Order Code RL34275
How Long Can the Defense Department Finance
FY2008 Operations in Advance of Supplemental
Appropriations?
Updated December 19, 2007
Amy Belasco, Stephen Daggett, and Pat Towell
Specialists in Defense Policy and Budgets
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

---

How Long Can the Defense Department Finance
FY2008 Operations in Advance of Supplemental
Appropriations?
Summary
The Department of Defense is currently financing both day-to-day peacetime
activities and overseas military operations in Iraq and elsewhere with funds
appropriated in the regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-116,
which provides $460 billion for the Defense Department to cover the costs of
baseline, non-war-related programs in FY2008. The Administration has also
requested $189.3 billion in FY2008 supplemental appropriations for the Department
of Defense to cover war-related costs. Congress has approved $16.8 billion of that
amount, all for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The remainder
has been held up pending debate over Iraq policy, though Congress may provide
some additional temporary funding.
In the absence of supplemental appropriations, the Defense Department has said
that money for Army operations will run out the end of February and for the Marine
Corps in March, even after a transfer of $4.1 billion from other accounts to sustain
Army operations. On November 15, Secretary of Defense Gates announced plans to
"cease operations at all Army bases by mid-February next year." This would result,
he said, in furloughs of 100,000 civilian and another 100,000 contractor personnel.
On December 17, the House approved an omnibus appropriations bill, H.R.
2764, that would provide $31 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom, which
encompasses activities in Afghanistan and other areas but not in Iraq. If enacted, the
additional funding for Army OEF operations in the bill would allow money from
other sources to sustain operations in Iraq for several more weeks, perhaps as long
as the first week of April, 2008. On December 18, the Senate approved a substitute
by Senator McConnell to provide $70 billion for all overseas military operations.
The additional funding it provides for the Army would extend operations until about
the end of July.
With or without such additional funding, the Defense Department could extend
operations further by transferring limited additional amounts to the Army and Marine
Corps and by slowing down spending through measures such as those the Army
began to implement last April. Such measures would reduce remaining financial
flexibility and might disrupt day-to-day operations. The Defense Department may
be able to sustain operations longer by invoking the Feed and Forage Act or by using
novel, unprecedented measures, such as assigning the Navy and Air Force to pay
costs of Army support operations abroad. Such measures may weaken congressional
war powers and erode congressional controls on the use of funds. This report will
be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
How Long Funding for Operation Enduring Freedom in FY2008 Omnibus
Appropriations Would Extend the Availability of Funding for Iraq . . . . . . . 1
Impact of Providing $31 Billion for Operation Enduring Freedom on
Operations in Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Impact of Providing a $70 Defense “Bridge Fund” for Operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Long Regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Will Last . . . . . . . . . . 4
Alternatives for Extending Operations Longer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Transfer Additional Funds to the Army and Marine Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Slow the Pace of Army and Marine Corps Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Invoke the Feed and Forage Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Use Unprecedented Title 10 Authorities to Assign Support Operations to
Other Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Summary of Measures to Extend Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix: Alternatives with $31 Billion in Supplemental Funding for Operation
Enduring Freedom or $70 billion Unrestricted Bridge Fund . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Uses of the Feed and Forage Act Since FY1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2: Possible Options for Extending Army Operations in Advance of
FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table A1. Possible Options for Extending Army Operations with $31 Billion in
Supplemental Appropriations for Operation Enduring Freedom* . . . . . . . 17
Table A2. Army and Marine Corps O&M Funding with Baseline FY2008
Defense Appropriations and Proposed Transfers of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table A3. Army and Marine Corps O&M Funding with Baseline FY2008
Defense Appropriations and FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations with
$70 Billion McConnell Substitute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

---

How Long Can the Defense Department
Finance FY2008 Operations in Advance of
Supplemental Appropriations?
Most Recent Developments
On December 17, the House approved an FY2008 omnibus appropriations bill,
H.R. 2764, that would provide $485 billion in regular FY2008 appropriations for
most agencies of the government. Division L of the bill would provide an additional
$31 billion in emergency supplemental funding for the Department of Defense for
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which encompasses military activities in
Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe, but not operations in Iraq. Section 104
of Division L prohibits any of the $31 billion to be used for Operation Iraqi Freedom,
except for $1.6 billion for force protection equipment. The bill appropriates $17.8
billion for Army operation and maintenance and $2.0 billion for Marine Corps
operation and maintenance for Operation Enduring Freedom.
The Senate took up the House-passed bill on December 18, and, by a vote of 70-
25, approved a substitute by Senator McConnell that would provide $70 billion in
supplemental defense appropriations for all overseas operations. The substitute
includes $35.2 billion for Army operation and maintenance and $4.0 billion for
Marine Corps operation and maintenance. Now the bill will go back to the House for
further consideration.
Earlier, on November 14, the House approved a bill, H.R. 4156, that would have
provided $50 billion in supplemental appropriations for FY2008, including $27.5
billion for the Army operation and maintenance and $2.4 billion for Marine Corps
operation and maintenance. On November 16, by a vote of 53-45, with 60 votes
required, the Senate refused to close debate on a motion to proceed to consideration
of H.R. 4156 as passed by the House. The Senate also rejected, by a vote of 45-53,
a motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 2340, Senator McConnell’s initial
proposal to provide $70 billion without requiring withdrawal from Iraq.
How Long Funding for Operation Enduring
Freedom in FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations Would
Extend the Availability of Funding for Iraq
The House version of the FY2008 omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764,
would provide $17.8 billion for Army O&M and $2.0 billion for Marine Corps
O&M. Except for $1.6 billion for force protection, the supplemental funding in the
House bill is not available either for Iraq or for day-to-day peacetime military
activities. The money is, however, to some extent, “fungible,” and it would
indirectly extend the amount of time for which available funds would finance

---

CRS-2
operations in Iraq. The money appropriated for OEF would substitute for money that
would otherwise have to come from amounts in the regular FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-116) or from transfers of funds from other accounts.
To the extent the additional OEF money in the omnibus frees up other money, the
other amounts can be used to finance day-to-day peacetime operations and also
operations in Iraq.
Impact of Providing $31 Billion for Operation Enduring
Freedom on Operations in Iraq
CRS has used two methods to make rough estimates of how long the OEF
money in the House-passed omnibus appropriations bill would allow the Defense
Department to extend day-to-day peacetime operations and operations in Iraq. Either
method leads to an estimate that the Defense Department can extend operations until
the end of March or early April.
Method 1: Currently, the Army projects that it will obligate about $1.5 billion
per week to cover operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of day-to-day peacetime
activities plus war-related operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.1 The
House-passed $31 billion omnibus appropriations bill would provide $17.8 billion
for Army operation and maintenance to cover the full year costs of Army operations
in Afghanistan, or about $342 million per week ($17.8 billion ÷ 52 weeks = $342
million per week) . One can calculate that this would reduce requirements for
funding from other sources to $1.158 billion per week to finance peacetime activities
and Iraq operations ($1.5 billion - $342 million = $1.158 billion per week).
In all, the Army expects to have available $31.5 billion in operation and
maintenance funds that can be used for peacetime activities and for Iraq. The
FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act provides $27.4 billion for Army operation and
maintenance (O&M). In addition, the Defense Department plans, subject to approval
by the four congressional defense committees, to transfer $4.1 billion of other
FY2008 appropriated funds to the Army. At a weekly obligation rate of $1.5 billion,
that amount will last for 21 weeks of the fiscal year, or until February 23. But at a
weekly rate of $1.158 billion, the available funds would sustain operations for more
than 27 weeks or until about April 8, 2008 (see Appendix A).2
Method 2: The House-passed omnibus appropriations bill provides $17.8
billion for Army O&M, of which $14.8 billions is specifically for military operations
(the remainder includes $1.6 billion for force protection equipment, $902 million for
1 This is based on Army calculations. The Army has available $27.4 billion in regular
FY2008 appropriations for operation and maintenance and plans on an additional $4.1
billion in transfers, for a total of $31.5 billion. The Army estimates that this amount will
last until February 23, which is at the of 21 weeks of FY2008. This assumes $1.5 billion per
week in obligations ( $31.5 billion ÷ 21 weeks = $1.5 billion per week).
2 This is a rough calculation, however. One possible problem with it is that the Army may
not be able to obligate funds for Afghanistan fast enough to lower the average obligation
rate for other operations to $1.158 billion a month. If so, the amount of time the OEF money
would extend Army operations elsewhere would be somewhat less than six weeks.

---

CRS-3
health care and family support, and $500 million for reconstruction assistance in
Afghanistan). Based on last year’s obligation rates, however, not all of this money
appears likely to be used immediately. Last year, the Army obligated $450 million
a month for operations in Afghanistan. Assuming a similar rate of obligations this
year, the Army will obligate about $2.7 billion over the first six months of FY2008.
This will free up an equivalent amount of regular FY2008 appropriations for use in
Iraq. In addition, up to $1.6 billion for force protection could be used in Iraq, for a
total of $4.3 billion. Assuming obligations of funds in Iraq are running at about $3.8
billion per month, an additional $4.3 billion could extend operations for about five
weeks, or until the end of March.3
Impact of Providing a $70 Defense “Bridge Fund” for
Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Elsewhere
On December 18, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator McConnell
to the FY2008 omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, to provide $70 billion for
overseas military operations without limits on where funds may be used. The
amendment includes $35.2 billion for Army operation and maintenance and $4.0
billion for Marine Corps operation and maintenance. If this version is approved by
the House and signed into law, it would increase FY2008 Army O&M funding from
$27.4 billion in the regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act to $62. 5 billion.
At a monthly obligation rate of slightly under $6.5 billion, which is what the Army
now assumes, this would provide funding for 9.7 months of FY2008, or until the
middle of June, 2008 (see Table A3 in the Appendix).
Background
The Department of Defense is currently financing both the day-to-day peacetime
operation of U.S. military forces and overseas military operations in Iraq and
elsewhere with funds appropriated in the regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations
Act, P.L. 110-116. That measure provides $460 billion for the Defense Department
to cover the costs of baseline, non-war-related programs in FY2008. The
Administration has also requested $189.3 billion in FY2008 supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense to cover war-related costs. Congress
has approved $16.8 billion of that amount, all for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
(MRAP) vehicles. The remainder has been held up pending debate over Iraq policy.
Until the week of December 10, action on supplemental funding appeared to be
at an impasse. On November 14, the House approved a bill, H.R. 4156, to provide
$50 billion in supplemental appropriations as a temporary “bridge fund” to cover war
costs for part of the year, with a requirement that the President begin withdrawing
troops from Iraq. The Senate rejected cloture on a motion to bring the bill up for
debate, however, and the White House has threatened a veto. There has been no
action in Congress to date on a full-year supplemental.
3 For a further discussion of this approach, see CRS Report RL33110, The Cost of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, updated December
18, 2007, by Amy Belasco.

---

CRS-4
Now, in place of the $50 billion bridge fund, the House is considering provide
$31 billion in emergency FY2008 supplemental appropriations for Operation
Enduring Freedom as part of FY2008 omnibus appropriations, H.R. 2764. The
Senate may later consider a substitute to provide $70 billion without conditions for
all overseas operations.
How Long Regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Will Last
With enactment of supplemental appropriations in doubt, the immediate issue
has become how soon the Defense Department will have to rein in operations before
it runs out of money. At a press conference on November 15, Secretary of Defense
Gates warned that the Army would run out of money by the beginning of February,
and the Marine Corps some time in March, and he announced measures to limit
spending beginning almost immediately. “The least undesirable” option, he said,
would be to “cease operations at all Army bases by mid-February next year.” This
would result, he said, in furloughs of 100,000 civilian and another 100,000 contractor
personnel. Because some layoffs require 60 days advance notice, he said, the
Pentagon would have to begin sending notifications to personnel in December.4
In the same press conference, Secretary Gates said that the Defense Department
would take steps to extend Army and Marine Corps funding by “reprogramming” or
“transferring” funds.5 On November 20, the Defense Department announced that it
was requesting approval from the congressional defense committees to transfer
$4.5 billion of funds from other accounts to the Army and to the Joint IED Defeat
Organization. The transfers, officials said, would extend Army operations for two
or three weeks.6 Subsequently, the Army circulated estimates that funding from the
4 Department of Defense, "DoD News Briefing with Secretary of Defense Gates and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon Briefing Room,
Arlington, Va.," November 15, 2007 at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4089].
5 In general a “transfer” of funds is a shift of money from one appropriations account to
another. Because appropriations laws provide specific amounts for each account, a shift of
funds is permissible only to the extent Congress allows a transfer in statutory language. As
part of each appropriations bill, Congress usually specifies that a limited amount may be
transferred, subject to certain conditions. Section 8005 of the FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Act permits DOD to transfer up to $3.7 billion between accounts. This is
referred to as “General Transfer Authority” or “GTA.” In most agencies the term
“reprogramming” refers to shifts of funds within accounts, rather than a “transfer” between
accounts. The Defense Department, however, uses the term “reprogramming” to refer to all
shifts of funds, including those that involve a transfer between accounts. All transfers, along
with reprogramming actions over certain threshold amounts, also require advance approval
by the four congressional defense committees.
6 Department of Defense, “Reprogramming Action – Prior Approval,” Serial No. FY 08-02
PA, November 20, 2007. The proposal decreases Navy and Air Force personnel accounts
by $1.85 billion each, for a total of $3.7 billion, decreases cash balances in the Army
Working Capital Fund by $800 million, increases Army Operation and Maintenance funding
by $4,055.6 million, and increases the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund by
$444.4 million.

---

CRS-5
regular Defense Appropriations Act plus planned transfers would run out on February 23.
CRS calculations of the length of time the Army and Marine Corps can continue
to operate without additional funding are in line with Defense Department estimates.
At issue is how long money in Army and Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) accounts will last at projected obligation rates. The O&M accounts finance
a broad range of activities, including recruitment, training, transportation, clothing,
subsistence, fuel, facility operation and repair, and equipment maintenance. Funding
for Army and Marine Corps O&M supports both peacetime activities and war-related
operations.
For the first few months of the fiscal year, the Army appears to be planning
obligations of about $6.4-$6.6 billion per month and the Marine Corps of about $800
million per month. The FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-116, provides
$27.4 billion in O&M for the Army and $4.8 billion for the Marine Corps. At
planned monthly obligation rates, therefore, the Army can operate with baseline
appropriations for about four months of the fiscal year (which began on in October
1, 2007) or until the beginning of February, and the Marine Corps can operate for
about six months, or until the end of March, consistent with Defense Department
estimates.
Alternatives for Extending Operations Longer
In the absence of a bridge fund, the Defense Department may be able to extend
Army and Marine Corps operations beyond either February or March, without the
$31 billion Afghanistan supplemental, or beyond April 8 for the Army with the
Afghanistan funds, either by adding money from other sources to O&M accounts or
by slowing the pace at which the services are obligating funds. Barring extensive use
of the Feed and Forage Act or an unprecedented use of provisions of standing law
that may allow other services to pay for Army and Marine Corps operations (see
below for a discussion) options appear limited, and the services may be able to
extend operations for an additional month or two.
Alternatives for extending Army and Marine Corps operations include –
! Transfer limited additional amounts that may be available from cash
balances in working capital funds;
! Slow the pace of Army and Marine Corps obligations of funds, in
part by using means the Army considered in April 2007 and in part
by delaying depot maintenance funding;
! Invoke the Feed and Forage Act, which permits obligations of funds
in advance of appropriations, and for which there are extensive
precedents in the past 40 years; and finally,
! Consider using standing authorities for which there do not appear to
be precedents to limit Army and Marine Corps costs, such as the
authority in 10 USC 165 to assign support operations to other
services.
Each of these alternatives may extend operations for some time, but each has limits
and disadvantages as well.

---

CRS-6
In the Army’s official view, moreover, all of these kinds of budget maneuvers
are detrimental. In a presentation at the Brookings Institution on December 4, Army
Chief of Staff George Casey complained about any kind of budgetary gamesmanship:
In general, as Chief of Staff of the Army, not having predictable, timely funding
makes it harder for me to do my job: to organize, train and equip the Army.
Every time you put something off or delay it or take some measures to get
another week's worth of funding for the operations and maintenance account, it
has second and third order effects that ricochet all through the organization, that
you don't find the results for two or three months, and it just makes it harder.
The second thing is I think what's going on right now sends a terrible signal to
soldiers and families. We have nine brigades that are redeploying from Iraq and
Afghanistan right now after being gone for 15 months. They started in
September. They'll come in through January. The notion that people are even
discussing closing down or warm-basing their installations just minimum
essential tasks at a time when they're coming home from being gone for 15
months is very difficult for them.7
Transfer Additional Funds to the Army and Marine Corps
The Defense Department may be able to transfer a limited amount of additional
money to extend Army and Marine Corps operations. DOD already plans, subject
to approval by the congressional defense committees, to transfer $3.7 billion of funds
from Air Force and Navy personnel accounts to the Army and to JIEDDO and to shift
$800 million of cash balances from working capital funds to the Army. The $3.7
billion transfer from the Air Force and the Navy exhausts the total amount of General
Transfer Authority provided by Section 8005 of the FY2008 Defense Appropriations
Act. Additional funds may be available for transfer, however, in cash balances of
working capital funds.
7 General George William Casey, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Army, "Maintaining Quality in
the Force: a Briefing by General George W. Casey, Jr.," Brookings Institution Transcript,
December 4, 2007, p. 33, at [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events
/2007/1204_casey/20071204casey.pdf]. The military services have consistently been wary
of budget maneuvers, including Administration steps to use money from later in the year to
finance operations at the start of the year – a practice known as “cash flowing.” Disputes
over the use of cash flowing for the Iraq war began as early as January, 2004. The
Administration decided not to request FY2005 supplemental appropriations until after the
start of calendar year 2005. When senior service leaders expressed concern about that
decision in congressional hearings, DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim called a press
conference to defend the practice. See Department of Defense, "Defense Department
Special Briefing: Purpose Of Budget Supplementals," February 11, 2004, at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2062]. Subsequently
Congress initiated the practice of providing part-of-the year bridge funding when it added
$25 billion in unrequested funds for war related expenses to the FY2005 Defense
Appropriations Act. Later, Congress provided an unrequested bridge fund of $50 billion in
FY2006. The Administration only began to request appropriations for a bridge fund in the
FY2007 budget.

---

CRS-7
The transfer of excess cash balances in working capital funds is permitted by
Section 8008 of the FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act.8 Working capital funds
are business-like activities of the Defense Department that are funded primarily
through revenues from sales to the military services. Some working capital fund
activities maintain inventories of products that they sell to the services. Others
provide industrial services, such as depot maintenance of equipment. The military
services use appropriated funds, mostly in the operation and maintenance accounts,
to make the purchases. Section 8008 allows the funds to maintain sufficient cash
balances to meet projected requirements for disbursements. Excess cash balances
may then be available for transfer to other accounts, including service operation and
maintenance accounts.
The amount of excess cash balances varies from fund to fund and from year to
year. So far, the Defense Department has tapped FY2008 excess cash balances twice.
The FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act used $628 million to offset Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Defense-Wide operation and maintenance accounts. And now the
Defense Department is using $800 million for the Army. So about $1.4 billion has
been used.
Pros and Cons. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported
to congressional defense committees that DOD had as much as $3.5 billion in excess
cash balances in the working capital funds at the start of FY2008.9 With $1.4 billion
having been used, another $2.1 billion or so may be available. To tap all of the
remaining funds to finance Army and Marine Corps O&M accounts would extend
operations for a week or two. It would also, however, further reduce DOD’s
remaining financial flexibility to respond to future developments, at least
temporarily. DOD has asked Congress to restore the $3.7 billion in transfers it
requested on November 20, and Congress has, in the past, agreed to forgive amounts
transferred because of delays in making supplemental appropriations.10
Slow the Pace of Army and Marine Corps Operations
To the extent that Army obligations of O&M funds can be reduced below about
$6.6 billion per month, and Marine Corps obligations below $790 million, the
services can operate longer with available funds. Last April, the Army planned a
series of increasingly restrictive limits on activities to be implemented if FY2007
supplemental appropriations were further delayed.11 The Army projected that these
8 Like Section 8005, Section 8008 is a recurring provision in annual defense appropriations
acts.
9 CRS calculation based on DOD data provided by GAO analyst by e-mail, November 30,
2007.
10 The Defense Department also opposed House and Senate use of excess cash balances in
the FY2008 defense appropriations bills – see Department of Defense, “Budget Appeal,
FY2008 Defense Appropriations Bill,” #RF-2, October 15, 2007. The appropriations
conference agreement rejected the appeal.
11 Army Memorandum, “Operation and Maintenance, Army Spending Restrictions Plan for
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
measures could reduce obligations by as much as $3.6 billion over three months out
of FY2007 obligations of about $6 billion per month.12 The Army and Marine Corps
may also be able to defer some other funding by, for example, delaying orders for
depot maintenance of equipment, for which the Army plans average obligations of
about $400 million per month in FY2008 – i.e., about $1.6 billion over the first four
months of the year.
Pros and Cons. If implemented over the next four months, these steps might
reduce obligations by as much as $5 billion ($3.6 billion from measures like those
identified last April, plus $1.6 billion from deferring depot maintenance), though less
if they were pursued selectively. This is enough for an additional three weeks or so
of operations. Some of these measures may be less disruptive to the day-to-day
operations of the force than others, particularly if undertaken on only a temporary
basis. The Army reportedly has a depot maintenance backlog of about 7 ½ months,
so there may be some room to defer new orders without disrupting depot work
flows.13 It is uncertain how reduced obligations of funds would affect military
readiness or how disruptive cuts would be to facilities management, civilian and
contractor employment, materiel inventories, equipment orders to industry, DOD
travel, or depot maintenance workloads. Congress may wish to consider these
matters more fully through hearings and other means.
Defense Department officials have said that cuts such as those planned last
spring are not sufficient in the present circumstances because of greater uncertainty
about supplemental funding. In his November 20 press briefing, DOD spokesman
Geoff Morrell insisted that the issue was not simply how to free up money to extend
operations, but, rather, what steps the Defense Department would have to take to
shut down operations almost completely in the absence of funding. “All that will
happen on the [military] bases,” he said, “is that the most basic security and safety
personnel – fire, police, and so forth – will be operating. Day care centers, libraries,
all of the additional benefits that are there for families living on the base will cease
to operate, because we will not have the funds to keep them going.” The steps taken
last spring, he explained, were designed to extend operations on the assumption that
11 (...continued)
FY07,” April 14, 2007. The text of the Memorandum is available at
[http://www.comw.org/warreport/fulltext/0704armyspending.pdf]. See also, Army Press
Release”Funding Needs Prompt Army Spending Constraints,” April 16, 2007, at
[http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2007/04/16/2698-funding-needs-prompt-army-
spending-constraints/]. The Army Memorandum is also discussed in CRS Report RL33900,
FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes,
by Stephen Daggett, Amy Belasco, Pat Towell, Susan B. Epstein, Connie Veillette, Curt
Tarnoff, Rhoda Margesson, and Bart Elias, updated July 2, 2007 – see subsection entitled
“Financing Army Operations Until Passage of the Supplemental.”
12 Army Budget Office, PowerPoint Slides entitled “Operation and Maintenance, Army
Spending Restrictions Will Extend Fund Availability” and “OMA FY07 Execution,” April
2007.
13 E-mail communication from GAO analyst, November 30, 2007.

---

CRS-9
Congress would provide additional appropriations quite soon. Now, however,
defense officials are not coping with a delay in funding, but with a shut off of funds.14
Invoke the Feed and Forage Act
The Feed and Forage Act, 41 USC 11,15 is a long-standing law, with antecedents
from well before the Civil War,16 that gives the Defense Department authority to
finance some costs of military operations in advance of congressional appropriations.
In the past 40 years, the act has been used periodically to pay for unplanned military
contingencies and to sustain military operations when supplemental appropriations
have been delayed.
The Feed and Forage Act permits the Department of Defense to obligate funds
in advance of appropriations for “clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters,
transportation, or medical and hospital supplies.” Obligations may not, however,
“exceed the necessities of the current year.” These categories are broad enough to
encompass most activities financed in operation and maintenance accounts. The
“transportation” category, for example, has been interpreted to allow operation of
weapons engaged in combat, including aircraft carrying out bombing missions in
Southeast Asia, and funding of repairs of equipment, including purchases of spare
parts.17 The law does not, however, permit pay of uniformed personnel or purchases
of munitions or other weapons.
When queried about the use of the Feed and Forage Act, Pentagon spokesperson
Geoff Morrell all but dismissed its potential use except in extraordinary
circumstances –
we have extraordinary measures that can be taken in the eventuality that we find
ourselves in a situation where we have no money – and no ability to move funds
and we find ourselves with our men and women in uniform in the theater
potentially unfunded. But all that we would be able to do in those circumstances
is provide – is basically provide for their survival. It’s a “Feed and Forage”
provision. It dates back before the Civil War. And it will allow us, really, just
14 Department of Defense, "DoD News Briefing with Press Secretary Geoff Morrell from
the Pentagon," November 20, 2007 at –
[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4091].
15 It is also frequently cited as Revised Statute 3732. The “Feed and Forage Act” as codified
in 41 USC 11 is an express exception to the “Adequacy of Appropriations Act,” which states
that “No contract or purchase on behalf of the United States shall be made, unless the same
is authorized by law or is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment.”
16 Louis Fisher, Presidential Spending Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985),
pp. 238-247. The author cites one precedent as early as 1799 – see p. 240.
17 CRS has prepared an extensive compilation of background material, much of it provided,
by the Department of Defense Comptroller, on uses of the Feed and Forage Act since 1960,
on its history, and on associated issues, including war powers. Congressional staff and
Members of Congress should contact Stephen Daggett at CRS for a copy.

---

CRS-10
to provide for their feed and that’s it. So it’s an extraordinarily desperate
situation. We are not there yet. We are not talking about invoking that yet.18
The Feed and Forage Act has been used in the past in circumstances quite
similar to those today. It has been used, for instance, to sustain major military
operations, including combat operations in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and
transportation of personnel to the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Shield/Desert
Storm, when appropriated funds were not sufficient. Table 1 summarizes uses of the
Feed and Forage Act since 1960. As the table shows, when amounts are adjusted to
today’s prices, the Feed and Forage Act has been invoked to finance quite substantial
obligations of funds – in FY1968, for example, during the Vietnam War, when, in
FY2008 prices, $7.4 billion was used and in FY1991, for Operation Desert
Shield/Desert Storm, when $2.6 billion was used.
Table 1. Uses of the Feed and Forage Act Since FY1960
(amounts in millions of current year and constant FY2008 dollars)
Current
Constant
Fiscal
Year
FY2008
Year
Dollars
Dollars
1962
Berlin Airlift
53
441
1966
Southeast Asia
277
1,943
Southeast Asia: Late enactment of supplemental
1968
appropriations
1,136
7,427
Southeast Asia: Late enactment of supplemental
1969
appropriations
4
23
1972
Southeast Asia
137
700
Escalating foreign currency rates: Late enactment
1978
of supplemental appropriations
80
252
1980
Middle East oil crisis
664
1,719
1991
Gulf War
1,642
2,562
1994
Haiti
126
185
1996
Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers*
–
–
2001
Terrorist Attacks of 9/11/01*
–
–
Source: Current year dollars figures from Department of Defense Comptroller, constant dollar totals
calculated by CRS using deflators from Department of Defense Comptroller.
* The act was invoked in 1996 following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and in 2001
just after the attacks of 9/11, but no funds were used.
Pros and Cons. The Feed and Forage Act gives the Department of Defense
considerable flexibility to mobilize funding for military operations in the event of
unexpected developments. The potential use of substantial amounts to carry on
combat operations, particularly if Congress has denied or refused to act on funding
18 Department of Defense, “DoD News Briefing with Press Secretary Geoff Morrell from
the Pentagon,” November 20, 2007 at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript]. aspx?transcriptid=4091.

---

CRS-11
for a war, may be of concern to Congress because of its implications for
congressional war powers, including the power of the purse. During the Vietnam
war, use of the Feed and Forage Act ignited a vigorous debate over war powers
issues. In 1973 Senators Mathias and Church sponsored hearings on the law, and in
1974 and 1975, Senator Abourezk proposed repealing the act because, he argued, it
eroded congressional authority.19 Use of the Feed and Forage Act under current
circumstances may warrant similar concerns. Unless Congress were to enact
language restricting funding for Iraq “in this or any other act,” use of funding under
the Feed and Forage Act would not appear to be subject to any limitations.
The act has other has limitations as well. Significantly, while the act permits the
Defense Department to obligate funds (i.e., sign contracts or hire civilian personnel),
in DOD’s interpretation, it does not permit actual expenditures (i.e., outlays) of funds
without congressional appropriations.20 This would require contractors to agree,
likely with some compensation, to contracts that might delay actual payments. In
effect, the law allows the Defense Department to obligate Congress to provide what
are known as “deficiency appropriations,” which were quite frequently enacted up
until the 1950s, but have not been used often since then. The enactment of deficiency
appropriations may, however, be delayed.
Use Unprecedented Title 10 Authorities to Assign Support
Operations to Other Services
While the use of the Feed and Forage Act has an extensive history, there are
some other authorities in standing law that might be used to extend Army and Marine
Corps operations, but for which CRS is not aware of any precedents. One such
provision is 10 USC 165. Title 10 U.S. Code is the standing law that establishes the
Department of Defense and includes most of the statutory language that governs its
organization and operations. Section 165 (c) specifically permits the Secretary of
Defense to assign responsibility for administration and support of forces assigned to
combatant commands (including the Central Command responsible for operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan), to other components of the Defense Department. The term
“components” includes the active duty element of each military service, as well as
each of the reserve elements, as well as defense agencies. The full text of the
provision reads –
(c) Assignment of Responsibility to Other Components of DOD.— After
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, the Secretary of
19 John P. MacKenzie, “Pentagon Use of 1861 Law Scored,” Washington Post, September
30, 1973, p. 4. Remarks of Senator Abourezk, Congressional Record, June 5, 1975, pp.
S17367-17369. Remarks of Senator Abourezk, Congressional Record, June 3, 1974, pp.
S9417-S9422. Congressional concern about the act was piqued particularly when
then-Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird asserted in congressional testimony that the Defense
Department could use authority of the "deficiency authorization legislation," meaning the
Feed and Forage Act, to continue military operations in Southeast Asia in the absence of
appropriations for the war – see MacKenzie article.
20 See, Department of Defense Comptroller, “Budget Execution Flexibility, FY2007,” at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/execution/Final_Budget_Execution.pdf], p. 19.

---

CRS-12
Defense may assign the responsibility (or any part of the responsibility) for the
administration and support of forces assigned to the combatant commands to
other components of the Department of Defense (including Defense Agencies
and combatant commands). A component assigned such a responsibility shall
discharge that responsibility subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense and subject to the authority of commanders of the
combatant commands under section 164 (c) of this title.
Pros and Cons. On its face, 10 USC 165 (c) would appear to allow the
Defense Department considerable latitude to assign management and budget
responsibility to the Air Force and Navy for such support activities as food and
housing services handled by civilian contractors under what are know as LOGCAP
contracts, for which $6.2 billion is requested in FY2008; contracts for linguists, for
which $1.1 billion is requested; subsistence for DOD civilians and contractors, for
which $675 million is requested; or other war support activities. The Secretary also
has authority to detail civilian personnel from one service to another as part of his
general responsibility for managing the Department, so Army personnel currently
managing these contracts could be detailed to another service to ensure continuity.21
Since Air Force and Navy O&M budgets are less limited than Army and Marine
Corps budgets, this would further extend the amount of time the Army and Marine
Corps could operate without FY2008 supplemental funding. The FY2008 Defense
Appropriations Act provides $32.2 billion for Air Force O&M and $33.1 billion for
Navy O&M. If the Air Force and Navy were each assigned responsibility for $5
billion of activities currently handled by the Army, it would extend Army operations
by a month-and-a-half, while funding for Air Force and Navy operations would be
reduced by about two months.
Since the use of this provision is unprecedented, it is not known whether a shift
of responsibilities could quickly and efficiently be implemented. Use of this
authority might also be a matter of considerable concern to Congress, since it would
appear to undermine congressional limitations on the use of funds. If the Navy can
support Army operations with large amounts of money, then the integrity of the
account structure into which Congress appropriates money is clearly at issue.
Summary of Measures to Extend Operations
The Defense Department has warned that money available to sustain Army and
Marine Corps operations will run out in February or March, and CRS calculations are
consistent with this projection. The Defense Department may be able to extend
military operations further by transferring limited additional amounts to the Army
and Marine Corps and by slowing down operations, but each alternative has some
disadvantages.
! Excess cash balances remaining in working capital funds might be
as high as $2.1 billion. Tapping these funds would, however, reduce
DOD’s remaining flexibility to respond to unexpected
developments.
21 See Title 5, Section 3341 and Title 10, Sec. 113 (d).

---

CRS-13
! The Army projected that measures it planned to slow down
operations last April might, at the upper limit, avoid $3.6 billion or
so of obligations over three months. Some of these measures,
however, may disrupt day-to-day Army operations.
! Deferring new orders for depot maintenance might reduce planned
obligations by $400 million or so per month, or about $1.6 billion
over four months or $2.0 billion over five months. CRS cannot,
however, assess how this would affect depot work planning.
Taken together, all of these measures might temporarily reduce or offset Army
and Marine Corps funding requirements by as much as $2.1 billion (use remaining
excess cash balances in working capital funds) + $3.6 billion (slow operations) +
$1.6 billion (defer new depot maintenance orders) = $7.3 billion, or about one
month's worth of funding at current obligation rates, which would allow the Army
to extend operations until about the end of March, 2008 (see Table 2).
A potentially more significant source of funds may be to invoke the Feed and
Forage Act. In the past, it has been used to finance as much as $7.4 billion of
war-related operations in today's prices. That amount would finance Army and
Marine Corps operations for about another month. Operations might be sustained
longer if larger amounts were used. There may be some problems negotiating
contracts, however. And use of the Feed and Forage Act raises significant war
powers issues. For Congress to recommend use of the Feed and Forage Act appears
particularly ironic – it is, in a sense, to write the script for the Executive Branch to
evade legislative restrictions on the use of funds to carry on the war in Iraq.
The potential for DOD to use unprecedented measures, such as the flexibility
given to the Secretary of Defense to reassign responsibility for support activities to
other services, is particularly hard to assess. It might be difficult to administer, or it
might involve only paper changes that could be implemented quickly. It would
appear, however, to undermine congressional controls on the use of funds.

---

CRS-14
Table 2: Possible Options for Extending Army Operations in Advance of FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations*
Options
Potential
Potential Number
Date Funding
Precedents/Notes
Potential Consequences
Additional
of Weeks or Days
Might Run Out if
Funds/Reduction
Financed at
Options Are
in Obligation of
Obligation Rate
Cumulative and
Funds
Assumed by Army
Fully Implemented
DOD Plan: Use all funds in regular
$27. 4 billion for
21 weeks according
February 23, 2008
“Cash flowing” – i.e., moving
Services have long complained
FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act
Army O&M in
to Army
(current official
funds from the end of the year
that “cash flowing” of large
and transfer $3.3 billion from Navy
FY2008 Defense
calculations
Army estimate)
to the beginning has been
amounts is disruptive. Would
and Air Force under General
Appropriations Act;
(assumes $1.5
common in recent years.
exhaust all $3.7 billion in
Transfer Authority and $800 million
+ $4.1 billion
billion obligations
General Transfer Authority
General Transfer Authority
of working capital fund cash
transfer;
per week)
used in FY2007 was later
(transfer of $0.4 billion
balances ($4.1 billion total) to Army
= $31.5 billion
restored by Congress. Requires
remainder is requested for
operation & maintenance
approval of congressional
JIEDDO), unless and until
defense committees.
Congress were to restore it.
Use $17.8 billion for Army O&M in
$17.8 billion;
Reduces funding
NA
NA
NA
FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations
÷ 52 weeks
required for
bill, H.R. 2764, only for
= $ 0.342 billion
peacetime + Iraq
Afghanistan. This reduces funding
per week saved
operations to
drawn from FY2008 Defense
$1.158 billion per
Appropriations Act and other
week
sources for Afghanistan by that
amount and frees it up for Iraq and
peacetime operations
Use $31.5 billion for Army O&M
$31.5 billion;
=27.2 weeks at
April 8, 2008
NA
NA
from FY2008 Defense
÷ $1.158 billion per
$1.1158 billion per
Appropriations Act and transfers for
week;
week;
Iraq + peacetime operations
=191 days
Use $444 million for JIEDDO for
$ 0.444 billion;
3 days
April 11, 2008
H.R. 2764 provides full amount
NA
Army instead
÷ $1.158 billion per
in amended request for
week;
JIEDDO, $4.3 billion

---

CRS-15
Options
Potential
Potential Number
Date Funding
Precedents/Notes
Potential Consequences
Additional
of Weeks or Days
Might Run Out if
Funds/Reduction
Financed at
Options Are
in Obligation of
Obligation Rate
Cumulative and
Funds
Assumed by Army
Fully Implemented
Use all remaining excess cash
$2.1 billion;
12 days
April 23, 2008
Cash balances a common
Would reduce remaining DOD
balances in working capital funds
÷ $1.158 billion per
source of funding for O&M
financial flexibility unless and
week;
accounts.
until Congress were to restore
transferred funds.
Slow obligations of funds through
$3.6 billion over
22 days
May 15, 2008
In April, DOD achieved
Proposed measures appeared
progressively more restrictive limits
three months
savings from delaying contracts
likely to become increasingly
over three months, as the Army
(Army estimate of
and other belt tightening
disruptive to Army operations
planned and began to implement in
April 2007)
measures. Monthly obligations
over time. CRS did not assess
April 2007
÷ $1.158 billion per
often fluctuate.
their impact or alternatives.
week;
DOD says slowing funding not
adequate because the
requirement is to shut down
operations with no funding
available.
Defer depot maintenance of $400
$1.6 billion over 4
10-12 days
May 25-27, 2008
Reducing current 7 and 1/2
Depots need some backlog for
million per month
months, $2.0 billion
month backlog of depot orders
planning purposes.
over 5 months
may not delay repair deliveries.
÷ $1.158 billion per
week;
Source: CRS calculations based on Army estimate of end date of February 23, 2008 and estimates of funding amounts from sources cited above.
* Use of the Feed and Forage Act of other authorities might extend funding further, but potential amounts could vary. Please refer to the full text of this report for a full review of
potential sources of funds and limitations on their use.

---

CRS-16
Appendix: Alternatives with
$31 Billion in Supplemental Funding for
Operation Enduring Freedom or
$70 billion Unrestricted Bridge Fund
If Congress were to approve and the President were to sign into law the $31.0
billion in emergency funding for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in the House-
passed omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764, money provided elsewhere for Army
O&M would not be needed for Afghanistan or other global counter-terrorism
operations. As a result, money in the regular FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act
and any additional amounts transferred to the Army would sustain Army peacetime
and Iraq operations longer than estimated in Table 2 above.
A starting point for estimating the impact is to calculate how the money in the
omnibus appropriations bill would affect weekly Army O&M obligations. Currently,
the Army is assuming obligations of almost exactly $1.5 billion per week. The
House-passed omnibus appropriations bill provides $17.8 billion for Army operation
and maintenance for Operation Enduring Freedom. On average, this amounts to
weekly obligations of $17.8 billion ÷ 52 weeks = $342 million per week. This would
allow other Army O&M money to be used to finance peacetime operations and
operations in Iraq at a rate of $1.158 billion per week.
Table A1 shows how this change would affect options for funding Army O&M.
CRS calculates that $31.5 billion available to the Army in the regular FY2008
Defense Appropriations Act ($27.4 billion) plus planned transfers ($4.1 billion)
would last until about April 8 at a weekly obligation rate of $1.158 billion for Iraq
and for peacetime operations. In addition, since the omnibus appropriations bill
provides full requested funding for the Joint IED Defeat Organization, the $444
million that the Defense Department has proposed transferring to JIEDDO could be
redirected to the Army. An additional $7.3 billion of funds or of reduced obligations,
as discussed in this CRS report, would extend funding for almost 6 and 1/2 weeks.
As the table shows, these steps could extend Army funding until through the end of
May 2008, thought at the price of reduced funding flexibility and possible disruptions
to day-to-day activities.
For purposes of comparison, Table A2 shows how long Army and Marine
Corps funding might last at planned obligation rates in the absence of additional
supplemental appropriations or transfers of funds beyond the $4.1 billion initially
planned.
Table A3 shows how long Army and Marine Corps funding might be expected
to last at planned obligation rates with the additional amounts included in the Senate-
passed version of the FY2008 omnibus appropriations bill, which includes the
McConnell $70 billion defense bridge fund.

---

CRS-17
Table A1. Possible Options for Extending Army Operations with
$31 Billion in Supplemental Appropriations for Operation Enduring Freedom*
Options
Potential
Potential Number
Date Funding
Precedents/Notes
Potential Consequences
Additional
of Weeks or Days
Might Run Out if
Funds/Reduction
Financed at
Options Are
in Obligation of
Obligation Rate
Cumulative and
Funds
Assumed by Army
Fully Implemented
DOD Plan: Use all funds in regular
$27. 4 billion for
21 weeks according
February 23, 2008
“Cash flowing” – i.e., moving
Services have long complained
FY2008 Defense Appropriations Act
Army O&M in
to Army
(current official
funds from the end of the year
that “cash flowing” of large
and transfer $3.3 billion from Navy
FY2008 Defense
calculations
Army estimate)
to the beginning has been
amounts is disruptive. Would
and Air Force under General
Appropriations Act;
(assumes $1.5
common in recent years.
exhaust all $3.7 billion in
Transfer Authority and $800 million
+ $4.1 billion
billion obligations
General Transfer Authority
General Transfer Authority
of working capital fund cash
transfer;
per week)
used in FY2007 was later
(transfer of $0.4 billion
balances ($4.1 billion total) to Army
= $31.5 billion
restored by Congress. Requires
remainder is requested for
operation & maintenance
approval of congressional
JIEDDO), unless and until
defense committees.
Congress were to restore it.
$17.8 billion for Army O&M in
$17.8 billion;
Reduces funding
NA
NA
NA
FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations
÷ 52 weeks
required for
bill, H.R. 2764, for Afghanistan and
= $ 0.342 billion
peacetime + Iraq
other areas reduces funding drawn
per week in
operations to
from FY2008 Defense
obligations
$1.158 billion per
Appropriations Act and other
week
sources for Afghanistan by that
amount and frees it up for Iraq and
peacetime operations.
Use $31.5 billion for Army O&M
$31.5 billion;
=27.2 weeks at
April 8, 2008
NA
NA
from FY2008 Defense
÷ $1.158 billion per
$1.1158 billion per
Appropriations Act and transfers for
week;
week;
Iraq + peacetime operations
=191 days
Use $444 million for JIEDDO for
$ 0.444 billion;
3 days
April 11, 2008
H.R. 2764 provides full amount
NA
Army instead
÷ $1.158 billion per
in amended request for
week;
JIEDDO, $4.3 billion

---

CRS-18
Options
Potential
Potential Number
Date Funding
Precedents/Notes
Potential Consequences
Additional
of Weeks or Days
Might Run Out if
Funds/Reduction
Financed at
Options Are
in Obligation of
Obligation Rate
Cumulative and
Funds
Assumed by Army
Fully Implemented
Use all remaining excess cash
$2.1 billion;
12 days
April 23, 2008
Cash balances a common
Would reduce remaining DOD
balances in working capital funds
÷ $1.158 billion per
source of funding for O&M
financial flexibility unless and
week;
accounts.
until Congress were to restore
transferred funds.
Slow obligations of funds through
$3.6 billion over
22 days
May 15, 2008
In April, DOD achieved
Proposed measures appeared
progressively more restrictive limits
three months
savings from delaying contracts
likely to become increasingly
over three months, as the Army
(Army estimate of
and other belt tightening
disruptive to Army operations
planned and began to implement in
April 2007)
measures. Monthly obligations
over time. CRS did not assess
April 2007
÷ $1.158 billion per
often fluctuate.
their impact or alternatives.
week;
DOD says slowing funding not
adequate because the
requirement is to shut down
operations with no funding
available.
Defer depot maintenance of $400
$1.6 billion over 4
10-12 days
May 25-27, 2008
Reducing current 7 and 1/2
Depots need some backlog for
million per month
months, $2.0 billion
month backlog of depot orders
planning purposes.
over 5 months
may not delay repair deliveries.
÷ $1.158 billion per
week;
Source: CRS calculations based on Army estimate of end date of February 23, 2008 and estimates of funding amounts from sources cited above.
* Use of the Feed and Forage Act of other authorities might extend funding further, but potential amounts could vary. Please refer to the full text of this report for a full review of
potential sources of funds and limitations on their use.

---

CRS-19
Table A2. Army and Marine Corps O&M Funding with Baseline FY2008 Defense Appropriations and
Proposed Transfers of Funds
(amounts in millions of dollars)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)


Month
FY2008
FY2008
Months
Available
Base Budget
Available
Average
of Funding
Funding
Defense
Funding
Funding
Available
Would
Appropriations
Transfers
(1) + (2)
Per Month
(3) ÷ (4)
Run Out
\Army Operation & Maintenance
$ 27,362
$ 4,056
$ 31,418
$ 6,473
4.9
End-February
Marine Corps Operation & Maintenance
$ 4,792
$ -
$ 4,792
$ 748
6.4
Mid-April
Table A3. Army and Marine Corps O&M Funding with Baseline FY2008 Defense Appropriations and
FY2008 Omnibus Appropriations with $70 Billion McConnell Substitute
(amounts in millions of dollars)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Month
FY2008
FY2008
Months
Available
Base Budget
FY2008
Available
Average
of Funding
Funding
Defense
Omnibus
Appropriations
Funding
Available
Would
Appropriations
Appropriations
(1) + (2)
Per Month
(3) ÷ (4)
Run Out
Army Operation & Maintenance
$ 27,362
$ 35,152
$ 62,514
$ 6,473
9.7
End-July
Marine Corps Operation & Maintenance
$ 4,792
$ 3,966
$ 8,758
$ 748
11.7
End of FY2008

---