Lawmakers are racing to approve the next tranche of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Ukraine. The Biden Administration originally requested $33 billion, including some odd-ball items like funding for U.S. domestic crop production. We let everyone know our opinion of that package in our Weekly Wastebasket.

Thankfully, that provision was eventually dropped, but then Congress added just under $7 billion more funding to bring the grand total to $39.8 billion. The new total of roughly $20 billion for Pentagon accounts specifically includes additional money to replenish U.S. weapons stocks that have been drawn down by transferring weapons to Ukraine. This has been a topic of debate at recent Congressional hearings, with Pentagon brass asked if U.S. stockpiles are suffering as we send military equipment to Ukraine. Programs operated by the State Department or the Agency for International Development also see a boost. The bulk of the increase, nearly $3 billion, is directed at International Disaster Assistance to provide food aid to individuals in Ukraine and other countries affected by the drop in grain exports from Ukraine and Russia.

But, hold the phone, there are dueling cost estimates for the current version of this Supplemental Appropriation. The numbers in the bill appear to add up to $39.8 billion and the Congressional Fact Sheet pegs it at “nearly $40 billion”. But the nonpartisan official budget scorekeeper the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the costs of the legislation to be as much as $41.6 billion.

What gives? Or more appropriately – takes.

Well, there is that mandatory payment to the beneficiary of the recently deceased Member of Congress, Rep. Don Young (R-AK). But that’s just $174,000.

The CBO estimate appears to account for some costs that the committee’s summary does not articulate. Most notably is a provision relating to funds for programs operated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The summary states $954 million will provide refugee support services, such as temporary housing assistance, language classes, counseling, and grants to schools educating refugees. Tucked into the summary is a note that “the legislation allows certain benefits to be offered to arrivals and refugees from Ukraine after undergoing background checks.” Presumably this is why the CBO projects the HHS title of the bill to result in $2.3 billion of spending.

But “presumably” shouldn’t enter the conversation when massive spending bills are being contemplated. Yet because this is designated as “emergency” spending, most of the normal checks on the approval process are lifted. To be clear, we aren’t saying the HHS funds and provision shouldn’t be in the package. It’s about lawmakers knowing what’s in the package that is being considered. And about making sure that money is spent wisely after it is appropriated.

Oversight is key. That’s why we led a group of like-minded organizations concerned with good stewardship of federal spending in writing a letter to Congressional leadership asking for enhanced oversight of this spending. As we wrote in the letter, “The Gross Domestic Product of Ukraine in 2020 was $155.6 billion in U.S. dollars. Moving tens of billions of dollars into an economy that isn’t used to absorbing that much money will require care, and the best economic and transparency practices possible in a dire situation. The United States must play a larger role here, as the Ukrainian government is focused on fighting off an invasion. Congressional oversight is needed, even after these funds are released.”

We’ll say it again: oversight is key.