Bob Menendez: “as a strong supporter of U.S. assistance to Ukraine, I am keenly aware of the important role that appropriate and…”

“as a strong supporter of U.S. assistance to Ukraine, I am keenly aware of the important role that appropriate and effective oversight plays in ensuring that support can continue. I support independent, effective oversight and believe we should be doing all that we can to make sure those oversight mechanisms are strong and that our inspectors general have the resources they need to carry out their work. But given that we have an existing framework, given that there are three inspectors general who have been working day in and out, effectively, to conduct such oversight, I do not think we should create new offices and additional layers without evidence that the current framework is not working. So while I appreciate that my colleagues share the same goals of ensuring we have robust oversight of U.S. assistance to Ukraine, I do not agree that these amendments are the best way to achieve that goal. The Wicker amendment would create a new office that could impede the work that is ongoing, not enhance it. There is an existing statutory framework for designating a lead inspector general. I have not heard a good case for why that framework should not be used here. The inspectors general from the Department of State, USAID, and Department of Defense have been on the ground in Ukraine, conducting work of virtually all U.S. assistance involving multiple Agencies. They have an established working group that ensures oversight is efficient and not duplicative.…”