GAO decision, withholding Ukraine aid was illegal

[Chris0nllyn]

All nifty stuff.

The DoD notification does NOT start a clock.

The funds were provided in the timeline required by law.

It COULD have been faster, and that's really nifty to know, but it doesn't change anything about the reality of legality.

It absolutely does.

Money can be used 15 days after notifying Congress. It was unable to be used because the OMB delayed it. Nine times. Starting the day Trump talked to Zelensky. That's a delay of funding that would have been available had OMB not delayed it at Trump's request.

You keep saying "the law", but are not showing any proof that the ICA says you can delay funding as long as it's dispersed by end of FY. Congress approriates the money for Ukraine aide, DoD does what they need to do to prove Ukraine is fighting corruption in order to meet the legislative intent of the funding and notifies Congress. Pending no objection from Congress, the money can be used 15 days after that notification. Clocks starts ticking. Despite the DoD doing everything in their power on their end to fast track the money when it does come in, the OMB said "We're holding that money until this date", and did that again and again. 9 times.

That delay could have been okay, had the WH offered justification for it that aligned with the 3 exceptions outlined in the ICA. The OMB did not do that and effectively ignored the GAO.

The funds were available for obligation until Sept. 30. This is because the USAI was funded in the Consildated Appropriations Act of 2018 which says the money can start flowing 15 days after the DoD notification.

[A]t the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic.

The OMB argues these were "programmatic delays".

The GAO said:

[P]rogrammatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts.

SEC. 9013. For the ‘‘Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative’’, $200,000,000 is hereby appropriated, to remain available until September 30, 2018: Provided, That such funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal weapons of a defensive nature; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine, and for replacement of any weapons or defensive articles provided to the Government of Ukraine from the inventory of the United States: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not less than 15 days prior to obligating funds provided under this heading, notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of any such obligation: Provided further, That the United States may accept equipment procured using funds provided under this heading in this or prior Acts that was transferred to the security forces of Ukraine and returned by such forces to the United States: Provided further, That equipment procured using funds provided under this heading in this or prior Acts, and not yet transferred to the military or National Security Forces of Ukraine or returned by such forces to the United States, may be treated as stocks of the Department of Defense upon written notification to the congressional defense committees: Provided further, That amounts made available by this section are designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ141/PLAW-115publ141.pdf

 

[Barabbas]

It absolutely does.

Money can be used 15 days after notifying Congress. It was unable to be used because the OMB delayed it. Nine times. Starting the day Trump talked to Zelensky. That's a delay of funding that would have been available had OMB not delayed it at Trump's request.

You keep saying "the law", but are not showing any proof that the ICA says you can delay funding as long as it's dispersed by end of FY. Congress approriates the money for Ukraine aide, DoD does what they need to do to prove Ukraine is fighting corruption in order to meet the legislative intent of the funding and notifies Congress. Pending no objection from Congress, the money can be used 15 days after that notification. Clocks starts ticking. Despite the DoD doing everything in their power on their end to fast track the money when it does come in, the OMB said "We're holding that money until this date", and did that again and again. 9 times.

That delay could have been okay, had the WH offered justification for it that aligned with the 3 exceptions outlined in the ICA. The OMB did not do that and effectively ignored the GAO.

The funds were available for obligation until Sept. 30. This is because the USAI was funded in the Consildated Appropriations Act of 2018 which says the money can start flowing 15 days after the DoD notification.




The OMB argues these were "programmatic delays".

The GAO said:





https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ141/PLAW-115publ141.pdf

What 9013 is saying is that the funds are available >15 days after notice, not <15 days.

September 11 is >15 days from notice and prior to 30 September.

Sounds legal to me.

It's perfectly fine to not like the delays. You should vote for someone who would not do that (that person has not yet existed), and that would be a very reasonable reaction.

If the funding was not obligated before 30 September you have every justification to be upset.

Is this where I say "period" again?

 

[CPUSA]

It's 100% clear it was held. Nothing says a hold is only a hold if money goes past the spending deadline.

And it's now 100% clear YOU are retarded
Nothing says a retard is only a retard because their idiotic postings prove it...

I'm pretty sure in your case...there are school folders full of counselors notes stating it's their opinion as well...

 

[CPUSA]

The action of a hold is still a hold. Period.

 

[Gilligan]

All this mindless fuss over a puny 218 million...lmfao....

 

[Midnightrider]

What 9013 is saying is that the funds are available >15 days after notice, not <15 days.

September 11 is >15 days from notice and prior to 30 September.

Sounds legal to me.

It's perfectly fine to not like the delays. You should vote for someone who would not do that (that person has not yet existed), and that would be a very reasonable reaction.

If the funding was not obligated before 30 September you have every justification to be upset.

Is this where I say "period" again?

If the funds were not delivered by 30 September they would have been canceled, not delayed. Both cases were covered in the GAO report. In either case the admin is required transmit a special message to congress explaining the decision. They didn’t.

 

[Barabbas]

There was nothing to report that was not reported