to DOD obligating any funding under the act. Controversy There is a controversy over whether, and the extent to which, the Act lets a President fund military operations for which Congress has not appropriated funds. In November 2006, member of Congress and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich wrote that the President could cite the Act to continue the Iraq War even if Congress withheld funds. In May 2007, the National Journal published an article echoing this argument. In response, OmbWatch.org published "Exploring the Scope of the Feed and Forage Act of 1861" suggesting a more limited interpretation: ... interpreting the Feed and Forage Act broadly probably gives great flexibility to Department of Defense officials to obtain anything they deem necessary, so long as it is for a short-term need that occurred in an emergency, could not be feasibly obtained through normal procedures, and was used in the fiscal year in which it was obtained. This interpretation would give Congress and the president much more, if not unlimited, time to negotiate a compromise... Others have argued that the Act cannot allow the President to continue military operations where Congress has used its Power of the purse to end them. It is argued that the intent of the Framers was that "the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE" The Department of Defense's Financial Management Regulations notes that : "The Department shall limit its use of the authority in 41 U.S.C 11 to emergency circumstances." Name Confusion Many sources refer to a "Food and Forage Act" but the name used by the U.S. Government is "Feed and Forage Act". References United States federal defense and national security legislation