No Ukraine “Blank Check” Politically Sensible Comment. Ukraine Should Embrace It, Stay Out Of U.S. Political Process Through Elections, Lame Duck Session. Focus On US$38 Billion & US$340 Billion
No “Blank Check” For Ukraine Is A Politically Sensible Comment. Government Of Ukraine Should Embrace It, Stay Out Of U.S. Political Process Through November Elections And Lame Duck Session of United States Congress.
Focus Upon The US$340 Billion And The US$38 Billion
On 18 October 2022, Kevin McCarthy (Republican, 23rd District, California), a member of the United States House of Representatives who serves as [Republican] Minority Leader, shared that a Republican Party-controlled United States House of Representatives would not support a “blank check” in borrowing by United States taxpayers for commercial, economic, humanitarian, military, and political support for Ukraine. The related articles are at the end of this analysis.
Comical that the statement resulted in global media coverage and commentary by United States government officials- “How could he say that?” And “That’s irresponsible.” And “This could signal change in United States policy.” Those statements land afar from reality.
Irresponsible would have been for Representative McCarthy- who will become Speaker of the House of Representatives if the Republican Party wins on 8 November 2022 at least 218 of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, to support a “blank check” for Ukraine. Irresponsible for anyone to authenticate a premise that there are no limits on anything. Neither the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) nor members of the United States Congress, nor the government of Ukraine should have an issue with the remarks by Representative McCarthy. About the amount of support and the form(s) for that support, however- debate those.
No candidate for the United States House of Representatives of United States Senate will be defeated or victorious because they support funding for Ukraine, do not support funding for Ukraine, support limits to funding for Ukraine, and support accountability for funding for Ukraine. Supporting Ukraine is not a local, regional, or national campaign issue in the United States. Ukraine is not the State of Israel where a candidate not supporting a “near blank check” for funding to the State of Israel can be a factor in victory or defeat, particularly for seats in the United States House of Representatives more so than for seats in the United States Senate.
An unreported influencer as to the political relevancy, the political currency inhabiting Ukraine is a lack of Congressional Delegations (CODELs) to Ukraine. The first CODEL was April 2022 and the last was 31 August 2022. Thus far, fourteen (14) members of the 435-member United States House of Representatives and nine (9) members (one retiring) of the United States Senate have visited Ukraine since 24 February 2022.
If a member (or candidate) of the United States Congress believes visiting a location outside of the United States is important for “street credibility” when speaking about a country and/or for demonstrating “toughness” by traveling to a conflict zone, and believing a visit will enhance fundraising efforts, there will be little to prevent that travel- regardless of who pays for it. Countries most often visited during recent election cycles: Afghanistan, Iraq, and State of Israel.
Today, most polling indicates the Republican Party will gain control of the United States House of Representatives for the 118th United States Congress which commences on 3 January 2023. Today, most polling indicates a toss-up as to if the Democratic Party will retain control of the United States Senate.
The “blank check” statement by Representative McCarthy was not surprising, but nonetheless received broad media coverage. The more saliant question is why would anyone believe there is a “blank check” for funding for Ukraine? For anything?
The Biden-Harris Administration will seek to obtain additional funding for Ukraine during the “lame duck” session regardless of the outcomes of the 8 November 2022 mid-term elections where all 435 members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the 100-member United States Senate are subject to votes in districts and states, respectively.
The “lame duck” session will include those members who have been defeated, those members who are retiring, and those members who have won other positions but do not take office until January 2023. The current calendars: From 14 November 2022 to 15 December 2022 in the United States House of Representatives- which includes seventeen voting days and from 9 November 2022 to 21 December 2022 in the United States Senate- which includes twenty-five voting days.
The moniker “lame duck” session is inaccurate as given there is always must-pass legislation- most budget-related which the members should have completed by 30 September of each year, but have not done so in years. The result is some members, particularly those who will not be in office for the first session of the 118th United States Congress which convenes on 3 January 2023, may have more influence as their vote becomes more valuable; and often those defeated or retiring members believe they have more freedom to vote in the manner they truly want to vote. Any constraints for defeated and retiring members are determined by their next employment- will they need to lobby their former colleagues… and seek to lobby for foreign governments.
The government of Ukraine should not be advocating, lobbying, directly or indirectly, for the “lame duck” session of the United States Congress (United States House of Representatives and United States Senate) to include in legislation funding for Ukraine through Fiscal Year 2023 (1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023).
If the government of Ukraine is perceived as seeking to “go around” the change in control of either chamber in the United States Congress, there will be backlash against the government of Ukraine. Whichever political party controls a chamber in the United States Congress will do so through the 5 November 2024 presidential election. Why make the effort to create enemies who will be in office and have authority about budgeting and investigations for the next two years when remaining unknown is what will be the landscape of the war in Ukraine?
Regardless of the outcome of the 8 November 2022 mid-term elections in the United States, there will be a substantial increase in focus as to the amount of taxpayer borrowed funds to be directed to Ukraine and as to accountability for those funds. The historical specters from the misuse and outright theft of trillions (yes, trillions) of United States Dollars- all of which was borrowed by United States taxpayers, spent in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to resonate.
The government of Ukraine would be wise to embrace such accountability- welcome the importance of transparency. Why? Because doing so serves as a political vaccine by acknowledging how grateful the government and citizens of Ukraine are for whatever the United States Congress authorizes- and stressing the importance of accountability particularly given the history of endemic corruption within the public and private sectors in Ukraine.
Thus far in 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration has sought and the United States Congress has authorized more than US$60 billion in taxpayer borrowing for funding relating to Ukraine- this does not mean US$60 billion in currency has been delivered to Kyiv- some funds are transferred to the United States Department of Defense (DOD) for it to re-order replacements for equipment it delivers to Ukraine and for equipment that the DOD needs to replace where governments in other countries delivered equipment to Ukraine, and some funds are transferred to governments in other countries to repay them for they equipment delivered to Ukraine. Providing orders to United States-based military equipment manufacturers has political value- particularly to those members of the United States House of Representatives and members of the United States Senate which those military equipment manufacturers are located- districts and states even though the orders are paid with taxpayer borrowed money. A far from adequate accepted political calculus.
By 24 February 2023, one year from the day the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded and invaded further into the territory of Ukraine, the Biden-Harris Administration will have sought cumulative approximately US$100 billion in funding relating to Ukraine.
What increasingly haunts the Biden-Harris Administration is its preparation for Janet Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury, to authorize the transfer to Moscow of US$38 billion in Central Bank of the Russian Federation funds rather than use the funds to offset what will be US$100 billion in taxpayer borrowing relating to Ukraine.
For Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, he and his economy take measured solace with confidence the United States, the twenty-seven member countries of the European Union (EU), and other countries will return US$340 billion in assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation frozen by countries including the United States (with approximately US$38 billion), Japan, Canada, United Kingdom, and EU-member countries including primarily among others France, Germany, and Switzerland. He has reasons to be optimistic. There are officials in governments and leadership in financial institutions who suggest that confiscating the US$340 billion will lead to potential consequences- countries may not place assets in the countries who froze and then confiscated and then redirected the funds; countries may use alternative currencies to the United States Dollar, United Kingdom Pound Sterling, Euro, and Yen, among others. There are officials and executives who suggest that the US$340 billion can be a carrot for the government of the Russian Federation to cease its war against Ukraine. That will be a carrot of limited appeal. Of note, the spokesperson of the government of the Russian Federation declared months ago that confiscation of the assets would be “outright theft.”
LINK To Related Analysis: 10/12/22- How Today President Putin Of Russia Defines Conflict With Volodymyr Zelensky Of Ukraine? No Longer “Mano-A-Mano” Now “Mano-A-Cincuenta Y Siete-Más” And… The US$340 Billion Question.
The US$100 billion and US$38 billion moments will result in bipartisan support for hearings in the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, regardless of which political party controls which chamber of the United States Congress.
For the government of Ukraine, the most productive strategy is to do nothing to advocate for further United States taxpayer borrowed funding through the mid-term election on 8 November 2022 and through the “lame duck” session of the United States Congress during the last two months of 2022.
Pressure will likely be ineffective- and potentially backfire- where for members of the United States Congress showing support for Ukraine will become a political issue- why are they not showing support for lessening the burden on United States taxpayers who will have already borrowed US$100 billion and will then be asked to provide more for reconstruction of Ukraine- unless the US$38 billion is confiscated? This is a question to be avoided…
Punchbowl News
Washington DC
10 October 2022
Ukraine aid: McCarthy previewed that any request for more Ukraine aid would be more difficult in a House GOP majority. This is something we’ve sensed from our conversations with rank-and-file Republicans during the last few months. The United States has already spent more than $60 billion on economic and military aid since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February, funding that has gotten big bipartisan majorities in both chambers. That consensus may be fraying. “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it. … It’s not a free blank check. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically. Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check.” These kinds of comments could prompt the Biden administration to push for a full year of Ukraine aid during the lame duck, should Republicans win control of either chamber on Election Day. McCarthy may privately welcome this, in fact.
The Hill
Washington DC
18 October 2022
McCarthy warns no ‘blank check’ to Ukraine in GOP majority
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said that House Republicans will not write “a blank check” to Ukraine if they take control of the lower chamber next year, marking one of the clearest signs that aid to the war-torn country fighting off a Russian invasion will face a much tougher road in a GOP-led House. “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it,” McCarthy, who hopes to become Speaker if Republicans win the majority in the midterms, told Punchbowl News in an interview published Tuesday. “It’s not a free blank check. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically. Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check,” McCarthy said.
McCarthy’s comments come as Russian strikes since Oct. 10 have knocked out power for a third of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Belarus has also announced that 9,000 Russian troops will deploy to the country’s border with Ukraine. While Ukraine aid has received bipartisan support in Congress so far, a minority of House Republicans taking a noninterventionist “America First” stance have opposed aid to Ukraine, setting up a bumpier road for future aid if Republicans win the House in the midterm elections as most analysts forecast. In May, 11 Republican senators and 57 House Republicans voted against a $40 billion security supplemental for Ukraine. McCarthy’s “blank check” comments echo some of those concerns coming from the right flank. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) tweeted last month that President Biden “needs to understand that we are the USA not the US-ATM.”
Many Republicans in the House support military aid for Ukraine but are skeptical about nonmilitary humanitarian aid. The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House, dinged a $12.2 billion Ukraine aid measure that was tacked on to a stopgap funding bill passed in September by saying that most of that money to Ukraine was for humanitarian aid. All but 10 House Republicans voted against that stopgap bill, mostly out of anger about being locked out of negotiations and a desire for government funding to run past the end of the year.
Republicans on the Hill have been frustrated at the Biden administration for not engaging enough with the GOP to justify their requests for the nonmilitary humanitarian aid requests. They have also been pushing oversight and transparency measures in new Ukraine funding measures. Outside groups have also been influential among Republicans. Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, lobbied against the $40 billion May aid package — a notable shift from its historical foreign policy stance. The group is not necessarily opposed to all Ukraine aid. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has also called on the Biden administration to provide longer-range artillery to Ukraine.
Bloomberg
New York, New York
18 October 2022
McCarthy Warns GOP May Cut Back Ukraine Aid If Party Wins House
House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said Republicans are prepared to pull back on US aid to Ukraine next year if they gain control of the House, reflecting a growing sentiment in the party for the country to be less involved overseas. “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy said in an interview with Punchbowl News published Tuesday. “They just won’t do it.”
While supporting Ukraine in battling against Russia’s invasion still has bipartisan support in Congress, a faction of Republicans aligned with former President Donald Trump’s “America first” stance has been questioning the US role in providing weapons and other support. Congress passed $40 billion package of aid for Ukraine in May, with 11 Republicans in the Senate and 57 in the House voting against it. Another $12 billion in assistance was included in a stopgap government funding bill passed by Congress in September. Republicans are likely to win control of the House in the November election, according to independent analysts, and McCarthy is poised to become speaker if that happens. Control of the Senate remains a toss-up, but even if Democrats retain control of that chamber a GOP House majority would be able stifle President Joe Biden’s agenda.
McCarthy in the interview said part of the reason for dialing back aid is that the Biden administration is ignoring domestic issues that the GOP sees as a priority, such as securing the US southern border.
“People begin to weigh that,” the California Republican said. “Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check.” The Biden administration and congressional Democrats have argued that the aid to Ukraine is in the interest of the US and its NATO allies and cutting back would embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin. “A Republican-led House could undermine that support and that would be bad for the Ukrainians, it would be bad for our unity with NATO,” Virginia Senator Mark Warner said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power with David Westin.” “If Putin sees that kind of isolationist approach he will press that advantage.” Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said said in an interview that elements of his party are concerned about the cost of the effort but not the goal.
“I think there’s still broad bipartisan support for the effort,” McCaul said. “We want to ensure that our NATO partners are stepping up to the plate and bearing the burden of the cost.” McCaul said McCarthy’s comments don’t mean aid will be cut necessarily. “I think he’s just saying we’re not going to write a blank check without oversight and accountability, which my committee will be providing.” McCaul said. McCarthy also told Punchbowl News that he plans to leverage the need to raise the nation’s debt ceiling to rein in government spending. In recent weeks other top Republicans have said they plan to seek curbs to entitlement programs as a price for the debt ceiling increase, reprising a strategy successfully employed against President Barack Obama in 2011 by House Republicans. During that market-rattling battle, Democrats agreed to cuts to discretionary spending through caps.
The New York Times
New York, New York
18 October 2022
McCarthy Suggests That a G.O.P.-Led House Would Question Aid to Ukraine
The House minority leader, who is in line to be speaker should Republicans win a majority, said in an interview that his party would resist giving a “blank check” to the war-torn country.
WASHINGTON — Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the top House Republican, said that if his party wins a majority in next month’s midterm elections, its members would be unwilling to “write a blank check” to Ukraine, suggesting that it could be more difficult for President Biden to get congressional approval for large infusions of aid to bolster the country’s war against Russia.
“I think people are going to be sitting in a recession, and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he said in a recent interview with Punchbowl News. “Ukraine is important, but at the same time, it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank check.”
Mr. McCarthy’s comments reflected the rising tide of isolationism in the Republican Party, especially in the House, where an increasing number of libertarian-minded conservatives who have adopted former President Donald J. Trump’s “America First” position have vocally opposed authorizing billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it fights off an unprovoked attack from Russia. That impulse led 57 House Republicans to vote in May against a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine. In the Senate, 11 Republican senators opposed the aid package after Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, marshaled support for the legislation in his conference. In total, Congress has approved more than $60 billion to Ukraine this year alone by overwhelming margins, the largest amount of military aid the United States has committed to any country in a single year in nearly half a century, since the Vietnam War.
Mr. McCarthy, who is in line to be speaker if his party wins control of the House, voted for the aid package in May, as did his top two deputies. His remarks on Tuesday casting doubt on his party’s appetite to send more aid underscored the precarious balance he is attempting as he tries to straddle the rift among Republicans between the traditional, hawkish conservatives and the harder-right, more anti-interventionist members whose support he needs to be elected speaker. The House Republicans who are poised to run the committees with oversight of the war should they win the majority are largely hawks who have backed the aid to Ukraine, indicating that some in the party may be reluctant to turn their backs on Kyiv. And many Democrats have supported the money for Ukraine, suggesting that even if most Republicans were opposed, the House could still muster bipartisan support to approve such aid. Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, told Bloomberg News on Tuesday in response to Mr. McCarthy’s remarks that there was still “broad bipartisan support” for aiding Ukraine. “We want to ensure that our NATO partners are stepping up to the plate and bearing the burden of the cost,” Mr. McCaul said, adding of Mr. McCarthy, “I think he’s just saying we’re not going to write a blank check without oversight and accountability, which my committee will be providing.”
The White House
Washington DC
18 October 2022
PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY KARINE JEAN-PIERRE
Q I have one more topic. Kevin McCarthy did an interview with Punchbowl that was published this morning that talked about Ukraine aid and talked about how skeptical House Republicans will be of additional Ukraine aid if they're in the majority. And McCarthy said, “I think people are going to be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it.” So I wanted to know if the White House is concerned about the apparent waning bipartisan support for additional Ukraine aid and if that would encourage -- if that would push you guys to get more aid in the lame duck, even though you just got $12 billion in the CR.
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know -- and you kind of laid it out -- the United States has provided Ukraine with robust bipartisan support as Russia wages its brutal war against Ukraine. So we will continue to work with Congress and continue to monitor those conversations on these efforts and support Ukraine as long as it takes. We are going to keep that promise that we're making to the brave Ukrainians who are fighting every day to fight for their freedom and their democracy. We thank leaders across the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats -- as I've just said, it was a bipartisan effort -- who are working with us to hold Putin accountable and support Ukraine to defend itself from Russia's war crimes and atrocities. So, this is -- again, we're going to closely engage. We're going to closely monitor these dis- -- these discussions. I don't want to get ahead of what -- what Congress might look like next year. I don't want to go into hypotheticals. But again, we're going to continue to engage with Congress on this.
The White House
Washington DC
18 October 2022
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY: S. 4543 – James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Senator Jack Reed, Democrat-Rhode Island)
The Administration strongly supports enactment of a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for a 62nd consecutive year and is grateful for the strong, bipartisan work of the Senate Armed Services Committee on behalf of America’s national defense.
Authorities for Ongoing Support to Ukraine. The Administration thanks the Committee for its continued work to support Ukraine, including the authorization of additional funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), and the extension and modification of its use. The Department thanks the Committee for the authority to expand the groups eligible for assistance and the ability to accept returned equipment or equipment procured for transfer as DoD stocks. However, the Administration would appreciate the requested authority to waive the certification requirement in section 1250(c)(2) of the USAI.
The Administration seeks two new authorities, the Critical Munitions Acquisition Fund and the Defense Exportability Transfer Account, based on lessons learned from the ongoing efforts to provide Ukraine with additional capability as quickly as possible. This bill as currently written does not provide these authorities. Without the additional authorities requested, the defense industrial base (DIB) is likely to continue to be challenged to meet surges in demand, creating long lead-times for the delivery of critical munitions or weapon systems to allies and partners of the United States to support sustained contingency operations. Further, the Department will continue to be delayed in providing such critical munitions or weapons systems to allies and partners in this and future crises due to program protection concerns and interoperability challenges.
