Diligent
stewardship of taxpayer dollars is a fundamental responsibility for anyone in
public service, from the President of the United States and Speaker of the
House of Representatives to the financial manager at a local base or
contracting office. Generally speaking, it takes 10–15 households to generate
$100,000 in taxes. This money should be spent wisely.

Therefore, direction
for the use of federal resources to confront and overcome the nation’s
challenges and priorities is a serious duty of any national decision-maker.

We often see
these responsibilities and duties come in second to political ambitions or even
well-meaning but misguided attempts to serve an alternative goal. This
wobbliness of focus tends to happen in particular when developing and debating
supplemental spending.

Supplementals can
be large and move quickly since, by their nature, they are meant to support
emergencies. This can lead to mischief—adding things that don’t belong and that
are not subject to scrutiny—as the bills skip steps like hearings, committee
markups, and normal review processes.

The current Ukraine
supplemental is an exception.

The Ukraine supplemental request itself—at $33 billion—was focused on Ukraine-related expenses, did not sneak in a myriad of other priorities, and was accompanied by proposals to allow the capture of Russian resources to assist Ukraine.

Close reading reveals that the House supplemental bill on the request is also worded to provide support specific for federal government incremental expenses related to Ukraine. It contains no major tangential adds or policy riders. But it does contain numerous reporting requirements and funding restrictions to facilitate oversight.

During
House floor debate, where mischief often takes place on supplemental bills, approved
amendments to increase the requested amount—by $7 billion—actually largely adhere
to the purpose of the bill and, in the case of the Defense Department, provide
for real military utility.

For example, the House added funds to further replenish US stocks
of equipment provided to Ukraine, accelerate missile
production, expand domestic capacity of strategic and critical minerals, and procure
critical munitions. Use of the $500 million provided for critical munitions
would first require a 60-day congressional notification on the execution plan
for the purchases.

The bill appropriates funds to DOD for Ukraine
security assistance and increased assistance to allies. One could argue these
resources should be provided to and managed by the State Department, but they
are focused on Ukraine and confronting Russian aggression in the region.

The bill includes
authority for DOD to transfer over $9 billion to other accounts that would
remain available until the end of the next fiscal year. This is critical in
addressing any lost equipment and allows for execution beyond the current
fiscal year. This could be especially important in the event Congress does not
pass regular annual appropriations before the start of the fiscal year this
fall.

Even the $364
million in defense research and development requested, which can prompt
skepticism in an emergency supplemental, seems reasonable given the explanations
pointing to the need for unmanned vehicle modifications, export control
systems, and other cyber and intelligence capabilities specific to supporting
Ukraine.

As to oversight, DOD
funding in the bill comes with a number of required reports including some with
aggressive timelines. For example:

• Within 30 days, the
  Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, is required
  to provide a written report describing US security assistance provided to
  Ukraine since the February 24, 2022, Russian invasion, including a
  comprehensive list of the defense articles and services provided to Ukraine.
• Within 45 days, the
  Secretary of Defense, again in coordination with the Secretary of State, must
  provide a report on US accounting for and end-use monitoring of defense
  articles designated for Ukraine since the invasion.

One can usually find tangential and
unrelated funding in domestic agency supplemental appropriations. But, in this
case, the bill provides funds for humanitarian aid, refugee assistance and
resettlement; medical support; food and energy security; investigation, seizure, and forfeiture of assets related to
Russian aggression; and economic and foreign aid—all activities that are
part of US assistance and response to Ukraine requirements. As with the funds
provided to defense, these resources come with reporting requirements and
restrictions.

The bill does include one anomalous
general provision that provides $174,000 seemingly unrelated to Ukraine, but
otherwise is pretty “clean” by supplemental standards.

One can debate US foreign policy priorities laid next to domestic challenges, the importance of supporting Ukraine, the estimated costs of doing so, and the need to find offsets from less immediate and responsive federal priorities as part of fundamental stewardship duties, but it is tough to find a lack of transparency, oversight, or diffusion of stated purpose in the current Ukraine supplemental.

The post The Ukraine Supplemental appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.