additional officers.
This bill will help keep deadly drugs out of our communities by increasing drug
detection at ports of entry, including opioid detection staffing, labs, and
equipment.
A PROMISE TO ACT: President Trump is taking Executive action to
ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at our
Southern Border.
President Trump is using his legal authority to take Executive action to secure
additional resources, just as he promised. In part, he is declaring a national
emergency that makes available additional troops and funding for military

construction.
Including funding in Homeland Security appropriations, the Administration
has so far identified up to $8.1 billion that will be available to build the border
wall once a national emergency is declared and additional funds have been
g
reprogrammed, including:
g
g
About $601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund
y
Up to $2.5 billion under the Department of Defense funds transferred for
p
5
p
Support for Counterdrug Activities (Title 10 United States Code, section
pp
284)
4
Up to $3.6 billion reallocated from Department of Defense military
p
3
p
y
construction projects under the President’s declaration of a national
p j
emergency (Title 10 United States Code, section 2808)
These funding sources will be used sequentially and as needed.
The Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the Army
Corps of Engineers are working to create a prioritized list of segments and a
work plan for the remainder of FY 2019 and beyond.
New projects could include: new levee wall, new and replacement primary
pedestrian barrier, new vehicle-to-pedestrian barrier, and new secondary
barrier.
NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON OUR BORDER: The President is using his
clear authority to declare a national emergency as allowed under the
National Emergencies Act.
Since 1976, presidents have declared nearly 60 national emergencies.
Most of the previously declared national emergencies have been
continually renewed and are still in effect, after being continually
renewed.
Multiple Governors have declared states of emergency along the border in the
past.
Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who became President
Obama’s DHS Secretary, declared a state of emergency along the border in
2005.
Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson also declared a state of
emergency at the border in 2005.
Former President George W. Bush and former President Obama both directed
the use of the military to assist DHS in securing and managing the Southern
Border.
Former President Bush declared a national emergency in 2001, which invoked
reprogramming authority granted by Title 10 United States Code, section 2808,
and both he and former President Obama used that authority a total of 18 times
to fund projects between 2001 and 2014.
ADDRESSING THE CRISIS AT HAND: President Trump is taking the
necessary steps to address the crisis at our Southern Border and stop
crime and drugs from flooding into our Nation.
Cartels, traffickers, and gangs, like the vile MS-13 gang, have taken advantage of
our weak borders for their own gain.
Immigration officers have made 266,000 arrests of criminal aliens in the last
two fiscal years.
This includes aliens charged or convicted of approximately 100,000
assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 killings.
Tons of deadly drugs have flooded across the border and into our communities,

taking countless American lives.
Methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl all flow across our
Southern Border and destroy our communities.
More than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2017 alone.
Human traffickers exploit our borders to traffic young girls and women into our
country and sell them into prostitution and slavery.
Massive caravans of migrants view our unsecure border as a way to gain illegal
entry into our country and take advantage of our nonsensical immigration
loopholes.

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT

EXPENSE CATEGORIES

FY19
Proposed
Amount

STRATEGIC SUPPORT FUND (SS)
. 00

U.S. Border Patrol -

SRATEGIC SUPPORT TOTALS

.000

DESCRIPTIONS/COMMENTS

EXHIBIT 3

Sequencing of Border Barrier Construction Authorities
March 4, 2019
Topline

In Depth:

Section 284

10 U.S.C.
2808

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Appropriation for DHS

Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF)

10 U.S.C. 284

DOD Sources:

Congressional Notifications/Engagements:

10 U.S.C. § 2808

Congressional Notifications/Engagements:

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 35

EXHIBIT 36

EXHIBIT

Chapter 12
C
12:

Reprogramming
and Transfer
Authority

4.

Subdivisions of an appropriation contained in the agency’s budget request
or in conference or committee reports are not legally binding upon the
department or agency concerned unless they are specified in the
appropriations act itself. Newport News Shipbldg. and Dry Dock Co.,
B-184830, 55 Comp. Gen. 812 (1976). 8

5.

Reprogramming is based on minimal congressional and legislative
guidance. There “is no general statutory provision either authorizing or
prohibiting it and it has evolved largely in the form of informal (i.e. nonstatutory) agreements between various agencies and their congressional
oversight committees.”9 There are some general limitations to
reprogramming:
a.
b.

Agencies must check appropriations acts for statutory prohibitions
to proposed reprogramming. The DOD Appropriation Act usually
sets out broad guidelines.

c.

6.

Agencies must comply with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 1301.

Agencies must follow their internal policies and procedures. For
DOD, there are detailed procedures located in the DOD FMR, vol.
3, ch. 3 and 6.

Items eligible for reprogramming. Congress, in the annual appropriation
act, typically states that DOD may submit actions only for higher priority
items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which the
funds were originally appropriated. See Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY 2013, Pub.L. No. 113-6, § 8005 (2013).

8

Since the 2009 NDAA, Congress has started adding funding tables to the authorization act so that the conference
reports have the legal force of law. See NDAA 2009, P.L. 110-417, Section 1005, 14 October 2008, for the first
joint explanatory statement. Each year since that time, the NDAA has included funding tables, usually at Division D.
9
GAO, Principles of Fed. Appropriations Law, p. 2-30 to 2-31.

12-8

7.

8.

V.

Items ineligible for reprogramming. Annually, Congress prohibits DOD
from submitting reprogramming actions on items for which funds have
previously been requested from Congress but denied. See e.g.,
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2012, Pub.L. No. 112-74, § 8005
(2012). GAO has stated that in the absence of a similar statutory
provision, a reprogramming that has the effect of restoring funds deleted in
the legislative process is okay. See Propriety of LEAA Funding of Urban
Crime Prevention Program, B-195269, Oct. 15, 1979.
All DOD reprogramming actions must be approved by the DOD
Comptroller. Additionally, some reprogramming actions require notice
to or approval by the appropriate congressional subcommittees. DOD
FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6 and 7. Regarding the routing of requests, “Military
Departments must submit proposed DD 1415 [reprogramming] actions
formally by memorandum addressed to the USD(C) from the Assistant
Secretary (Financial Management and Comptroller) of the Military
Department.” DOD FMR, vol 3, ch. 6, para. 060407.

REPROGRAMMING TYPES
A.

Reprogramming Actions Requiring Prior Approval of Congressional
p g
Committees. DOD FMR vol. 3, ch. 6, para. 060401, A-F. See also Conference
Report accompanying annual DOD appropriations acts.
1.

If a DOD Component (i.e. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) wants to
reprogram funds (requiring Congressional approval), then the Component
Comptroller will forward a formal request to the DOD Comptroller
explaining the details of the reprogramming request. The DOD
Comptroller will forward the request to Congress for consideration (the
House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services
Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee). The DOD Comptroller will receive letters
from each of these committees and will notify the Component Comptroller
if its request has been approved or disapproved. If the request is denied,
then the Component Comptroller will not reprogram the funds.

2.

The following types of reprogramming requests require Congressional
approval:

12-9

a.

Any reprogramming that involves an item designated as a
Congressional special interest item.

b.

Any increase in the procurement quantity of a major end item, such
as an individual aircraft, missile, naval vessel, tracked combat
vehicle, and other weapon or torpedo and related support
equipment.

c.

Any reprogramming action that involves the application of funds
which exceed thresholds agreed upon by the congressional
committees and DOD:
(1)

Military Personnel: cumulative increases in a budget
activity10 of $10 million or more.

(2)

Operation and Maintenance: net changes in a budget
activity of $15 million or more.

(3)

Procurement: cumulative increases for any program year of
$20 million or more (or 20 percent of the appropriated
amount, whichever is less); cumulative decreases for any
program year of $20 million or more (or 20 percent of the
appropriated amount, whichever is less).

(4)

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E):
cumulative increases for any program year of $10 million
or more in an existing program element (or 20 percent of
the appropriated amount, whichever is less); cumulative
decreases for any program year of $10 million or more (or
20 percent of the appropriated amount, whichever is less).

10

“Budget activities” are defined as categories within each appropriation and fund accounts that identify the
purposes, projects, or types of activities financed by the appropriation or fund. DOD FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6. For an
example of budget activities, see the Joint Explanatory Statement of The Committee of Conference for the FY 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act, which breaks down the budget activities in some detail. For example, prior
appropriation acts required approval if the Air Force wanted to perform a reprogramming action in its Military
Personnel, Air Force appropriation by moving $15 million from one budget activity to another budget activity
(because it exceeded the $10 million threshold for the military personnel appropriation).

12-10

(5)

Additional sub-activity thresholds as specified by
Congress. 11

d.

New Starts: a program, subprogram, modification, project or
subproject not previously justified by DOD and funded by
Congress is considered a “new start.” Congressional committees
discourage the use of reprogramming to initiate new starts.
Congress normally states in the annual DOD Appropriations Acts
that before funding any new start, the requester must first notify the
Secretary of Defense and Congress. 12 For specific notification and
approval procedures. DOD FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6, para. 060401.E.

e.

Termination of programs that result in elimination of certain
procurement programs and subprograms and RDT&E elements,
projects, and subprojects. DOD FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6, para.
060401.E.

f.

Most fund shifting/movements that make use of general transfer
g
g
f
authority. 1
authority. 13 DOD FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6, para. 060401.C, for
y
exceptions.

11

See e.g. Explanatory Statement for the FY 2009 DODAA, listing multiple sub-activities (such as Army Land
Forces Depot Maintenance), for which transfers out of the sub-activity in excess of $15M require Prior Approval
Reprogramming; DOD FMR vol. 3, ch. 6, para. 060401.D.2.
12

Section 8074 states, “None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new program, project, or activity unless such program,
project, or activity must be undertaken immediately in the interest of national security and only after written prior
notification to the congressional defense committees.” Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2013, Pub.L. No.
113-6, § 8074 (2013).
13

Note that DOD uses a “Reprogramming Action” (DD 1415-1) to accomplish both reprogrammings and transfers.
There are different forms for internal (DD 1415-3) reprogramming actions (again, a term which includes those
actions ‘using transfer authority’), versus those that require prior approval (1415-2). Thus, the wording of the FMR
can be confusing in that it uses the terms “reprogramming” and “transfer” in the same section when referring to this
process. For example, the FMR’s reprogramming chapter states that reprogramming actions that “use general
transfer authority” require Congressional approval. Bottom line, beware the distinction between “reprogramming” as
defined in this outline, and a “reprogramming action” as used in the FMR. See e.g. DOD FMR, vol 3, ch. 6, para.
060401C (March 2011).

12-11

B.

“Internal” Reprogrammings. DOD FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6, para. 060402.
1.

“Internal” reprogrammings are not, technically, formal reprogramming
actions. Internal reprogrammings are “audit-trail type actions processed
within the Department to serve various needs.” DOD FMR, vol. 3, ch. 6,
para. 060402.

2.

Internal reprogrammings fall into three general categories:
a.

Reclassification Actions. Actions involving a reclassification or
realignment of funds within budget activities or within budget line
items/program elements. These reclassifications do not involve
any change in the substance of the program and the funds will be
used to for the same purposes originally contemplated when
submitted to Congress.

b.

Transfer Appropriations. 14 “Transfer accounts” are appropriations
with funding that will be transferred to other appropriations for
execution. Reprogramming to or from transfer accounts is
generally permissible without relying upon statutory authority such
as the general transfer authority. Examples of transfer accounts
include: Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund and
Foreign Currency Fluctuations, Defense.

c.

Procurement Quantities. Approval to increase quantities of major
end items where Congress has specified that approval is not
required.

3.

Technically, funding changes within program elements are not regarded as
“reprogramming.” The Honorable Roy Dyson, House of Representatives,
B-220113, 65 Comp. Gen. 360 (1986).

4.

Internal reprogrammings are not subject to dollar thresholds.

14

The language of the DOD FMR refers to “transfer appropriations” in the chapter on reprogramming, which it then
describes as reprogramming actions related to transfer accounts. See DOD FMR, vol 3, ch. 6, para. 060402.B.

12-12

D.

Restrictions on Reprogrammings. DOD FMR, vol 3, ch. 7.
1.

DOD will not submit a request for reprogramming:
a.

b.

For any project or effort that has been denied specifically by
Congress; or

c.

2.

For any project or effort that has not been authorized unless
permitted under 10 U.S.C. §§ 2803, 2854 or 2853;

To initiate programs of major scope or base realignment actions,
when Congress has not authorized such efforts.

DOD Comptroller sends MILCON reprogrammings (which require
congressional notification or approval) to the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees and the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
a.
b.

VII.

Generally, committee review process is non-statutory.
An agency generally will observe committee review and approval
procedures as part of its informal arrangements with the various
committees, although they are not legally binding. GAO,
Principles of Fed. Appropriations Law, p. 2-25.

CONCLUSION
A.

Note the differences between reprogramming and transferring funds.

B.

There are special rules involved in reprogramming for military construction
purposes.

12-18

EXHIBIT

DoD 7000.14-R
2B

Financial Management Regulation

Volume 3, Chapter 6
* September 2015

VOLUME 3, CHAPTER 6: “REPROGRAMMING OF DOD APPROPRIATED
FUNDS”
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES
All changes are denoted by blue font.
Substantive revisions are denoted by an * symbol preceding the section, paragraph,
table, or figure that includes the revision.
Unless otherwise noted, chapters referenced are contained in this volume.
Hyperlinks are denoted by bold, italic, blue and underlined font.
The previous version dated March 2011 is archived.
PARAGRAPH
060302
060401.E
060407

060502
0612
Appendix B

EXPLANATION OF CHANGE/REVISION
Added requirement that Components use the Enterprise
Funds Distribution (EFD) system for transmitting DD
Form 1414, Base for Reprogramming Actions
submissions
Updates to sub-activity reprogramming requirements
Added requirement that Components use the Enterprise
Funds Distribution (EFD) system to submit
reprogramming actions
Added requirement that Components use the Enterprise
Funds Distribution (EFD) system to update DD Form
1416, Report of Programs
FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act eliminated
the requirement for the Readiness Transfer Report
FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act eliminated
the requirement for the Readiness Transfer Report

6-1

PURPOSE
Update
Update
Update

Update
Deleted
Deleted

DoD 7000.14-R

Financial Management Regulation

2B

Volume 3, Chapter 6
* September 2015

is specifically reduced as shown in the project level table or in paragraphs using the phrases
“only for” or “only to” or are congressional special interest items for the purpose of the Base for
Reprogramming (DD Form 1414).
060202.

DD 1415, Reprogramming Action

Reprogramming actions, upon approval of the Department, will be used to request the
prior approval (DD 1415-1) of the congressional committees to realign or transfer appropriated
funds or for internal reprogramming (DD 1415-3) requiring audit-trail type documentation of the
realignment or transfer of appropriated funds.
060203.

DD 1416, Report of Programs

The DD 1416 report reflects the congressionally approved programs as enacted,
reprogramming actions which have been approved, congressionally directed undistributed
amounts and transfers, and reprogramming of funds that have been implemented by a DoD
Component using below-threshold reprogramming flexibility. This report is generated in the
Enterprise Funds Distribution (EFD) system quarterly and submitted 30-days after the end of
each quarter, electronically to the congressional defense committees by the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)), Program and Financial Control Directorate (P&FC), for
Title III, Procurement, and Title IV, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation and annually
for Title I, Military Personnel, and Title II, Operation and Maintenance appropriations
0603

DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR BASE FOR REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS
060301.

General

The DD Form 1414, Base for Reprogramming Actions, establishes the base from which
reprogramming actions may be taken. It identifies line items within each appropriation covered
in the DoD Appropriations Acts.
060302.

Due Date

Within 30 days following enactment of the Department of Defense (DoD) Appropriations
Act, the Components will submit their DD 1414, Base for Reprogramming Actions to OUSD(C)
P&FC to ensure the Department can submit the Base for Reprogramming Actions to the
congressional committees within 60 days of enactment as required by recurring general
provisions in DoD Appropriations Acts (e.g., section 8007 of division C of Public Law 113-235,
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015). The DoD Components will submit their
DD 1414 through the Enterprise Funds Distribution (EFD) system, for review prior to
submission to the congressional committees.
060303.

Transmittal

Upon determination by the OUSD(C) P&FC that the Base for Reprogramming Action is
acceptable, OUSD(C) P&FC will submit to OMB, pursuant to OMB Circular A-11, section 22.3.
6-5

DoD 7000.14-R
2B

Financial Management Regulation

Volume 3, Chapter 6
* September 2015

After clearance by OMB, the OUSD(C) P&FC will prepare for printing and transmittal to the
congressional committees. Final printed copies will be distributed to the DoD Components as
well as posted on the Comptroller public website.
060304.

Security Classification

In order facilitate use by the staffs of the congressional defense oversight committees, the
Department will submit an unclassified report. Therefore, each Service shall submit an
unclassified DD 1414 and OUSD(C) P&FC will be responsible for proper security review prior
to publication. All classified programs should be consolidated into a single line item titled
Classified Programs and should be displayed at the end of the Direct Program section.
060305.

Detailed Instructions for Preparation of the DD 1414

Detailed instructions for the Base for Reprogramming Actions for the initial
appropriations act are provided in the appendices to this chapter.
0604

REPROGRAMMING ACTIONS
060401.

Reprogramming Actions Requiring Written Congressional Approval

Two types of reprogramming actions will be used to request the prior approval of the
yp
p g
congressional defense committees. Both requests are submitted using DD 1415-1, Prior
Approval. The first type is for specific requirements, which usually are combined and submitted
monthly. The second type is the annual Omnibus reprogramming action submitted prior to
June 30 of each year, which was established in Fiscal Year (FY) 1991 to streamline the
reprogramming process for the congressional committees and the Department. With the
exception of reprogrammings of National Intelligence Program resources (p g p 060604),
(paragraph
p
p g
g
g
g
),
the USD(C) submits all reprogramming actions to the congressional defense committees. The
( )
p g
g
g
Department is expressly p
p
p
y prohibited from preparing or forwarding to the Congress a p
p p
g
g
g
prior
approval reprogramming action except “for higher p
pp
p g
g
p
g
priority items, based on unforeseen military
y
,
y
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
q
,
g
y pp p
which reprogramming is requested has been denied by the Congress.” It is the Department’s
p g
g
q
y
g
p
p
policy that reprogramming actions, which require prior approval of the congressional committees
y
p g
g
,
q
p
pp
(DD 1415-1), are those which involve the application of funds that:
A.
Increase the procurement quantity of a major end item, such as an
individual aircraft, missile, naval vessel, tracked combat vehicle, and other weapon or torpedo
and related support equipment for which funds are authorized. (In such cases where specific
congressional language is provided allowing for additional quantities to be procured within
appropriated funds, increases to quantities for major end items shall be submitted to the USD(C)
for approval as a DD 1415-3, Internal Reprogramming action.)
B.
Affect an item that is known to be or has been designated as a matter of
special interest to one or more of the congressional committees. In rare instances, when funds
from special interest items are to be reprogrammed from an existing program, subprogram,
6-6

DoD 7000.14-R

Financial Management Regulation

2B

Volume 3, Chapter 6
* September 2015

project, or subproject to another program, subprogram, project, or subproject within the same
procurement line item or program element, letter notification to the congressional committees
may be made. Letters shall be submitted to the congressional committees by the DoD
Component involved only after advance coordination with the applicable OUSD(C) P/B
Directorate.
g
y
y
C.
Use general transfer authority. Any movement of funds between
appropriations or legal subdivisions requires statutory transfer authority. Unless specific transfer
pp p
g
q
y
y
p
authority is p
y provided elsewhere, g
, general transfer authority, which is provided in annual DoD
r
y
Appropriations and Authorization Acts, must be used. Any movement of funds from
y provided in the annual DoD
supplemental appropriations also uses the g
general transfer authority p
Appropriations Act. Section 2214 of Title 10 of the United States Code (
pp p
f
(U.S.C.) and the annual
)
Appropriations Act provide limitations on programs for which general transfer authority may be
pp p
p
p g
g
y
y
used. Such authority may not be used except to provide funds for a higher priority item, based
y
y
p
p
g rp
y
,
on unforeseen military requirements, than the items for which funds were originally
y
q
,
appropriated, and may not be used if the Congress has denied funds for the item. Exceptions to
the use of a DD 1415-1, Prior Approval Reprogramming action, may apply if reclassification of
programs to the proper appropriation for execution is required (i.e., these actions do not change
the purpose for which the funds were originally appropriated). (See paragraph 060402A).
D.
Exceed thresholds agreed upon between the committees. Effective for
FY 2015, the basic reprogramming thresholds agreed upon between the committees and the
Department are: $10 million for military personnel; $15 million for operation and maintenance;
$20 million for procurement; and $10 million for research, development, test, and evaluation.
These thresholds are cumulative from the base for reprogramming value as modified by any
congressional action, to include the initial appropriation, rescissions, supplemental
appropriations, and approved DD 1415 reprogramming actions. The BTR limitation is the net
value of transfers into or out at the specified level. For example, transfers using Below
Threshold Reprogramming (BTR) authority of $5.0 million out of an RDT&E PE line item and
transfer of $4.0 million into the same RDT&E PE line item would result in a total amount
transferred of $1.0 million, with the consequence that the $1.0 million of BTR authority was
used. The thresholds agreed upon between the committees and the Department are as follows:
1.

Military Personnel. A cumulative increase of $10 million or more

in a budget activity.
2.
Operation and Maintenance. A cumulative increase or decrease of
$15 million or more to a budget activity or to a Defense Agency for Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide appropriation. When the congressional committees impose reprogramming
thresholds on specific sub-activity group categories, these threshold amounts are separately
identified on the DD 1414, Base for Reprogramming Actions, and reprogramming restrictions
apply. For example for FY 2015, congressional committees imposed reprogramming thresholds
on specific sub-activity group categories.

6-7

DoD 7000.14-R
2B

Financial Management Regulation

Volume 3, Chapter 6
* September 2015

a.
The committees required the Department to follow Prior
Approval procedures for transfers in excess of $15.0 million out of the following budget
sub-activities:
(1)
Army:
Maneuver units; modular support
brigades; land forces operations support; force readiness operations support; land forces
depot maintenance; base operations support; and facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization.
(2)
Navy: Aircraft depot maintenance; ship depot
maintenance; and facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization.
(3)
Marine Corps: Depot maintenance and facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization
(4)
Air Force:
Primary combat forces; combat
enhancement forces; combat communications; and facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization.
(5)
Air Force Reserve: Depot maintenance.
(6)

Air National Guard: Depot maintenance.

b.
The committees required the Department to follow Prior
Approval procedures for transfers in excess of $15.0 million into the following budget subactivity:
(1)

Army

National

Guard:

Other

personnel

support/recruiting and advertising.
c.
Defense-Wide O&M: transfer of funds to or from the
levels specified for defense agencies in excess of $15.0 million shall be subject to a PA
reprogramming action.
d.
For FY 2015, the committees further require the Services,
with Comptroller coordination, to provide written notification not later than 15-days prior to
implementing transfers in excess of $15.0 million out of the following budget sub-activities:
(1)

Navy: Mission and other flight operations and

mission and other ship operations
(2)
Air Force: Operating forces depot maintenance;
mobilization depot maintenance; training and recruiting depot maintenance; and
administration and service-wide depot maintenance.
e.
Defense Health Program: For FY 2015, any transfer of
funds from the In-House Care budget sub-activity to any other sub-activity shall be
6-8

DoD 7000.14-R

6-39

Financial Management Regulation

Appendix B – Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data

2B

Volume 3, Chapter 6 Appendix B
* September 2015

EXHIBIT

House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Fiscal 2020 Defense
Authorization
CQ Transcriptions
March 26, 2019 Tuesday
Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or
broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ Transcriptions. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from
copies of the content.

Body
House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing On Fiscal 2020 Defense Authorization
March 26, 2019 10:00 A.M.
SPEAKERS:
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WASH.), CHAIRMAN
REP. SUSAN A. DAVIS (D-CALIF.)
REP. JIM LANGEVIN (D-R.I.)
REP. RICK LARSEN (D-WASH.)
REP. JIM COOPER (D-TENN.)
REP. JOE COURTNEY (D-CONN.)
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CALIF.)
REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CALIF.)
REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HAWAII)
REP. DONALD NORCROSS (D-N.J.)
REP. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-ARIZ.)
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MASS.)
REP. SALUD CARBAJAL (D-CALIF.)
REP. ANTHONY G. BROWN (D-MD.)
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CALIF.)
REP. WILLIAM KEATING (D-MASS.)
REP. FILEMON VELA (D-TEXAS)

Page 7 of 56
House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Fiscal 2020 Defense Authorization
rebuild facilities and damaged by hurricanes Florence and Michael, up to $3.6 billion to support military construction
projects that will be awarded in fiscal year 2020 instead of fiscal year 2019 so we can resource border barrier
projects under emergency declaration this year, and $3.6 billion in case emergency additional emergency funding is
needed for the border.
Military construction on the border will not come at the expense of our people, our readiness, or our modernization.
To identify the potential pool of sources of military construction funds, DOD will apply the following criteria. No
military construction projects that have already been awarded and no military construction projects with fiscal year
2019 award dates will be impacted. We are solely looking at projects with award dates after September 30, 2019.
No military housing, barracks, or dormitory projects will be impacted. Decisions have not been made concerning
which border barrier projects will be funded through section 2808 authority. If the department's FY 2020 budget is
enacted on time as requested, no military construction project used to source section 2808 projects would be
delayed or canceled.
I appreciate the inherent intra-government complexities of the Southwest border situation. I also want to emphasize
the funds requested for the border barrier amount to less than 1 percent of the national defense top line. As this
committee fully understands, no enemy in the field has done more damage to our military's combat readiness in
years past then sequestration and budget instability, and there is no question today our adversaries are not
relenting.
The instability of a continuing resolution would cost us in three important ways. First, we would be unable to
implement new initiatives like standing up the space command or accelerating our development of hypersonic
capabilities and artificial intelligence. Second, our funding will be in the wrong accounts. We are requesting
significant investments in RDT&D for cyber, space, and disruptive technologies and in O&M for core readiness.
Third, the incremental funding under SER means we lose buying power. This translates to higher costs and
uncertainty for industry in the communities where we operate.
We built this budget to implement our national defense strategy, and I look forward to working with you to ensure
predictable funding so our military can remain the most lethal adaptable and resilient fighting force in the world. I
appreciate the critical role Congress plays to ensure our war fighters can exceed on the battlefield in both today and
tomorrow, and I think our service members, their families, and all those in the Department of Defense for
maintaining constant vigilance as they stand, always ready to protect our freedoms. Thank you.
SMITH: Thank you. Chairman Dunford.
DUNFORD: Chairman Smith, ranking member Thornberry, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to join Secretary Shanahan and Undersecretary Norquist today. It remains my privilege to represent
your soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. While much of our discussion this morning is going to focus on the
challenges we face, it's important I begin by assuring you that your Armed Forces can deter a nuclear attack,
defend the homeland, meet our alliance commitments, and effectively respond, should deterrents fail.
I believe today we have a competitive advantage over any potential adversary defined as the ability to project power
and fight and win at the time and place of our choosing. But as members of this committee well know, 17 years of
continuous combat and fiscal instability have affected our readiness and eroded the competitive advantage we
enjoyed a decade or more ago. As the secretary highlighted, China and Russia have capitalized on our distraction
and restraints by investing in capabilities specifically designed to challenge our traditional sources of strength. After
careful study, the developed capabilities intended to contest our movement across all domains, sea, air, space,
cyberspace, and land and disrupt our ability to project power.
With the help of Congress, starting in 2017 we began to restore that competitive advantage. Recent budgets have
allowed us to build readiness and invest in new capabilities while meeting current operational commitments. But we
cannot reverse decades of erosion in just a few years. This year's budget submission would allow us to continue
restoring our competitive advantage by approving readiness and up and developing capabilities to enhance our
lethality. It proposes investments in advanced capabilities across all domains, the air, land, space and cyberspace.

Page 8 of 56
House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Fiscal 2020 Defense Authorization
This year's budget also sustains investments in our nuclear enterprise to ensure a safe, secure, and effective
strategic deterrent, the highest priority of the Department of Defense. We've also taken steps to more effectively
employ the force we have today and build a force we need for tomorrow. We've implemented fundamental changes
in our global force management process to prioritize and allocate resources in accordance with the national defense
strategy while building readiness and the flexibility to respond to unforeseen contingencies.
We've also refined our process for developing and designing a future force. A joint concept threat--threat informed
approach supported by a wide body of into lytic analytic work allows us to more deliberately evaluate and prioritize
war fighting requirements. This also enables us to pair emerging technologies with innovative operational concepts.
In closing, I'd like to thank the committee for all we've done to support the men and women in uniform and their
families. Together, we've honored their solemn obligation to never send our sons and daughters into a fair fight.
And with your continued support, we never will.
SMITH: Thank you both. I appreciate that. Keeping in mind and acknowledging ranking member Thornberry's point
that you don't make the policy, necessarily, that you are--you're sent up here to defend, regrettably neither
President Trump nor Chief of Staff Mulvaney are going to testify before our committee, so we have to ask you about
it and get your defense/explanation. And one of the biggest areas in the wall funding that's problematic for this
committee and for the relationship between the Pentagon and Congress is the reprogramming requests.
And it is, you know, a bit of sort of arcane policy even I didn't fully understand. But by and large, the Pentagon is not
allowed to simply move money from one account to another without coming back through the full legislative
process. But given the amount of money that the at the Pentagon and given how much things change, we have
given, through the congressional process, the ability to reprogram I think it was $4 billion last year.
But one of the sort of gentlemen's agreements about that was if you reprogram money, you will not do it without first
getting the approval of all for relevant committees, Defense approps in the House and Senate, and armed services
in the House and the Senate. For the first time since we've done that, on the reprogramming request help fund the
wall, basically you're--you're shifting money from the MILPERS account into the, I forget what the drug--drug safety
account, whatever it is, drug enforcement account so that you can then take it out of the account and put it to the
wall. And you are not asking for our permission. Now, you understand that the result of that, likely, is that the
Appropriations Committee in particular would no longer give-[*]SMITH: -- the Pentagon reprogramming authority. I think that's unfortunate because they need it. And I guess my-my question is what was the discussion like about in deciding to break that rule and what is your view of the
implications for it going forward, in terms of the relationship between the Pentagon and Congress in general, and
specifically how much is it going to hamper you to not have reprogramming authority after this year?
SHANAHAN: Chairman, what was the second part of that? There was the disclosures the discussion-SMITH: --How is it--how is it going to hamper the relationship-SHANAHAN: --That was the-SMITH: --The--I'm sorry, how was it going to hamper your ability to do your job if you don't have any reprogramming
authority going forward?
SHANAHAN: Right, yeah. Well, the discussion, I think you and I have also been party to--to this discussion is that
by unilaterally reprogramming, it was going to affect our ability long-term to be able to do discretionary
reprogramming that we had traditionally done in coordination. It was a very difficult discussion and we understand
the significant downsides of the losing what amounts to a privilege.
The conversation took place prior to the declaration of a national emergency. It was part of the consulting that went
on. We said here are the risks longer-term to the department, and those risks--risks were weighed. And then given
a legal order from the commander-in-chief, we are executing on that order. And as--as we discussed, the first
reprogramming was $1 billion. And I wanted to do it before we had this committee hearing because we've been

Page 9 of 56
House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Fiscal 2020 Defense Authorization
talking about this for some time and I've been deliberately working to be transparent in this process, fully knowing
that there is downsize, which will hamper us.
SMITH: And ultimately you ask for it--you asked for $1 billion yesterday and it's still the plan to ask for $2.4 billion
out of the drug enforcement account?
SHANAHAN: We have--we haven't made the assessment of what--so consider these increments or tranches,
however you want to praise them. Potentially, we could draw $2.5 billion when we look at the--the total general
transfer authority. We think beyond that would be too painful to--being able to continue to maintain readiness and
operations. But we don't know what that next increment of--of funding would look like.
SMITH: Right. And one final question on this piece. You're getting the money because I believe it's the Army, or
was it the Army and the Marine Corps-SHANAHAN: --Yeah-SMITH: --That did not meet their end strength goals for-SHANAHAN: --Let me ask David Norquist.
SMITH: Okay, sure.
NORQUIST: So the--the source of the money, as you pointed out at the beginning, is the military personnel
account. The Army was falling short of its recruiting targets by about 9000, 9500. So funds that would have gone to
pay the soldiers, had they been on board, is no longer needed for that purpose. That military personnel account is
more like a mandatory in the sense that if there is no purpose, there's not a lot of--of other uses, and so it's
available for reprogramming under those circumstances.
SMITH: I understand. So for the FY 20 budget, does your personnel request reflect that inability to recruit? Do sort
of factor in, okay, we'd like to have this many, but are not? Does it make sense to give you the same amount of
money from MILPER if it's just going to wind up in the drug enforcement account and then go to building a wall?
SHANAHAN: (OFF-MIC)
NORQUIST: (OFF-MIC) Yes, so we went ahead and plan to the '20 budget off of the--the Army revised its
expectations for next year accordingly, and that's the number that's in the '20 budget, sir.
SMITH: Okay. Final question. So when it comes to the budget overall budget number, and I do have a slight quibble
with the--with the idea that somehow this is all a problem because the Obama administration cut defense. I think in
the extent that we rely on that political talking point, it undercuts the fact that this all happened because of the battle
over the budget. I mean, the budget control act was in the past because the Obama administration decided they
wanted to do it, it was passed because we were literally two days away from not paying our debts. There was a
refusal by the then Republican controlled Congress to raise the debt ceiling and the only deal to be able to raise the
debt ceiling was to agree to sequestration in the budget control act.
It was a bipartisan act of, well, self-flagellation, if you will, in terms of messing up our budget for 10 years to come
just because we didn't have the political courage to live with the consequences of the money we had already spent.
And that led to no end of problems, but it was a bipartisan problem. And really, it's a bipartisan unwillingness to
address the reality that you can't balance the budget while cutting taxes and increasing spending, a choice has to
be made.
But we decided not to make that choice, we decided to punt it into the artificial budget control act sequestration act.
So a little greater honesty about the budget choices we faced is the best way out of this, not, you know, any fault of
the Trump administration or the Obama administration.

Page 56 of 56
House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Fiscal 2020 Defense Authorization
SHANAHAN: I agree. Yes.
HAALAND: Okay. Do you agree with me that the administration's current policy of obstructing transgender
individuals freedom to serve in the United States military essentially makes a mockery of this commitment?
DUNFORD: Congresswoman, just to be clear the current policy that's in place that was signed in 2017 allows
transgender's to serve in the US military.
HAALAND: So they can serve freely right now?
DUNFORD: Today they can.
HAALAND: Okay, very good. And I've heard that I mean an argument is put forth that you know spending is a
concern that they--that we don't want taxpayer money spent on gender dysphoria issues such as psychotherapy,
prescriptions, surgeries and so forth and I just want you to know that we realize that that portion of the budget is
minuscule in comparison to other things like for example erectile dysfunction which took $84 million out of the DOD
budget.
So I just want you to know that I--I support wholeheartedly every single American who wants to serve in our military
that they have an opportunity to do so and that with respect to budgets knowing that it's a minuscule amount that is
spent on transgender troops I don't think that is anything that should dissuade them or us from--from their service
and I yield my time.
SMITH: Thank you. If I could just follow up on that just briefly it--it--the policy that was just announced by the
administration through the DOD is a bit more complicated, Sec. and I talked about this a little bit yesterday and I--I
don't think it is the correct policy. It is not a blanket ban on people who are transgender from serving in the military.
It does however make it very difficult for people depending on where they are at in terms of are they in the service,
are they trying to join, have they had transition surgery, all of those things really, really complicated the ability of
transgender people to serve in the military.
And I also feel that the policy as announced does not accurately reflect the--well, the medical facts but we will--we
will be dealing with that later and I understand you have struggled to try and get the right policy there but it is
considerably more complicated than even I thought at first glance. But I don't think right now the policy meets the
standards that Ms. Haaland was hoping to have in terms of allowing diverse people to serve assuming that they are
qualified, assuming that they can meet the qualifications for whatever job it is they are supposed to do in the
military.
Mr. Thornberry, do you have anything quickly?
THORNBERRY: I do, Mr. Chairman. In the presence of the Sec. and Chairman and the Comptroller I just want to
note that while we have been meeting today Andy Marshall(SP) has passed away. He served--he ran the office of
net assessment from the Nixon administration to the Obama administration.
I can think of fewer people who have had a bigger impact on focusing our defense efforts, our national security in
the right direction than--than Mr. Marshall and we--we talked about a lot of stuff today but I think as General
Dunford started out it's about people. Some of them are not even in uniform but--but it is a remarkable life. He has
been before our committee I don't know how many times over the years so I wanted to note that that passing but
also to--to honor his memory because he made such a difference.
SMITH: And I think that is a very appropriate note to end on. We are adjourned. I thank you, gentlemen.

Load-Date: April 2, 2019

End of Document

EXHIBIT

WE ARE BUILDING THE FIRST NEW BORDER WALL IN A DECADE.
DHS is committed to building a wall at our southern border and building a wall
quickly. Under this President, we are building a new wall for the first time in a decade
that is 30-feet high to prevent illegal entry and drug smuggling.
FACT: Prior to President Trump taking office, we have never built a border wall that
high.
Once funding was provided, DHS began construction of a border wall quickly, in
some locations in as little as nine months from funding to building – a process that
commonly takes two years or more in other parts of Government. By the end of FY
2019, DHS expects to have construction completed or underway for more than 120
miles in the areas it’s most needed by the U.S. Border Patrol. The pace of construction
has picked up as initial limiting factors like land acquisition and funding have been
addressed.
Before

After

The El Centro Sector built approximately two miles of 30' steel bollard wall west of
the Calexico West Port of Entry. The contract was awarded in November 2017,
construction started in February 2018 and was completed in October 2018.
In FY 2017 Congress provided DHS $292 million to build 40 miles of a steel bollard
7
9
4
wall in the San Diego, El Centro and El Paso Sectors – Border Patrol’s highest priority
d
locations – in place of an outdated and operationally ineffective barrier. DHS received
its FY17 funding for border wall construction in May 2017. DHS awarded the first
contract against that funding in November 2017 and began construction three
months later in February 2018. As of November 21, 2018, CBP has constructed more
than 31 of the 40 miles with the remaining 9 miles scheduled for completion by early
2019.
El Centro Project (2.25 miles): Completed.
j
(
5
)
p
El Paso Project (20 miles): Completed
San Diego Primary Project (14 miles): Completion anticipated in May
2019.
9
El Paso Project (4 miles): Construction started in September.
Before

After

The El Centro Sector built approximately two miles of 30' steel bollard wall west of
the Calexico West Port of Entry. The contract was awarded in November 2017,
construction started in February 2018 and was completed in October 2018.
How effective is this new border wall? On Sunday, when a violent mob of 1,000
people stormed our Southern border, we found the newly constructed portions of the
wall to be very effective. In the area of the breach, a group of people tore a hole in the
old landing mat fence constructed decades ago and pushed across the border. U.S.
Border Patrol agents who responded to the area ultimately dispersed the crowd,
which had become assaultive, and apprehended several individuals. All of the
individuals were either apprehended or retreated into Mexico. That evening, the
fence was repaired. There were no breaches along the newly constructed border wall
areas.
In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which
equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations
across the Southwest border, including:
$251M for a secondary border wall in the San Diego Sector
$445M to construct a new levee wall system in the Rio Grande Valley Sector
$196M to construct a new steel bollard wall system in Rio Grande Valley Sector
$445M for a primary pedestrian wall in San Diego, El Centro, Yuma and Tucson
Sectors
What’s next you might ask? When combined with the funds provided in FY 2017 and
FY 2018, if funded at $5B in FY 2019 DHS expects to construct more than 330 miles
of border wall in the U.S. Border Patrol’s highest priority locations across the
Southwest border.
DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest
priority border wall miles including:
~5 miles in San Diego Sector in California
~14 miles in El Centro Sector in California
~27 miles in Yuma Sector in Arizona
~9 miles in El Paso Sector in New Mexico
~55 miles in Laredo Sector in Texas

~104 miles in Rio Grande Valley Sector in Texas
The Bottom Line: Walls Work. When it comes to stopping drugs and illegal aliens
from crossing our borders, border walls have proven to be extremely effective. Border
security relies on a combination of border infrastructure, technology, personnel and
partnerships with law enforcement at the state, local, tribal, and federal level. For
example, when we installed a border wall in the Yuma Sector, we have seen border
apprehensions decrease by 90 percent. In San Diego, we saw on Sunday that
dilapidated, decades-old barriers are not sufficient for today’s threat and need to be
removed so new – up to 30 foot wall sections can be completed.
Last Published Date: December 14, 2018

EXHIBIT

Welcome to the El Paso Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol.
This office provides law enforcement support for the counties of El Paso and
pp
t
Hudspeth in the state of Texas and the entire state of New Mexico.
d
This site provides Sector-related information, including Sector operations, Sector
contact information, where our stations are located, and news.
Thank you for visiting the El Paso Sector web site.
Chief Patrol Agent
Overview
General Information
Challenge Coin
Overview
History
As early as 1904, a small group of mounted Patrol Inspectors, later known as
mounted guards, had operational headquarters at El Paso, Texas. They patrolled the
Mexican border near El Paso on horseback to curb the flow of illegal Chinese aliens.
The area of operation was later extended to include New Mexico and Arizona.
The El Paso Border Patrol Sector was established on July 1, 1924, under the authority
of the Immigration Act approved by Congress on May 28, 1924. This Act created the
Border Patrol as a uniformed law enforcement branch of the Immigration Bureau.
The original El Paso Sector encompassed New Mexico and the three western counties
of Texas. The first officers selected for the new Border Patrol came from the old
mounted guards and Civil Services Register for Railway Mail Clerks.
The newly organized El Paso Border Patrol Station was assigned 25 Patrol Inspectors.
Liquor smuggling from Mexico was a thriving industry and well organized, providing
a means of considerable profit for illegal aliens entering the United States carrying a
load of contraband.
As Border Patrolmen attempted to apprehend the smugglers, gunfights soon began to
break out. Many bloody battles were fought in and around El Paso. Newspaper files
indicate that not one 24-hour period passed in the month of February 1927 without a
report of gun fighting along the border. The newly established Border Patrol built a
reputation of winning most of the gun battles.
After the establishment of the El Paso Station, almost immediately a need was seen to
have officers at outlying locations. Other stations opened within the sector and some
were temporarily closed during the depression years for budgetary reasons.
Area of Responsibility

Today, the El Paso Sector is one of nine Border Patrol Sectors that run along the
Southwest Border of the United States with Mexico. The sector is comprised of eleven
stations and covers the geographical region of the entire state of New Mexico as well
as two counties within far west Texas.
The stations that make up the El Paso sector are:
Alamogordo, New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Deming, New Mexico
El Paso, Texas
Fabens, Texas
Fort Hancock, Texas
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Lordsburg, New Mexico
Santa Teresa, New Mexico
Truth or Consequences, New Mexico
Ysleta, Texas
The El Paso Sector employs approximately 2,400 Border Patrol Agent positions, six
permanent vehicle checkpoints and patrols 268 miles of international border. The
sector encompasses 125,500 square miles.
General Information
Chief Patrol Agent: Aaron A. Hull
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent: Chris Clem
Service Area: The El Paso Sector covers the entire state of New Mexico and the two
western most counties in Texas, Hudspeth and El Paso. This consists of 125,500
p
55
square miles, 121,000 square miles in New Mexico and 4,500 square miles in Texas.
There are 268 miles of international boundary.
Sector Headquarters Location: 8901 Montana Avenue, El Paso, Texas
Stations: Stations of the El Paso Sector are located in El Paso, Clint, Fort Hancock,
and Ysleta, Texas and Alamagordo, Albuquerque, Deming, Las Cruces, Lordsburg,
Truth or Consequences, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. We have one sub-station in
Silver City, New Mexico.
Contact Information: Phone: [phone]; Sector Headquarters Mailing
Address: 8901 Montana Avenue, El Paso, TX 79925-1212
Community Feedback: We strive to provide quality service to our customers. If we
have not lived up to this commitment, we would like to know. If we have met or
exceeded your expectations, please let us know that as well. To comment on the
services provided by this office, please write to the Sector Chief Patrol Agent. If you
feel you were mistreated by a Border Patrol employee or wish to make a complaint of
misconduct by a Border Patrol employee, you may write to the Chief Patrol Agent.
Employment Opportunities: To obtain information about employment
opportunities with the Border Patrol, you may contact this Sector and ask to speak to
a recruiter. Additional recruiter contact information is provided at Locate a Border

Patrol Recruiter. You will find additional information about careers with the Border
Patrol in the Careers section of this Web site.
Public Affairs Office: To receive information concerning community or mediarelated issues, contact the El Paso Sector Public Affairs Office at [phone].
Vehicle Seizure Office: Contact the El Paso Sector at [phone] for vehicle
seizure or asset forfeiture inquiries.
Border Community Liaison: Jose Romero at [e-mail]
Challenge Coin

The El Paso Sector challenge coin, incorporating elements such as the U.S. flag,
representations of Texas and New Mexico, and the motto, "Where the Legend Began."

EXHIBIT

Treasury Forfeiture Fund
Program Summary by Budget Activity
FY 2017

Mandatory

Strategic Support

-8.13%

$25,898

$10,000

-$15,898

-61.39%

TBD

TBD

NA

NA

$515,731

$460,000

($55,731)

-10.81%

($1,397,700)

($400,000)

$997,700

-71.38%

$355,000

$355,000

($5,000)

-1.41%

25

Total FTE

-$39,833

$387,011

Contingent Liabilities

$450,000

($1,398,050)

Rescissions/Cancellations

$489,833

$526,228

Total Cost of Operations

$ Change

$39,768

2

Estimated

$7,014

Secretary’s Enforcement Fund

3

$479,446

1

FY 2019

Actual

Budget Activity

FY 2018

26

26

Estimated

FY 2018 TO FY 2019
% Change

0.00%

1

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is staffed by Departmental Offices employees and positions are funded via reimbursable agreement.
The FTE are shown here for clarity, but are also reflected in the Departmental Offices chapter in the reimbursable FTE total.
2
For fiscal years 2018 and 2019, Treasury will revise Strategic Support (formerly known as Super Surplus) based on enacted
appropriations and submit a plan to Congress if funding is available, once more is known about actual collections and expenses.
3
FY 2018 full-year appropriations were not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget assumes this
account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115-56, as amended) and that the 2017
enacted rescission recurs in FY 2018.

Summary

The Treasury Executive Office for Asset
Forfeiture (TEOAF) administers the Treasury
Forfeiture Fund. The Treasury Forfeiture
Fund (the Fund) is the receipt account for
deposit of non-tax forfeitures made pursuant to
laws enforced or administered by participating
Treasury and Department of Homeland
Security agencies. The Fund was established
in 1992 as the successor to what was then the
Customs Forfeiture Fund. The Fund supports
Treasury’s goal of Enhancing National
Security.
The enabling legislation for the Treasury
Forfeiture Fund (Title 31 U.S.C. 9705) defines
the purposes for which Treasury forfeiture
revenue may be used.
Explanation of Budget Activities
Mandatory
($450,000
revenue/offsetting collections)

from

Mandatory expenses represent operating costs
of the Fund, including storing and maintaining
seized and forfeited assets, valid liens and

mortgages, investigative expenses incurred in
pursuing a seizure, information and inventory
systems, remissions, victim restoration, and
certain costs of local police agencies incurred
in joint law enforcement operations.
Following seizure, equitable shares may be
paid to state and local law enforcement
agencies that contributed to the seizure activity
at a level proportionate to their involvement.
Secretary's
($10,000,000
collections)

Enforcement
Fund
from
revenue/offsetting

Secretary’s Enforcement Fund (SEF) expenses
are funded from revenue from equitable shares
received from Department of Justice (DOJ) or
U.S. Postal Service (USPS) forfeitures. These
shares are proportionate to Treasury’s
participation in the overall investigative effort
that led to a DOJ or USPS forfeiture. SEF
revenue is available for federal law
enforcement-related purposes of any bureau
participating in the Fund.
Strategic
Support
(TBD
revenue/offsetting collections)

Department of the Treasury – Budget in Brief

from

Strategic Support (formerly known as Super
Surplus) authority, established by Congress in
31 U.S.C. 9705(g)(4)(B), allows TEOAF to
fund priority federal law enforcement
initiatives with remaining unobligated
balances at the close of the fiscal year, after an
amount is reserved for the next fiscal year’s
y
operations. Recently-enacted large rescissions
p
y
g
have had a severe negative impact on the
g
impact
mp
p
participating member agencies’ investigations.
p g
m
agencies’
g
g
Insufficient
Insufficient and inconsistent funding support,
f
pp ,
uncertainty
y
about
t
future
funding,
g,
investigations disrupted by cash flow
g
p
y
f
flow
p
problems, and inability to obtain necessary
,
y
y
technology/infrastructure in the absence of
gy
t
Strategic Support all undermine both current
g
and future financial investigations and
f
financial
forfeitures.
forfeitures.
t
Contingent Liabilities ($350,000
revenue/offsetting collections)

from

TEOAF tracks future remission payments to
third parties as contingent liabilities.
However, these amounts are not recorded as
obligations from the Fund until the
Department of Justice grants the petition for

remission. The third parties are predominantly
victims of crimes that triggered the forfeiture
(e.g., Ponzi scheme or kleptocracy victims).
Amounts recorded are significant because
remission payments from multiple years are
recorded and carried forward. The amounts
change constantly as payments are made and
amounts for new remission cases are added.
TEOAF considers the amounts recorded as
contingent liabilities as unavailable and
believes that consideration of contingent
liabilities provides a more accurate
representation of the financial position of the
Fund.
Legislative Proposals

P.L. 114-113 rescinded $3,800,000,000 of the
$3,838,800,000 forfeited by BNP Paribas in
2015 and prohibited Treasury from obligating
the remaining balance.
However, the
remaining balance will remain in the Fund
unless returned to the General Fund. Return of
these funds to Treasury is being done solely to
remove them from the Fund’s account, but will
not count as savings because the funds are
already precluded from obligation.

TEOAF Performance Highlights
FY 2015
Budget Activity

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

Actual

Actual

Actual

Target

Target

98.25

89.09

81.79

80.0

80.0

Performance Measures

Percent of Forfeited Cash
Treasury Forfeiture
Proceeds Resulting from HighFund
Impact Cases

Description of Performance

The TEOAF continues to measure the
performance of the participating law
enforcement bureaus through the use of the
performance measure: percent of forfeited
cash proceeds resulting from high impact
cases.
This measures the percentage of
forfeited cash proceeds resulting from high
impact cases, which are cases resulting in a
cash forfeiture deposit equal to or greater than
$100,000.

Focusing on strategic cases and investigations
that result in high impact forfeitures will do
the greatest damage to criminal organizations
while accomplishing the ultimate objective,
which is to disrupt and dismantle criminal
activity. Member law enforcement bureaus
participating in the Fund have met or exceeded
the performance target since FY 2013.
However; the performance declined from
89.09 percent to 81.79 percent from FY 2016
to FY 2017. This is attributable to large

Department of the Treasury – Budget in Brief

rescissions leading to no Strategic Support
funding available to the participating agencies
in FY 2015 and FY 2016. For FY 2018 and
FY 2019, the target will remain at 80 percent.
The Fund maintains a target of 80 percent
because some cases may be important to
pursue, even if they are not high-impact cases
and result in deposits of less than $100,000.

Department of the Treasury – Budget in Brief

EXHIBIT

Department of the Treasury
Treasury Forfeiture Fund

Congressional Budget
Justification and Annual
Performance Report and Plan

FY 2019

Table of Contents
Section I – Purpose........................................................................................................................ 3
A – Mission Statement ................................................................................................................ 3
B – Summary of the Request ...................................................................................................... 3
1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table .............................................................................................. 6
1.2 – Operating Levels Table ...................................................................................................... 7
D – Appropriations Language and Explanation of Changes ...................................................... 8
E – Legislative Proposals ............................................................................................................ 8
Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report ................................................................... 9
A – Strategic Alignment ............................................................................................................. 9
B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity ...................................................................... 9
2.1.1 - Treasury Forfeiture Fund Resources and Measures ....................................................... 9

TEOAF - 2

Section I – Purpose
A – Mission Statement
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.
B – Summary of the Request
The Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) administers the Fund, which is the
receipt account for deposit of non-tax forfeitures made pursuant to laws enforced or administered
by participating Treasury and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) bureaus. Principal
revenue-producing bureaus include U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Secret Service, among others.
The Fund is a special fund, defined as a Federal fund account for receipts earmarked for specific
purposes and the expenditure of those receipts. The law (31 U.S.C. 9705) allows TEOAF to use
the funds for payment of all proper expenses of seizure or the proceedings of forfeiture and sale.
Revenues deposited in the Fund can be allocated and used as the result of a permanent indefinite
appropriation provided by Congress. A forfeiture process begins once currency or property is
seized. Seized currency is deposited into a suspense account (holding account) until forfeited.
At that time, the forfeited amount is transferred (deposited) to the Fund as revenue. Forfeited
properties are usually sold and the proceeds are also deposited into the Fund as revenue. This
revenue represents budget authority for meeting obligations and expenses of the program.
Expenses of the Fund are set in a relative priority so that operating costs are met first and may
not exceed revenues.
Mandatory expenses represent operating costs of the Fund, including storing and
maintaining seized and forfeited assets, valid liens and mortgages, investigative expenses
incurred in pursuing a seizure, information and inventory systems, remissions, victim
restoration, and certain costs of local police agencies incurred in joint law enforcement
operations. Following seizure, equitable shares may be paid to state and local law
enforcement agencies that contributed to the seizure activity at a level proportionate to
their involvement.
Secr etar y’ s Enfor cement Fund (SEF) expenses are funded from revenue from equitable
shares received from Department of Justice (DOJ) or U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
forfeitures. These shares are proportionate to Treasury’ s participation in the overall
investigative effort that led to a DOJ or USPS forfeiture. SEF revenue is available for
federal law enforcement-related purposes of any bureau participating in the Fund.
Strategic Support (formerly known as Super Surplus) authority, established by
Congress in 31 U.S.C. 9705(g)(4)(B), allows TEOAF to fund priority federal law
enforcement initiatives with remaining unobligated balances at the close of the fiscal
year, after an amount is reserved for the next fiscal year’ s operations.

TEOAF - 3

Priorities: In FY 2019, TEOAF will continue to support the investigations and activities of the
participating law enforcement bureaus. The bulk of TEOAF expenses include supporting
seizures and forfeitures to protect the health and safety of U.S. citizens and the commercial
interests of U.S. businesses from pernicious criminal activity. Funds are expended for seizure,
storage, maintenance, disposition, and destruction and all costs associated with those activities.
TEOAF focuses on supporting cases and investigations that meet the mission of disrupting and
dismantling criminal enterprises. To this end, TEOAF prioritizes major case1 initiatives when
allocating funding to member agencies, including the purchase of evidence and information, joint
operations expenses, investigative expenses leading to seizure, and asset identification and
removal teams. Major case initiatives are aligned directly to the National Money Laundering
and Southwest Border strategies.
TEOAF also combats emerging patterns and practices that threaten our Nation’ s financial
stability. Funds are used to support anti-money laundering/combating financing of terrorism
(AML/CFT) investigations and activities. To be effective, analysis of large data caches and
cryptocurrency-related crime requires large investments in advanced information technology
hardware, software, training, and other capabilities. These investments buttress the AML/CFT
strategy of the Secretaries of Homeland Security and the Treasury. If available, TEOAF plans to
use Strategic Support (formerly super surplus) funds in FY 2019 to support such investments.
Challenges: Recently-enacted large rescissions have had a severe negative impact on the
participating member agencies’ investigations. Insufficient and inconsistent funding support,
uncertainty about future funding, investigations disrupted by cash flow problems, and inability to
obtain necessary technology/infrastructure in the absence of Strategic Support all undermine
g
both current and future financial investigations and forfeitures. FY 2017 total revenue was the
lowest since FY 2007, and the substantial drop in “ base” revenue (revenue from non-major
p
(
non-major
aj
)
forfeitures) that is relied upon to cover basic mandatory costs of the forfeiture program is
especially troubling. Total FY 2017 “ base” revenue was $349 million, as compared to $419
million in FY 2016, $387 million in FY 2015, and $410 million in FY 2014.

1

A major case refers to a case where the forfeiture results in a deposit greater than $5 million, or a case that disrupts,
dismantles, or interrupts money laundering networks or other financial activities that threaten the financial stability,
financial system, or financial interests of the United States.

TEOAF - 4

The table below reflects forfeiture revenue from all sources including direct revenue, reverse
asset sharing, and interest earned.
Forfeiture Revenue from All Sources
$2,000
$1,715

$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,143

Millions

$1,200

$931

$1,000

$884
$785

$800
$600

$579

$556

$795

$524

$516

$400
$200
$0
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015* FY 2016 FY 2017

*FY 2015 data does not include the BNP Paribas S.A. forfeiture in the amount of $3,839 million. Of that
amount, $3,800 million was permanently rescinded and transferred to the newly-created U.S. Victims of
State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (USVSST) as directed by Congress under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, Div. O, Tit. IV, §404(e) and §405(b). The remainder is
precluded from obligation.

Participating agencies are seeing reluctance in the field to undertake complex major
investigations due to the lack of assurance that their efforts would receive continuous support.
Strategic Support funding is especially critical as a strategic investment in the agencies’
operational capabilities and infrastructure supporting major cases. It provides law enforcement
much-needed flexibility to respond in real time to unanticipated critical needs, such as those
driven by technology advancements or emerging criminal threats. It often serves as seed funding
for innovations that need to be tested and refined prior to full-scale implementation.
It is precisely the most important, high-impact2 financial investigations that suffer the most from
the absence of Strategic Support funding, as they require additional resources and cutting-edge
capabilities (e.g., big data analytics, virtual currency tracking, mobile forensics). Undermining
these major financial investigations will directly impact the ability of Treasury and DHS to
respond to priority threats such as identity theft, fentanyl trafficking, and network intrusion, and
to protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system.
In addition, TEOAF tracks future remission payments to third parties as contingent liabilities.
However, these amounts are not recorded as obligations from the Fund until the Department of
Justice grants the petition for remission. The third parties are predominantly victims of crimes
2

A high-impact case refers to a case resulting in a cash forfeiture deposit equal to or greater that $100,000.

TEOAF - 5

that triggered the forfeiture (e.g., Ponzi scheme or kleptocracy victims). Amounts recorded are
significant because remission payments from multiple years are recorded and carried forward.
The amounts change constantly as payments are made and amounts for new remission cases are
added. TEOAF considers the amounts recorded as contingent liabilities as unavailable and
believes that consideration of contingent liabilities provides a more accurate representation of the
financial position of the Fund.
1.1 – Appropriations Detail Table
Dollars in Thousands
Treasury Forfeiture Fund

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

Budgetary Resources

Actual

Estim ated 4

Estim ated

FTE

AMOUNT

FTE

AMOUNT

FTE

FY 2018 to FY 2019
$ Change

AMOUNT

FTE

% Change

AMOUNT

FTE

AMOUNT

Revenue/Offsetting Collections
Interest

0

$18,930

0

$24,000

0

$9,000

0

(15,000)

0

-62.50%

Restored Temporary Rescission

0

876,000

0

988,000

0

988,000

0

0

0

0.00%

Restored Sequestration

0

124,327

0

96,050

0

96,690

0

640

0

0.67%

Forfeiture Revenue

0

497,096

0

453,000

0

429,000

0

(24,000)

0

-5.30%

Recovery from Prior Years

0

41,622

0

40,000

0

30,000

0

(10,000)

0

-25.00%

Unobligated Balances from Prior Years

0

1,034,832

0

668,529

0

355,158

0

(313,371)

0

-46.87%

Total Revenue/Offsetting Collections

$2,592,807

$2,269,579

$1,907,848

($361,731)

-15.94%

Expenses/Obligations
Asset Forfeiture
Mandatory 1

25

Secretary's Enforcement Fund
Strategic Support2

$479,446

26

$489,833

26

$450,000

0

($39,833)

0

-8.13%

0

7,014

0

25,898

0

10,000

0

(15,898)

0

-61.39%

0

Total Expenses/Obligations

39,768

0

TBD

0

TBD

0

NA

0

NA

25

$526,228

26

$515,731

26

$460,000

0

($55,731)

0

-10.81%

Rescissions/Cancellations
Sequestration Reduction

3

0

(96,050)

0

(96,690)

0

0

0

96,690

0

-100.00%

Temporary Rescission

0

(988,000)

0

(988,000)

0

0

0

988,000

0

-100.00%

Permanent Cancellation

0

(314,000)

0

(314,000)

0

(400,000)

0

(86,000)

0

Total Rescissions/Cancellations

27.39%

($1,398,050)

($1,398,690)

($400,000)

$998,690

-71.40%

Net Results

$668,529

$355,158

$1,047,848

$692,690

195.04%

Contingent Liabilities

$387,011

$355,000

$350,000

($5,000)

1

0

-1.41%

The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is staffed by Departmental Offices employees and positions are funded via reimbursable agreement.
The FTE are shown here for clarity, but are also reflected in the Departmental Offices chapter in the reimbursable FTE total.
2
For fiscal years 2018 and 2019, Treasury will revise Strategic Support (formerly known as Super Surplus) based on enacted
appropriations and submit a plan to Congress if funding is available, once more is known about actual collections and expenses.
3
Treasury will compute the FY 2019 sequestration reduction once the OMB Report to Congress on the Joint Committee
Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2019 is released.
4
FY 2018 full-year appropriations were not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget assumes this
account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115-56, as amended) and that the 2017
enacted rescission recurs in FY 2018.

TEOAF - 6

1.2 – Operating Levels Table
Dollars in Thousands
Treasury Forfeiture Fund

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

Object Classification

Actual

Estim ated

Estim ated

25.2 - Other services from non-Federal sources

$56,124

$60,000

$52,000

25.3 - Other goods and services from Federal sources

159,125

120,000

104,000

19

19

15

200,689

208,729

200,000

32

30

30

43,557

64,953

55,955

26.0 - Supplies and materials
41.0 - Grants, subsidies, and contributions
43.0 - Interests and dividends
44.0 - Refunds
94.0 - Financial transfers

46,682

62,000

48000

Total Non-Personnel

$506,228

$515,731

$460,000

Total Budgetary Resources

$506,228

$515,731

$460,000

25

26

26

FTE

TEOAF - 7

D – Appropriations Language and Explanation of Changes
Appropriations Language
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

Explanation of Changes

(CANCELLATION)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$400,000,000 are hereby permanently cancelled not later than
September 30, 2019.
(INCLUDING RETURN OF FUNDS)
In addition, of amounts in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund,
$38,800,000 from funds paid to the United States Government by
BNP Paribas S.A. as part of, or related to, a plea agreement dated
June 27, 2014, entered into between the Department of Justice and
BNP Paribas S.A., and subject to a consent order entered by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on May 1, 2015, in United States v. BNPP, No. 14 Cr. 460
(S.D.N.Y.), are hereby returned to the General Fund of the
Treasury.
Note.— A full-year 2018 appropriation for this account was not
enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the budget
assumes this account is operating under the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115-56). The
amounts included for 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by
the continuing resolution.

E – Legislative Proposals
The Fund has no legislative proposals for FY 2019.

TEOAF - 8

P.L. 114-113 rescinded
$3,800,000,000 of the
$3,838,800,000 forfeited
by BNP Paribas in 2015
and prohibited Treasury
from obligating the
remaining balance.
However, the remaining
balance will remain in
the Fund unless returned
to the General Fund.
Return of these funds to
Treasury is being done
solely to remove them
from the Fund’ s account,
but will not count as
savings because the
funds are already
precluded from
obligation.

Section II – Annual Performance Plan and Report
A – Strategic Alignment
The purpose of the Fund is to ensure resources are managed to cover the costs of an effective
asset seizure and forfeiture program, including the costs of seizure or the proceedings of
forfeiture and sale, including the expenses of detention, inventory, security, maintenance,
advertisement, or disposal of the property. Additionally, the Fund is used to support law
enforcement priorities, financial investigative capabilities, and the seizure of physical and
financial resources to disrupt and dismantle criminal enterprises. TEOAF supports the following
Department of the Treasury strategic goal and associated objectives:
Goal 3: Enhance National Security:
o 3.1 Strategic Threat Disruption
o 3.2 AML/CFT Framework
B – Budget and Performance by Budget Activity
2.1.1 - Treasury Forfeiture Fund Resources and Measures
Dollars in Thousands
Treasury Forfeiture Fund Budget Activity
Resource Level

FY 2013

Measures

FY 2016

Actual

Actual

Actual

$908,113

$787,849 $4,360,617

$508,746

$526,228

$515,731

$560,045

$908,113

Budget Activity Total

FY 2015

Actual
Expenses/Obligations

FY 2014

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

$787,849 $4,360,617

$508,746

$526,228

$515,731

$560,045

Actual Estim ated Estim ated

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

Actual
Percent of Forfeited Cash
Proceeds Resulting from
High-Impact Cases

FY 2013

Actual

Actual

Actual

Actual

Target

Target

Target

95.09

86.73

98.25

89.09

81.79

80.00

80.00

80.00

Treasury Forfeiture Fund Budget and Performance
($560,045,000 in obligations from revenue/offsetting collections):
The Fund continues to measure the performance of the participating law enforcement bureaus
through the use of the performance measure “ Percent of forfeited cash proceeds resulting from
high-impact cases.” This measures the percentage of forfeited cash proceeds resulting from
cases that yield a cash forfeiture deposit equal to or greater than $100,000.
Focusing on strategic cases and investigations that result in high-impact forfeitures will do the
greatest damage to criminal organizations while accomplishing the ultimate objective, which is
to disrupt and dismantle criminal activity. Member law enforcement bureaus participating in the
Fund have met or exceeded the performance target since FY 2013. However; the performance
declined from 89.09% to 81.79% from FY 2016 to FY 2017. This is attributable to large
rescissions which resulted in no Strategic Support funding available to the participating agencies
in FY 2015 and FY 2016. For FY 2018 and FY 2019, the target will remain at 80 percent. The
Fund maintains a target of 80 percent because some cases may be important to pursue, even if
they are not high-impact cases and result in deposits of less than $100,000.
TEOAF - 9

With the publication of the Treasury Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022, Treasury will work in FY
2018 to baseline its performance against the new strategic objectives. This could result in
additional changes to performance measures in the FY 2020 Budget.

TEOAF - 10

EXHIBIT

December 21, 2015

Assets Forfeiture Fund Rescission Impact on Equitable Sharing Program
The purpose of this letter is to explain the financial implications of recent budget legislation on the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program (Program), including equitable sharing. The Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015 (P.L. 114-74) enacted in November included a $746 million permanent reduction, or “rescission,” of Asset
Forfeiture Program Funds. In light of that $746 million reduction, we intended to implement measures similar to
those during sequestration in FY 2013 when we continued to make equitable sharing payments but at a reduced
amount.
However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, signed into law on December 18, 2015, includes
an additional $458 million rescission in the FY 2016 budget. In order to maintain the financial solvency of the
Program, the Department has already begun implementing cost reduction measures to absorb the combined $1.2
billion rescission.
While we had hoped to minimize any adverse impact on state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners,
the Department is deferring for the time being any equitable sharing payments from the Program. Thus, effective
immediately, the Department will defer all equitable sharing payments to our state, local, and tribal partners and
transfers of any items for official use. Payments that have already been executed by the U.S. Marshals Service will
be transmitted to recipients. Funds already disbursed to state, local, and tribal agencies may continue to be
expended and reported in accordance with the Guide to Equitable Sharing.
By deferring equitable sharing payments now, we preserve our ability to resume equitable sharing payments at a later date should the budget picture improve. In other words, if additional receipts in cases without
identifiable victims are deposited later in FY 2016, there is a possibility that the Department can resume its sharing on some or all of the deferred payments if there are sufficient funds in the budget. The Department does not
take this step lightly. We explored every conceivable option that would have enabled us to preserve some form of
meaningful equitable sharing while continuing to operate the Program and meet our other fiscal obligations.
Unfortunately, the combined effect of the two reductions totaling $1.2 billion made that impossible.

The Department remains committed to the Program and to the state, local, and tribal partners that are
integral to its success. We will take all appropriate and necessary measures to minimize the impact of the
rescission and reinstate sharing distributions as soon as practical and financially feasible. If you have any
questions or concerns, please direct them to [e-mail]. Thank you for your understanding
and cooperation during these challenging times.
Key Contacts
Permissible Use of Funds
[e-mail]

Subscription

A-133 Audit Inquiries
[e-mail]

To subscribe or unsubscribe to or from this email, please send a plain text
email to [e-mail] or [e-mail].

Websites
Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Program
www.justice.gov/criminal-afmls/equitable-sharing-program

Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture

www.treasury.gov/about/organizational-structure/offices/Pages/The-ExecutiveOffice-for-Asset-Forfeiture.aspx

EXHIBIT 45

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

January 29, 2009
Congressional Committees
Subject: Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs
Much of the United States’ 6,000 miles of international borders with Canada and
Mexico remains vulnerable to illegal entry of aliens, criminals, and cargo. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apprehends hundreds of thousands of
people and seizes large volumes of cargo entering the country illegally each year;
however, several hundreds of thousands of individuals and an unknown volume of
contraband also enter the United States illegally and undetected. DHS’s U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency responsible for securing the nation’s
borders along and between ports of entry.1 In November 2005, DHS announced the
launch of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program
aimed at securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration. CBP’s SBI program
office is responsible for managing the SBI program and for developing a
comprehensive border protection system. This system has two main components:
SBInet, which employs radars, sensors, and cameras to detect, identify, and classify
the threat level associated with an illegal entry into the United States between the
ports of entry, and SBI tactical infrastructure (TI), fencing, roads, and lighting
intended to enhance U.S. Border Patrol agents’ ability to respond to the area of the
illegal entry and bring the situation to a law enforcement resolution (i.e., arrest). The
current focus of the SBI program is on the southwest border areas between ports of
entry that CBP has designated as having the highest need for enhanced border
security because of serious vulnerabilities.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, required DHS to complete construction
by December 31, 2008, of either 370 miles or other mileage determined by the
Secretary, of reinforced fencing along the southwest border wherever the Secretary
determines it would be most practical and effective in deterring smugglers and aliens
attempting illegal entry.2 DHS set a goal to complete approximately 670 miles of
1

At a port of entry location, CBP officers are to secure the flow of people and cargo into and out of the
country, while facilitating legitimate travel and trade.
2

Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. E, § 564(a)(2)(B)(ii), 121 Stat. 1844, 2090-91 (2007) (amending section
102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554, as amended by section 3(2) of the Secure Fence Act of 2006,
Pub. L. No. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638, 2639). This provision also required the construction of reinforced
fencing along a total of not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most
practical and effective, but it did not establish a deadline for completion of the full 700 miles.

GAO-09-244R Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs

which 81 miles of fencing were constructed. PF 225 is the second pedestrian fencing
project and is expected to result in approximately 210 miles of fence construction.
The VF 300 project is expected to construct approximately 227 miles of vehicle
fencing barriers along the southwest border. SBI program officials explained that the
total fencing miles completed or planned under these projects total 661 because
several fencing segments that were scheduled to be built in calendar year 2008 will
now be constructed through a different project in calendar year 2009 (see table 1).
Table 1: Fence Projects along the Southwest Border
Fence projects
Pedestrian fence miles
81
PF 70
210
PF 225
N/A
VF 300
a
67
Legacy pedestrian fence
N/A
Legacy vehicle fence
Total
358
Source: SBI.

Vehicle fence miles
N/A
N/A
227
N/A
a
76
303

Total miles
81
210
227
67
76
661

Note: N/A = not applicable.
a

Seventy-eight miles of pedestrian fencing and 57 miles of vehicle fencing were in place before the SBI program
began. However, since SBI began construction, some miles of fencing have been removed, replaced or
retrofitted resulting in mileage totals that are different from those we have previously reported.

In an effort to identify lower-cost and easily deployable fencing solutions, CBP
funded a project called Fence Lab in February 2007. Fence Lab tested fence/barrier
prototypes and evaluated them based on performance criteria such as their ability to
disable a vehicle traveling at 40 miles per hour, allowing animals to migrate through
them, and cost-effectiveness. SBI TI program office officials told us these
performance standards apply only to primary fencing, and SBI currently does not
have performance standards for secondary fencing. Each style of fencing has
different costs associated with construction, and the Border Patrol determines which
fencing style is appropriate based on the operational need of a specific geographic
area along the southwest border. Figure 2 shows examples of approved SBI Fence
Lab fencing.

Page 6

GAO-09-244R Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs

Figure 2: Examples of SBI Fence Lab Fencing Styles

In October 2007, we reported that fencing costs vary based on the type of terrain,
materials used, land acquisition, who performs the construction, and the need to
meet an expedited schedule.11 To minimize one of the many factors that add to cost,
in the past, DHS used Border Patrol agents and DOD personnel to construct the
fencing. At that time, CBP officials also reported that they planned to use commercial
labor for future infrastructure projects because using Border Patrol agents took them
away from their other duties and the Department of Defense had notified DHS that
military personnel would no longer be available to build fencing.
Costs of Fencing Completed
As of September 30, 2007, about 73 miles of SBI fencing had been completed by CBP
at a cost of approximately $198 million. Of the 73 miles of fencing, the SBI program
had completed about 70 miles of pedestrian fencing through the PF 70 project at a
cost of approximately $192 million, with per mile costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8
million and about 1 mile of pedestrian fencing through the PF 225 project at a cost of
about $3.0 million. In addition, approximately 2 miles of vehicle fencing were

11

See GAO, Secure Border Initiative: Observations on Selected Aspects of SBInet Program
Implementation, GAO-08-131T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 24, 2007).

Page 7

GAO-09-244R Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs

constructed at a cost of $2.8 million. Table 2 summarizes SBI fencing miles, costs,
and cost ranges and average costs as of September 30, 2007.
Table 2: Completed Miles and Cost of SBI Fencing as of September 30, 2007
Dollars in millions
Project
PF 70

Miles completed
70a

Project cost
$192.3

Cost range per mile
$0.4 to 4.8

Average cost per mile
$2.7

PF 225

1b

3.0

4.2

4.2

VF 300

c

2

2.8

1.8

1.8

73

$198.1

N/A

N/A

Total
Source: SBI.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
a

This excludes approximately 5 miles that were completed under PF 70, but were not funded by SBI.

b

Actual fence completed was 0.72 miles.

c

Actual fence completed was 1.6 miles.

As of October 31, 2008, CBP had completed a total of about 215 miles of SBI fencing
at a cost of approximately $625 million. Of the 215 miles of fencing, 75 miles were
completed under PF 70 at a cost of approximately $214 million, 65 miles were
completed under PF 225 at a cost of about $334 million, and 75 miles were completed
under VF 300 at a cost of approximately $78 million. Table 3 summarizes SBI fencing
miles, costs, and cost ranges and average costs as of October 31, 2008.
Table 3: Completed Miles and Cost of SBI Fencing as of October 31, 2008
Dollars in millions
Miles completed

Project cost

Cost range per mile

PF 70

75a

$213.6

$0.4 to 4.8

Average cost per
mile
$2.8

PF 225

65

333.7

2.8 to 15.1

5.1

VF 300

75

78.1

0.2 to 1.8

1.0

215

$625.4

N/A

N/A

Project

Total
Source: SBI.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
a

This excludes approximately 5 miles that were completed under PF 70, but were not funded by SBI.

The per mile cost ranges can be attributed to several factors. For example, by design,
it is less expensive to construct vehicle fencing than pedestrian fencing. Also, as
discussed previously, costs for fencing completed by commercial contractors are
higher than for fencing built by the Border Patrol or the military. In addition,
differences in terrain and other factors, such as whether the fencing is built on public
or private land, can drive cost differences. More specifically, the increase in costs
between the PF 70 and PF 225 projects occurred, in part, because there were minimal
land acquisition costs in fiscal year 2007 when most of PF 70 was being built, while
costs for real estate, labor, and materials increased in fiscal year 2008 when PF 225
was being built. In addition, about 40 percent of PF 70 was built by Border Patrol and

Page 8

GAO-09-244R Secure Border Initiative Fence Construction Costs

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling [phone], toll free [phone], or
TDD [phone].
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:

Congressional
Relations

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [e-mail], [phone]
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [e-mail], [phone]
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [e-mail]
Automated answering system: [phone] or [phone]

EXHIBIT 46

CQ

Page 1 of 114

CQ Congressional Transcripts
Mar. 14, 2019

Mar. 14, 2019 Revised Final

Senate Armed Services Committee Holds
Hearing on the Defense Budget Posture
LIST OF PANEL MEMBERS AND WITNESSES
INHOFE:

Our meeting will come to order. It's nice to have the Steve Turner,
northeastern state in the audience today to advise us along our line and we
are very pleased to have the Patrick Shanahan, the Acting Secretary of
Defense, General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
David Norquist, and I have to say, David, I enjoyed our breakfast together
the other day and--and I think it--some people think it's pretty outrageous
that we can actually have an audit. I'm glad that--I'm glad that you're in
charge of it.

NORQUIST:

Thank you, sir.

INHOFE:

Thank the panel for their distinguished service to the country and I'm
pleased to see that the Department of Defense budget request for $718.3
billion and the overall national defense request of $750 billion. This amount
is an increase of less than three percent of real growth. You know, we have
a--this manual represents the--the blueprints that we are following right

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5486637?4

3/19/2019

CQ

Page 44 of 114

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Shanahan, the recently released
Missile Defense Review directed a study on operationalizing the Aegis
Ashore site at the arrange facility PMRF on Kauai. You and I discussed this.
We--I have some significant concerns about what operationalizing this site
would do to PMR's ability to meet its testing mission, which I assume you
agree is important. You can--

SHANAHAN:

--No, absolutely, senator And--

HIRONO:

--Thank you. I'll get to the question.

SHANAHAN:

All right.

HIRONO:

As well as the impact of--of removing that testing capacity from PMRF. So
briefly, could you tell us how operationalizing the Aegis ashore site and
Kauai would add to our ability to defend Hawaii from missile threats,
especially as the major missile threat to Hawaii would be an ICBM and the
Aegis ashore is not set up to counter ICBMs.

SHANAHAN:

My understanding of the request and the MDR is that it's a study to assess
taking the test assets and operationalizing them. And as--as you will point
out, the ground-based midcourse defense system that is resident in Alaska

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5486637?4

3/19/2019

CQ

Page 45 of 114

defends Hawaii. I believe that the study will look at what are other threats
that may be posed to Hawaii and how there might be a layered defense. But
as you pointed out, the test range there is vital capability and capacity were
developing our missile defense systems.

HIRONO:

So I want to make sure that my concerns are in the record. For Secretary
,
Shanahan and General Dunford, two weeks ago, before this committee,
General O'Shaughnessy, the North--Northern command commander
testified that the current situation at our Southern border is, to quote him,
"Not a military threat." Do you agree, Secretary Shanahan, that the situation
in the southern border is not a military threat?

SHANAHAN:

Senator, you--you are referring to General O'Shaughnessy's testimony?

HIRONO:

Yes.

SHANAHAN:

Yeah, what--what I recall from his testimony is he said that it is not a military
threat, he said--he said border security is national security.

HIRONO:

I understand that, but he said specifically that it's not a military threat. I'm
.
asking whether you agree with him that it's not a military threat.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5486637?4

3/19/2019

CQ

Page 46 of 114

SHANAHAN:

I agree with him.

HIRONO:

General Dunford?

DUNFORD:

I agree. It's a security challenge, not a military threat.
I

HIRONO:

So you testified, Secretary, Mr. Secretary, that there were 6,000 troops
currently deployed at our southern border. Can you tell us how long they
were going to be there?

SHANAHAN:

The--I'd say 30 or 40 percent of them will be departing in the next month or
-I'd
so when they complete some of their work. And I believe will probably draw
down to between 3 and 4,000.

HIRONO:

Is it something that the president is indicating to you or can he say that I
want you all to remain at the border?

SHANAHAN:

You know, this was part of the tasking from the department of homeland
security. And based on their request to us--

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5486637?4

3/19/2019

CQ

Page 47 of 114

HIRONO:

--From the president?

SHANAHAN:

From--from the department.

HIRONO:

Yes. Let me get on to a matter that is of great concern to--to some--to a lot of
us, actually. Secretary Shanahan, in your response to Senator Inhofe's
question about refueling the Truman, you stated that going the workforce in
the shipyard is a priority and the move to not refuel the Truman would save 3
$.4 billion over 5 years. And how does canceling three years of shipyard
work grow the workforce there?

SHANAHAN:

Yes, the--the workforce, when--when we look at what is in the shipyards, so
the combination of submarines, new carriers, and then maintenance, all of
that is done in the same shipyards and that workforce moves from project to
project. So when we look at the total employment, the actual total
employment goes up over the period of time in which we are building the
two carriers.

HIRONO:

Frankly, as I talked with some of the people from the shipyards, I'm not sure
that that is the case. And it'll cost about $3.4 billion to refuel the Truman,
which by the way, by not refueling, were only getting about 50 percent of the
Truman's service life. So at the same time, there's $3.6 billion in the

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5486637?4

3/19/2019

CQ

Page 114 of 114

Testimony & Transcripts
Complete written testimony for this event March 14, 2019

About Senate Armed Services
Staff
Hearing
Transcripts
Testimony
Committee Reports
Associated Bills
Schedules
Markup
Amendments

© 2019 · CQ - Roll Call, Inc · All Rights Reserved.
1625 Eye Street, Suite 200 · Washington, D.C. 20006-4681 · 202-650-6500
About CQ

Help

Privacy Policy

Masthead

Terms & Conditions

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5486637?4

3/19/2019

EXHIBIT 47

1

expect to have success with 20th century technology against

2

21st century threats.

3

Chairman Inhofe:

4

Thank you very much.

5

Senator Reed?

6

Let me interrupt, Senator Reed, if I might, because we

7
8
9

Which is what we have had.

do have a quorum now.
I will ask the committee to consider a list of 1,818
pending military nominations.

All the nominations have been

10

before the committee the required length of time.

11

Is there

a motion?

12

Senator Reed:

So moved.

13

Senator Fischer:

Second.

14

Chairman Inhofe:

All in favor, say aye.

15

[Chorus of ayes.]

16

Chairman Inhofe:

17

[No response.]

18

Chairman Inhofe:

19

Senator Reed?

20

Senator Reed:

21

General O'Shaughnessy, as I have indicated in my

No?

It carries.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

22

opening statement, I have concerns about the use of American

23

military forces along the southern border and a hard time

24

understanding the nature of an emergency that would require

25

military forces when nowhere in the National Defense
23

1

Strategy, the worldwide threat statement from the

2

intelligence community, nor the statement from the Commander

3

of SOUTHCOM indicate that migrant caravans of civilians

4

across the border are a military threat.

5

opening statement, you say -- and I quote -- the threats to

6

our nation from our southern border are not military in

7

nature.

8
9
10
11

In fact, in your

Close quotes.

So just to be clear, in your professional opinion, does
the illegal crossing of the border by civilians represent a
military threat?
General O'Shaughnessy:

Senator, first, I would say

12

first that I do think a secure border does reduce threats to

13

the homeland.

14

Now, specific to your question about is it a military

15

threat that is coming towards us, it is not a military

16

threat, but that is slightly than answering whether the

17

military should be responding to the situation.

18

Senator Reed:

Following up, in your professional

19

opinion again, would a wall be effective in defending a

20

military attack on the United States?

21

General O'Shaughnessy:

Senator, I would say that

22

border security is national security.

I do see that any

23

barrier in place to secure our nation does have some

24

ramifications to our ability to defend against a military

25

threat as well.

Right now, there is not a specific military
24

1

force from the south that we are trying to take action

2

against.

3

In this particular case, though, Senator, I would say

4

over the last 5 months I have spent a tremendous amount of

5

time on the border, as you would imagine, working with our

6

CBP partners.

7

has been clear to me that the Customs and Border Protection

8

personnel very much value the border protection and seeing

9

it, having the awareness, having some impediments, whether

And in all of those trips and discussions, it

10

that be a barrier or wall, et cetera, and then having the

11

ability to respond to it.

12

universal as I have been doing my trips to the border.

13

Senator Reed:

And that has been fairly

And they are civilian law enforcement

14

officials who have a law enforcement mission, and the

15

context of their evaluation is based upon that law

16

enforcement mission.

17

General O'Shaughnessy:

That is correct, Senator.

18

Senator Reed:

19

You have mentioned many real threats that have been

20

articulated in the National Defense Strategy, Russia and

21

China in particular.

22

our southern border but our northern border, the opening of

23

the Arctic, the operations by both China and Russia in the

24

Arctic, and also I think maintaining the capabilities of

25

NORAD.

Thank you.

Many of them really are not focused on

Those are multibillion dollar tasks.
25

Do you think

1

we want our allies to understand that we can defend them

2

too.

3

that means you have to be ready to support their

4

contingencies as well.

That is what extended deterrence is all about, and

5

Senator Cotton:

Thank you, General.

6

I understand that some opponents of our nuclear force

7

or critics of it say that we should not start a new arms

8

race or be engaged in an arms race.

9

based on what you have said here today, that it is much

10

I will simply observe,

cheaper to win an arms race than it is to lose a war.

11

General Hyten:

Yes, sir.

12

Chairman Inhofe:

13

I thank both of you.

Thank you, Senator Cotton.
I will repeat what I said

14

earlier.

This has been a really enlightening session, and

15

you have been the right ones to be here.

16

much.

So thank you very

17

We are adjourned.

18

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111

EXHIBIT 48

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
29 JANUARY 2019

and its extremist allies present a growing threat, with attacks increasing during the past year.
Implementation of Mali’s peace accord—an essential step for extending governance into terrorist
safe havens in northern and central Mali—probably will be difficult because remaining steps are
politically and financially sensitive.
Nigeria
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country and the largest economy, probably will face a contentious
presidential election in February 2019 and sustained attacks from Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa
(ISIS-WA). Abuja is also facing continued violence in the politically sensitive Middle Belt region. .
Sudan and South Sudan
Violence and the humanitarian crisis in South Sudan are likely to persist this year, while Sudan probably
wants to improve relations with the United States but will continue reaching out to other partners to boost
its economy. In South Sudan, the peace agreement signed between the government and opposition
groups in September 2017 faces delays and implementation difficulties. Acute food insecurity and
constraints on aid access—resulting from poor infrastructure, seasonal rains, active hostilities, and
government- and opposition-imposed impediments—are likely to contribute to an ongoing
humanitarian crisis. Meanwhile, Khartoum, despite facing antigovernment protests over its poor
economic situation, is committed to pursuing efforts to improve its relationship with the United
States and wants to be removed from the US State Sponsors of Terrorism List. Sudan also will
strengthen ties to other partners—including Russia and Turkey—in an effort to diversify its
partnerships and improve its economic situation.
Horn of Africa
The states of East Africa will confront internal tension and a continuing threat from al-Shabaab, despite
improved intergovernmental relations and Ethiopian-Eritrean rapprochement. Elite competition,
corruption, and poor coordination among security services in Somalia will hamper efforts to tamp
down violence. The African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) is unlikely to engage in
aggressive offensive operations against al-Shabaab in advance of the mission’s scheduled withdrawal
from Somalia by 2021. Ethiopia and Eritrea will struggle to balance political control with demands
for reform from domestic constituencies.
Central Africa
Political unrest across Central Africa is likely to persist through 2019, compounding humanitarian
challenges and armed conflict. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is recovering from its
contentious presidential election in December 2018, as well as dealing with an ongoing Ebola
outbreak and internal displacement crisis. Meanwhile, violence among armed groups in several
regions of the DRC threatens regional and national stability, and violence in eastern DRC impedes
efforts to respond to the Ebola outbreak. The Central African Republic (CAR) is struggling to make
progress toward a peace agreement between the government and multiple armed groups.

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Flagging economies, migration flows, corruption, narcotics trafficking, and anti-US autocrats will present
continuing challenges to US interests, as US adversaries and strategic competitors seek greater influence in
the region. The hemisphere will see several presidential elections this year, including in Argentina,

40

Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and Uruguay, providing opportunities for outside
candidates to exploit public frustration with stagnant economic growth, high crime, and corruption.
China and Russia will pursue efforts to gain economic and security influence in the region.
Mexico
Newly inaugurated Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador almost certainly will focus on
meeting steep public expectations for improvements on anticorruption and security following his landslide
electoral victory in July. He is likely to pursue mostly practical approaches to US cooperation that
complement his ambitious domestic agenda. Lopez Obrador has promised to reduce violence, in
part by addressing socioeconomic causes, but he has publicly conceded that Mexico’s military must
keep up its public security role in the near term, despite his initial preference to end it. Lopez
Obrador has supported the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal, probably hoping
to reduce trade-related uncertainty, allowing him to focus on his domestic economic agenda.
However, Mexico’s $1.15 trillion economy remains vulnerable to investor uncertainty that could
weaken the export sector and slow economic growth, which was just 2 percent in 2017. Declining
oil revenue will limit the Mexican Government’s ability to fund Lopez Obrador’s ambitious social
programs and infrastructure projects.
Central America
We assess that high crime rates and weak job markets will spur additional US-bound migrants from the
Northern Triangle—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—while a political crackdown in Nicaragua
dims that country’s already bleak economic outlook. Illicit migration northward from the region shows
no signs of abating, despite increased messaging by governments to dissuade potential migrants and
stepped-up immigration enforcement by Mexico. Many migrants apparently perceive that traveling
in caravans on the journey north affords a certain level of security, and the decision to do so appears
to result from a combination of individual motivation, encouragement from social media postings,
and politically motivated efforts by some individuals and organizations.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s refusal to heed calls for negotiation amid his political
crackdown, which has left more than 300 people dead and contributed to allegations of human
rights abuses, threatens to deepen a recession in one of the region’s weakest economies.

41

Venezuela
Although the regime of Nicolas Maduro will
continue to try to maintain power, he is facing
persistent opposition. Falling oil production,
economic mismanagement, and legal challenges
almost certainly will compound the worsening
economic pressure on the country. Living
standards have collapsed, and hyperinflation and
shortages in basic goods have gripped the
country. Since 2014, the UN International
Organization for Migration estimates that 2-3
million Venezuelans have left the country.
Maduro continues to crack down on the political
and military opposition after a failed
assassination attempt against him in August
2018 and disrupted coup plots in the past 12
months, but the opposition has shown resilience,
as indicated by its challenge to Maduro’s rule
emerging in late January 2019.
Colombia
Colombian President Ivan Duque faces a fraying
peace accord with the former Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia (FARC) while he is working to
stem violence in Colombia’s rural departments,
carry out his coca eradication ambitions, and
manage growing tensions with Caracas. Duque has
ordered increased security operations to curb common crime, threats from Colombia’s insurgent and
criminal groups, and address coca cultivation and trafficking. Coca cultivation in Colombia was at a
record 209,000 hectares in 2017, and crop substitution and eradication programs face coordination
challenges and local resistance.
Cuba
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel will adhere to former President Raul Castro’s blueprint for
institutionalizing one-party rule and socialism in Cuba through constitutional reforms. Diaz-Canel has
acknowledged that Raul Castro, who still commands the ruling Communist Party, remains the
dominant voice on public policy.

42

EXHIBIT 49

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
INSTRUCTION
Directive current as of
J-3
DISTRIBUTION: A, C, S

20

CJCSI 3710.01B
26 January 2007

DOD COUNTERDRUG SUPPORT
References:

See Enclosure B.

1. Purpose. This instruction promulgates Secretary of Defense (SecDef)
delegation of authority to approve counterdrug (CD) operational support
missions. It also provides, in accordance with (IAW) the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2002, as amended, instructions on authorized types of
DOD CD support to law enforcement agencies (LEA), other government
agencies, and foreign nations.
2. Cancellation. This instruction cancels CJCSI 3710.01A, 30 March 2004.
3. Applicability. This instruction is applicable to Military Departments and
combatant commands and subordinate organizations conducting and
supporting CD operations.
4. Policy. See Enclosure A.
5. Definitions. See the Glossary. Abbreviations and acronyms are established
throughout the text in Enclosure A.
6. Responsibilities. See Enclosure A.
7. Summary of Changes. Pursuant to SecDef discretion, this instruction:
a. Provides authority and guidance to CDRUSSOUTHCOM for domestic
CD/law enforcement activities as a result of the 2006 Unified Command Plan
expanding USSOUTHCOM’s area of responsibility to include Puerto Rico and
the US Virgin Islands.
b. Promulgates SecDef authority to Military Department Secretaries to

CJCSI 3710.01B
26 January 2007
(3) Except for extradition requests, federal LEA requests for
transportation support will be submitted to the supported GCC (or as further
delegated IAW this instruction) in whose area of responsibility the mission is to
originate. The responsible federal LEA, through its parent or national
headquarters, must forward extradition requests to the DOD Executive
Secretary, who will forward approved requests to the Joint Staff for action.
(4) GCCs are not authorized to approve transportation support in direct
tactical support of the operational portions of ongoing LEA or foreign LEA
operations, or of any activities where CD-related hostilities are imminent. If
criminal evidence or prisoners seized by LEAs are brought aboard DOD
aircraft, vehicles, or vessels being used to provide transportation support, such
evidence and/or prisoners will remain solely within the control and custody of
the LEAs.
g. Use of Military Vessels for LEA Operating Bases. The use of military
vessels as a base of operations for LEAs, except when approved under reference
b, requires SecDef and Attorney General approval. The Secretary of Defense
has not delegated authority to approve use of military vessels for LEA operating
bases in the territorial waters of a host nation (HN). Such approval
coordination will be pursued as the same manner in for linguist support
described in subparagraph 4.e. above and include prior notification to DOD
OGC.
h. Equipment Maintenance and Operation Support. Authority is delegated
to approve maintenance and operation support IAW references b and f but does
not include the cost of parts or equipment to be funded under reference b or
other sources.
i. Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence (C4I)
and Network Support. Assistance in establishing and maintaining C4I and
networking support to provide improved integration of law enforcement, active
military, and National Guard activities will be IAW reference b, section
1004(b)(8) (as amended).
j. Technology Demonstrations. Technology demonstrations may be
conducted in coordination with the DOD Counternarco-Terrorism Technology
Program Office, and technology requirements may be developed based on
stated LEA needs (10 USC 380).
5. CD Support

Domestic

a. General Delegations. With regard to the general delegations in
paragraph 4 above and the delegations contained in this paragraph, the
Secretary of Defense has delegated approval authority to CDRUSNORTHCOM,
CDRUSSOUTHCOM, and CDRUSPACOM, as appropriate, for the following:
A-5

Enclosure A

CJCSI 3710.01B
26 January 2007
(1) CD support involving no more than 400 personnel for any one
mission.
(2) CD support not exceeding 179 days for any one mission.
(3) DOD personnel are not authorized to accompany LEAs on actual CD
field operations nor may they participate in activities where CD-related
hostilities are imminent.
(4) CDRUSNORTHCOM/CDRUSSOUTHCOM/CDRUSPACOM will first
determine if the state (and/or territory) National Guard (title 32 forces) can
provide the requested support. If the state (and/or territory) National Guard
cannot provide the forces, CDRUSNORTHCOM/CDRUSSOUTHCOM/
CDRUSPACOM will determine if the request is feasible, supportable, and
consistent with DOD policy IAW reference g.
(5) GCCs/Military Departments may approve the transfer of their units,
personnel, and equipment to support Joint Task Force-North (JTF-N)/
USNORTHCOM CD missions. GCCs/Military Departments may delegate
approval authority. When approving support to JTF-N/USNORTHCOM, the
GCC/Military Department will determine whether or not the proposed mission
satisfies the readiness and military training value requirements of reference g.
b. CD-Related Training of Law Enforcement Personnel.
CDRUSNORTHCOM/CDRUSSOUTHCOM/CDRUSPACOM may approve
training for LEA personnel in the United States. Per reference g, no advanced
military training will be provided to LEA personnel. However, the US Army
Military Police School may continue to train LEA personnel in the Counterdrug
Special Reaction Team Course, Counterdrug Field Tactical Police Operations
Training, and Counterdrug Marksman/Observer Course (reference g). On an
exceptional basis, CDRUSSOCOM may approve such training by special
operations forces (reference n).
c. Engineering Support. CDRUSNORTHCOM/CDRUSPACOM may approve
y pp
engineering support in the United States. Per reference g military engineering
g
g,
y
g
support is limited to the southwest border and defined as mobility and
pp
countermobility (fences, lights, roads) efforts. This includes approval of
materiel p
purchases necessary to support DOD mission personnel but does not
y
include military construction or provision of other materials. See reference b,
section 1004(b)(7) (as amended).
6. CD Support

Foreign

a. General Delegations. With regard to the general delegations in
paragraph 4 above and the delegations contained in this paragraph, the
A-6

Enclosure A

CJCSI 3710.01B
26 January 2007
Secretary of Defense has delegated approval authority for CD support outside
the United States; the Secretary of Defense has delegated approval authority
for CD support to GCCs for:
(1) Planning and Coordination Visits. Planning and coordination visits
to American Embassies (contingent on Embassy approval) may be conducted
with theater-assigned
(2) Intelligence Analyst Support. Intelligence analyst support may be
provided to US Ambassadors using theater-assigned forces (consistent with
references c and d). This approval is subject to DoD Component General
Counsel concurrence when military intelligence component and/or Military
Department personnel are used in support of LEAs, per reference c and
component’s implementing directives:
(a) At respective US Embassies or consulates.
(b) At US regional analysis centers.
(3) Planning and Coordination Visits. Planning and coordination visits
of 10 personnel or less for 60 days or less to HN headquarters (contingent on
American Embassy approval) may be conducted with theater-assigned or
allocated forces to accomplish the GCC’s D&M mission or to support the US
Ambassador’s CD effort with expert advice or assistance to the US Country
Team.
(4) Linguist Support. Includes translator and interpreter support
consistent with reference c. This approval is subject to DoD Component
General Counsel approval when military intelligence components and/or
personnel are used to support LEAs, as defined in reference c and component
implementing directives. This delegation does not include authority to approve
cryptologic support, real-time translation of oral or wire intercepts, direct
participation in interrogation activities, or the use of counterintelligence assets
for CD purposes. Linguist missions to locations outside American Embassies
will be limited to short-duration visits (not to exceed 30 days) of no more than
10 persons to primary HN and US C4I headquarters for the express purpose of
accomplishing the mission of supporting the Ambassador’s CD effort.
(5) CD-Related Training of Law Enforcement Personnel
(a) GCCs may approve CD-related training of foreign law enforcement
personnel requiring no more than 50 theater-assigned personnel for no more
than 45 days with HN and Country Team approval and notification.

A-7

Enclosure A

CJCSI 3710.01B
26 January 2007

(INTENTIONALLY BLANK)

GL-6

Glossary

EXHIBIT 50

REMARKS

Remarks by President Trump on the National
Security and Humanitarian Crisis on our
Southern Border
IMMIGRATION

Issued on: February 15, 2019

Rose Garden
10:39 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, everybody. Before we begin, I’d like to just say
that we have a large team of very talented people in China. We’ve had a negotiation
going on for about two days. It’s going extremely well. Who knows what that means,
because it only matters if we get it done. But we’re very much working very closely with
China and President Xi, who I respect a lot. Very good relationship that we have. And
we’re a lot closer than we ever were in this country with having a real trade deal.
We’re covering everything — all of the points that people have been talking about for
years that said couldn’t be done, whether it was theft or anything. Anything. The
unfairness. We’ve been losing, on average, $375 billion a year with China. A lot of people
think it’s $506 billion. Some people think it’s much more than that. We’re going to be
leveling the playing field.

use it for. I said, “What were you going to use it for?” And I won’t go into details, but it
didn’t sound too important to me.
Plus, if you think, I’ve gotten $700 billion for the military in year one, and then last year,
$716 billion. And we’re rebuilding our military, but we have a lot. And under the
previous administration, our military was depleted — badly depleted. And they weren’t
spending — I mean, they had a much less — they had a much smaller amount of money.
So when I got $700 billion, and then $716 billion — and this year, it’s going to be pretty
big too, because there’s few things more important than our military. You know, I’m a
big deficit believer and all of that, but before we really start focusing on certain things,
we have to build up our military. It was very badly depleted. And we’re buying all new
jetfighters, all new missiles, all new defensive equipment. We have — we’ll soon have a
military like we’ve never had before.
But when you think about the kind of numbers you’re talking about — so you have $700
billion, $716 billion — when I need $2 billion, $3 billion of out that for a wall — which is a
very important instrument, very important for the military because of the drugs that
pour in. And as you know, we have specific rules and regulations where they have drugs,
and what you can do in order to stop drugs. And that’s part of it, too.
We’re taking a lot of money from that realm also. But when you have that kind of money
going into the military, this is a very, very small amount that we’re asking for.
Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. ABC. Not NBC. I like ABC a little bit more — not much. Come
on, ABC. Not much. Pretty close.
Q Mr. President, what do you say to those, including some of your Republican allies,
who say that you are violating the Constitution with this move and setting a bad
precedent that will be abused by possibly Democratic Presidents in the future? Marco
Rubio has made this point.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, not too many people. Yeah. Not too many people have said that.
But the courts will determine that.
Look, I expect to be sued. I shouldn’t be sued. Very rarely do you get sued when you do
national emergency. And then other people say, “Oh, if you use it for this, now what are
we using it for?” We got to get rid of drugs and gangs and people. It’s an invasion. We
have an invasion of drugs and criminals coming into our country that we stop, but it’s
very hard to stop. With a wall, it would be very easy.
So I think that we will be very successful in court. I think it’s clear. And the people that
say we create precedent — well, what do you have? Fifty-six? There are a lot of times —
well, that’s creating precedent. And many of those are far less important than having a
border. If you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country.
You know, we fight — before I got here — we fight all over the world to create borders for
countries, but we don’t create a border for our own country.
So I think what will happen is, sadly, we’ll be sued, and sadly, it’ll go through a process.
And, happily, we’ll win — I think.
Go ahead. Let’s go. Let’s hear it, NBC. Come on.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say, in the past, when President Obama tried
to use executive action as it related to immigration, you said, “The whole concept of
executive order, it’s not the way the country is supposed to be run.” You said, “You’re
supposed to go through Congress and make a deal.” Will you concede that you were
unable to make the deal that you had promised in the past, and that the deal you’re
ending up with now from Congress is less than what you could have had before a 35-day
shutdown?
THE PRESIDENT: No. Look, I went through Congress. I made a deal. I got almost $1.4
k,
billion when I wasn’t supposed to get one dollar — not one dollar. “He’s not going to get
w

one dollar.” Well, I got $1.4 billion. But I’m not happy with it. I also got billions and
billions of dollars for other things — port of entries, lots of different things. The purchase
of drug equipment. More than we were even requesting.
,
In fact, the primary fight was on the wall. Everything else, we have so much, as I said, I
don’t know what to do with it we have so much money. But on the wall, they skimped.
So I did — I was successful, in that sense, but I want to do it faster. I could do the wall
over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather do it much faster.
And I don’t have to do it for the election. I’ve already done a lot of wall, for the election
— 2020. And the only reason we’re up here talking about this is because of the election,
because they want to try and win an election, which it looks like they’re not going to be
able to do. And this is one of the ways they think they can possibly win, is by obstruction
and a lot of other nonsense.
And I think that I just want to get it done faster, that’s all.
Okay. Yes, ma’am, go ahead.
Q Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Roberta Rampton from Reuters. I wanted to ask about China. Do you feel that
enough progress has been made in the talks to head off the increase in tariffs scheduled
for March 1?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, you’re talking to the wrong person, because I happen
to like tariffs, okay? I mean, we’re taking in billions and billions of dollars in tariffs from
China. And our steel industry now, as an example, we tax dumped steel — much of it
comes from China — at 25 percent. Our steel industry is so vibrant now again, they’re

building plants all over the United States. It’s a beautiful thing. And from a defensive
standpoint, and from any standpoint, you need steel.
You know, you can do without certain industries. Our country cannot do without steel.
So, I love tariffs, but I also love them to negotiate. And right now, China is paying us
billions of dollars a year in tariffs. And I haven’t even started.
Now, here’s the thing: If we make a deal, they won’t have to pay. You know, it’ll be a
whole different story. They won’t be paying that, but we’ll have a fair deal. There won’t
be intellectual property theft. There won’t be so many other things that have gone on.
And no other President has done this. No other — you know, we didn’t have a deal with
China. You had the WTO, one of the worst trade deals ever made — probably even worse
than NAFTA, if that’s believable, which, you know, hard to believe, because I think NAFTA
was just a disaster. It was a total disaster for our country.
And now we made the USMCA, which is going to be a terrific — a great deal. And, by the
way, the USMCA, from Mexico — that’s United States, Mexico, Canada — that’s where the
money is coming from, not directly but indirectly, for the wall. And nobody wants to talk
about that. Because we’re saving billions and billions of dollars a year, if Congress
approves that deal.
Now, they might now want to approve a deal just because they’ll say — one of the things
I’m thinking of doing — this has never been done before: No matter how good a deal I
make with China, if they sell me Beijing for one dollar, if they give me 50 percent of their
land and every ship that they’ve built over the last two years — which is a lot — and they
give them to me free, the Democrats will say, “What a lousy deal; that’s a terrible deal.”
Like, ZTE, I got a billion — more than a billion-dollar penalty in a short period of time.
And the Democrats said, “Oh, should’ve gotten more.” When I made that deal, I said,
“This is incredible.” I just got — I got over a billion-dollar penalty, plus they had to
change their board of directors. They had to change their top management. But they

And it was a very tough dialogue at the beginning. Fire and fury. Total annihilation. “My
button is bigger than yours” and “my button works.” Remember that? You don’t
remember that. And people said, “Trump is crazy.” And you know what it ended up
being? A very good relationship. I like him a lot and he likes me a lot. Nobody else
would have done that.
The Obama administration couldn’t have done it. Number one, they probably wouldn’t
have done it. And number two, they didn’t have the capability to do it.
So I just want to thank everybody. I want to wish our Attorney General great luck and
speed, and enjoy your life. (Laughter.) Bill, good luck. A tremendous reputation. I know
you’ll do a great job. Thank you very much. And thank you, everybody. Thank you very
much. Thank you.
END

11:29 A.M. EST