The Feed And Forage Act : Bush's Trump Card For Iraq Funding?

As seen on the front page, Senator Reid has said the Democratic leadership in the Senate will "Never Give In" on the question of tying funding for military operations in Iraq to a timetable for withdrawl.

The lines are drawn.

To end debate in the Senate and vote to pass a bill requires 60 votes (currently, I believe this could be changed by a majority vote, much as the Republicans threatened to do with their "nuclear option").

If President Bush vetoes, it requires 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Representatives to override the veto. This means approximately 17 Republican senators (assume Lieberman will not support a veto override) and approximately 60 Republican Representatives (and that is if no Democratic Representatives vote no on overriding the veto).

If the veto can not be overridden, either a compromise of some sort must be reached, or the result is deadlock.

But does Bush really have to worry about stalemate and no spending authorization passing to continue funding operations in Iraq? Does deadlock over the appropriations bill mean troops will have to withdrawn from Iraq because of lack of resources?

Quite likely, no.

Passed originally in 1861 in wake of the crisis caused by the outbreak of the Civil War, the Feed and Forage Act provides that :

"§ 11. No contracts or purchases unless authorized or under adequate appropriation; report to the Congress

(a) 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, except in the Department of Defense and in the Department of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, or medical and hospital supplies, which, however, shall not exceed the necessities of the current year.

b) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy shall immediately advise the Congress of the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) of this section, and shall report quarterly on the estimated obligations incurred pursuant to the authority granted in subsection (a) of this section."

What this means is that the Secretary of Defense has the legal authority to continue funding active duty troops without any Congressional Appropriation in order to ensure their basic living needs are met. It apparently does not cover munitions and equipment, but as it does say that the amount "shall not exceed the necessities of the current year" this would still give the Department of Defense a large amount of credit to work with, all without any Congressional yay or nay, and the cost of all this spending coming back to Congress at a later date.

Now the question is can this law be used for supporting missions overseas, and what oversight would Congress have to ensure that its implementation was narrowly interpreted? I don't have all the answers to those questions, but I am very sure Bush would have the Secretary of Defense activate the law should funding for the troops get caught in the showdown between the Congressional leadership and the President. It almost happened in 2005, when the Republican-controlled Congress was dilly-dallying on passing appropriations bills to the point the Defense Department was nearly out of funding.

So the question becomes, if Reid and the Congressional Leadership stand firm, does anything change for the troops in Iraq? Unless the Courts were to rule the administration was illegally using the Feed and Forage Act inapprorpiately, Bush and his administration will still have the money needed to fund operations in Iraq until such time as either the Executive and Legislative branches agree to a compromise both can live with, a President who agrees with the Legislative Branch is elected to office, or a Legislative majority in agreement with the President is elected.

I'm not saying Reid is wrong to say "Never Give In," but in this case I do fear the best cards still lay with in the Bush administration's hands, with both the veto power and a law already on the books and used in the past that can allow funding for military operations without Congressional approval.

And if Bush invokes Feed And Forage to keep US Personnel in Iraq until he decides they are no longer needed, what is our next step to try and end this war?

Beside the obvious...elect a Democratic Party candidate President in 2008 and ensure a 60 seat Democratic Senate and increase the Democratic majority in Congress would of course.

•  tip jar

  if so inclined

  by DanceboyOH on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:57:26 PM PDT

•  UCMJ Dereliction of Duty

  When a commander(or commander Guy) abandons his troops in the field this constitutes dereliction of duty.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  Dereliction of duty is a specific offense in military law. It includes various elements centered around the avoidance of any duty which may be properly expected.

  In the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dereliction of duty is addressed within the regulations governing the failure to obey an order or regulation. It means that one willfully, through negligence or culpable inefficiency, fails to perform one's expected duties. Ineptitude is a defense against the charge. The maximum penalty in the U.S. is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement. Acts which are derelict may be charged under more specific offenses such as missing movement, noncompliance with procedural rules, misbehavior, malingering, self-injury with intent to avoid service, or straggling.

  Civilian dereliction is usually classed in common law as criminal or civil negligence, recklessness or malpractice.

  by JML9999 on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:06:55 PM PDT

  •  Except Feed and Forage...

    would likely not constitute deriliction since the commander-in-chief is doing all in his power under the law to maintaint supply the troops.

    I can't see a court anywhere in the USA convicting Bush for deriliction if he passed Food & Forage.

    Now, if stalemate between Congress and the President results and he did not invoke Feed and Forage and still held the troops in Baghdad, maybe a case could be made.

    by DanceboyOH on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:11:26 PM PDT

•  you're missing something

  OK, fine with the Feed and Forage act.  What about weapons systems, ammo?  What about the costs of 180K contractors?  Think they cost less than the salaries we pay our military? Not everything they do is for providing food and neccessities for our troops. Reconstruction, all the other aid sources, keeping the new Iraqi government propped up.  Don't see embassy construction in that rule.

  Sorry I don't have the link, but IIRC the costs for Iraq were only about 40% what would be covered by the Feed and Forage Act.  This is not a perfect escape clause for W.

  by Habitat Vic on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:29:33 PM PDT

  •  And bribes to our "allies."

    by ben masel on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:47:36 PM PDT

•  "Subsistence"

  as defined in my 1860 Websters

    2.  Competent provisions; means of supporting life.

    3. That which provides the means of living; as money, pay, or wages.

  One rule of Statutory construction, words are taken to mean what they ment at the time of enactment. The Feed and forage Act was passed during the Civil War.

  by ben masel on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:46:42 PM PDT