Not since the mid-to-late 1990s had Air Force depots been more directly threatened.

But there it was. A December 2008 memo from then Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics John Young declared the 50-50 rule “does not apply to procurement-funded projects, particularly the installation of major modifications.”

That might sound like harmless bureaucratic blathering to the idle listener. But to the well-trained ear, it signaled potential disaster for installations like Robins Air Force Base where a vast depot employs more than 20,000 workers and pumps $4 billion into the economy.

In effect, Young was significantly waiving Section 2466, title 10, United States Code that specifies no more than 50 percent of Defense Department funds allocated for depot maintenance can be spent in the private sector.

The 50-50 rule is not a protection mechanism for defense jobs, although it has that effect. Instead, it seeks to sustain a military depot system – including three Air Force depots – as a ready, controllable and surgeable national resource in time of war. Pulling major modifications away from the workload mix would be a crippling blow.

U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall said the Young memo stirred up considerable fuss when it was first issued.

“We argued about it and I questioned Young,” Marshall said. “But he didn’t back off.”

Although Young departed office with the out-going Bush administration, Robert Gates remained as secretary of defense.

“And he was not unaware of this,” Marshall determined. “He was saying we need to get rid of the ‘wasteful old concepts’ and this could have been deemed one of them. I think he’s right on many and wrong on some. And he would be wrong on this one.”

So Marshall proposed a clarifying amendment to Title 10. The Defense Department said they would rather not do that.

“I asked why not,” he recalled. “If they were disavowing Young’s statement, why would an amendment be a problem? They didn’t have a good answer.”

The Defense Department finally suggested language that would enable 50-50 “policy” to be changed by giving Congress 30-days notice. They later offered 90 days. Neither was acceptable to Marshall.

“I couldn’t agree to any language that said changing the policy was OK if they sent us a letter,” he said. “We would have to act within 30 to 90 days to stop them? We couldn’t do that.”

Amending Title 10 was an uphill battle. “It was probably a bridge too far,” he noted.

Inserting a “sense of Congress” amendment in the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill was the next best choice. The Marshall-sponsored provision said “major modifications and upgrades are considered to be part of the definition of depot-level maintenance” for purposes of Title 10 and the 50-50 rule. The amendment was included in the final measure passed by Congress.

Will that stop the assault on depots? Probably not.

“But this was a chance to get some language that they have to overcome,” Marshall stressed. “It’s planning ahead in this grand chess game.”