Now that the US House of Representatives has finally, after four tries, elected a Speaker, business can resume in that chamber.
As all money bills by law must originate in the House and not in the Senate, one of the first pieces of business will be to take up President Joe Biden’s aid “package” that covers money for Ukraine and Israel as well as money for illegals in the United States and for other purposes.
It makes sense to scuttle the Biden aid package and break it into separate parts. Some of it can be funded (after careful review and clarification); some of it is dangerous and should be dropped by Congress.
The Biden proposal covers only one year of funding for Ukraine (and is in addition to hundreds of millions already in the pipeline for that country).
The Biden package is for an astonishing $110 billion. In one way or another, $61.4 billion will go to Ukraine or be used for operations supporting the Ukraine war, such as more funding for the Pentagon and additional money for intelligence.
An astonishing $16.3 billion would go for what the administration calls “economic security and operational assistance.” This money is earmarked to pay the ongoing salaries of Ukrainian civilian and military officials and to pay for their retirement. Nearly half a billion will go to pay for settling Ukrainians in the United States.
Biden is counting on support for Israel as the catalyst to carry Ukraine aid over the top on Capitol Hill. He is asking for $14.3 billion for Israel, although it isn’t clear how this amount was arrived at or what it covers. Furthermore, since the Gaza war continues and trouble is brewing on the West Bank, on the Lebanese border, and in Syria, needs are changing almost on a daily basis. It may be too soon to project what Israel will need.
It is worth noting that Israel never made an official request for money from the United States. It did ask for more Iron Dome interceptor missiles and for additional ammunition. The Israeli request was unclear whether it would be funded from existing foreign-assistance legislation, or directly paid for.
Biden is also asking for $10 billion for “humanitarian” assistance including $850 million for migration and refugee assistance. It isn’t clear what refugees the money is supposed to cover, nor is it self-evident why the United States should support refugees from Gaza or elsewhere in the Middle East.
No one has explained why it is in the US interest to take these people in, given the terrible track record of refugees from the Middle East in Europe. No doubt other Arab countries, or Iran, could take Palestinian refugees, but none of them are willing and none want the trouble that would result, sooner or later, after their arrival.
The truth is if the US takes Palestinian refugees in, many will turn out to be terrorists. Their bosses in Gaza and Iran will make sure that happens.
Beyond the Middle East and a new flood of refugees coming to the United States Biden wants to support, the proposed Biden legislation has a staggering $13.6 billion aimed at the US-Mexico border. Some of it would be used to hire new agents and build new holding pens for refugees.
A far smaller amount would be to help against the fentanyl threat, although exactly how is not clear. Not a penny of it is based on any change in the catch-and-release policy of the Biden administration. In fact, the proposal includes $1.4 billion to help state and local governments provide shelter and food services for illegals.
There is no system of oversight for any of the funds in the legislation. The administration openly opposes any accounting for Ukraine money. Although the State Department and White House have complained, here and there, about the vast corruption machine operating in Ukraine, they keep pushing for more and more money anyway.
Some of the money in the legislation is for replenishment of equipment and ammunition handed over to Ukraine. The actual replenishment targets are unclear and it is impossible to say if the proposed billions for replenishment weren’t pulled from a hat.
Some of the systems the US may want to replenish are no longer manufactured. Others, such as 155mm artillery shells, are needed, but it may take some time before new ones in any quantity are manufactured. Israel now needs the same shells too, and leaving the American cupboard bare is not a good idea.
Creating a situation conducive to bringing more refugees to the United States is a dangerous policy, and Congress should refuse to fund doing so. We already can see with perfect clarity what is happening in Europe. Replicating that in the United States is a recipe for disaster.
The proposed border-security legislation does some positive things (more border guards, for example), but it isn’t clear otherwise how the money will be used, and despite the money, Biden and company continue to keep the doors open to illegals crossing the southern border of the United States.
A key concern, now well recognized, is that the open border is inviting terrorists into the US. We catch some of them, perhaps, but others get through. There is no money in the Biden legislation to deal with the southern-border terrorist threat.
What should Congress do?
Congress should not pass a package proposal. Each of the items in the Biden proposal must be carefully examined and justifications for the proposed expenditures must be clarified.
Congress should not be opening floodgates to more immigration, whether legal or illegal. Why, for example, are we Americans bringing Ukrainians here instead of them staying in Ukraine? If, as the administration insists, Ukraine is winning the war, there is no reason for them to come here at all.
By funding states and localities to house and feed illegals, we are encouraging more illegals, including criminals, to come here. These same states and cities asking for money were, in most cases, avid supporters of bringing illegals to the United States. Let them pay for them.
The $110 billion in the package is a lot of money, much more than the US can afford right now. Congress should focus on the most urgent items that need funding, such as immediate wartime needs. Paying salaries and pensions in Ukraine is not a high priority, and not even desirable.
Specific weapons and ammunition that may be needed by Ukraine or Israel should be funded. Beyond that, Congress should separately evaluate replenishment needs and fill the most urgent (such as 155mm shells). When it comes to border guards, funding is appropriate. Separate legislation is needed to support them.
Defense spending also needs a thorough overhaul. Simply stated, the existing procurement system and the lack of supply sustainment weaken the United States. Instead of pouring more and more billions into future weapons, the first order of business should be to improve existing stockpiles.
Beyond that, Congress needs to recognize that the current-day defense industrial base is front-loaded to developing and building new systems (where the big money is) instead of building more of what the military services need in a conflict.
Stephen Bryen, who served as staff director of the Near East Subcommittee of the
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a deputy undersecretary of defense
for policy, currently is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute.
This article was originally published on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy. Asia Times is republishing it with permission.