{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01867704280155642, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.43, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reprogramming of Funds by the Defense Department

IT IS CHARACTERISTIC of studies on "How a bill becomes a law" to conclude with the president's signing of the bill. How the bill is later implemented and administered rarely receives attention. Similarly, we follow the process of an appropriation bill up to final passage and lose sight of it thereafter. Yet highly significant actions occur during the postappropriation stage. Members of Congress vote with the understanding that funds will be obligated and spent for certain purposes. Frequently the funds are directed to other purposes by executive departments and agencies. One instrument for executive spending flexibility is "reprogramming" of funds within an appropriation-a practice regularly employed by the Department of Defense, Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Interior, Veterans' Administration, and other federal agencies. Despite the magnitude of funds involved and the intriguing questions of congressional control and budget priorities, little has been written about reprogramming. Few students of government have even heard of the term, much less know the details of how it operates. This article shows how reprogramming has developed in the Department of Defense, excluding military construction and the Corps