The nation’s attention has shifted to fighting ISIS in the Middle East and controlling the deadly Ebola virus in Africa. But it’s worth keeping up with issues raised by the August confrontations between protestors and police in Ferguson, Mo., and the militarization of police across much of the United States.

At congressional hearings this month, questions are being asked about whether small police departments really need grenade launchers and armored vehicles. There also are growing concerns over the apparent lack of oversight monitoring the militarization of police through a Pentagon program and Homeland Security grants.

A recent New York Times article described a simmering debate over surplus military gear in Davis, Calif. The Davis story raises two questions in examining why the police chief in the quiet college town just west of Sacramento would want a $700,000 armored vehicle. The answer: it was well-maintained, had low mileage and, most importantly, it was free.

Peole are asking why Davis and hundreds of smaller towns and rural counties across the U.S. need military equipment.

Follow-up questions ask why the Pentagon has been giving away hundreds of millions of dollars of functional equipment? If the armored vehicle given to Davis police was had low mileage and was well-maintained, then why did the Pentagon give it away? Could it be that after giving away a billion dollars worth of slightly used but functional military equipment, the Pentagon can buy new stuff? Military contractors would no doubt support the Pentagon’s program as a way to boost sales and profits.

It’s good to see media and congressional attention on this progam, which was created in 1997, primarly as a way to help police departments fight the war on drugs and sometimes well-armed drug criminals. Later, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the program to give military equipment to local police departments was also intended to fight terrorism. But a New York Times analysis found that the majority of counties in the United States had received some sort of military gear, ranging night vision goggles and M-16 assault rifles to grenade launchers, armored vehicle and even helicopters.

The confrontations in Ferguson, following the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer, showed military equipment and snipers aimed at civilian protestors, something many observers believed heightened tensions in Ferguson rather than calming them.

This month’s congressional hearings should look into why a wealthy Atlanta suburb ended up with an amphibious tank for its police force and why a rural county in North Dakota needs a mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle. One suspicion is that free equipment works with a tight police department budget.

Congress should dig deeper to see if the mass giveaway program was followed by an increase in Pentagon purchases of new equipment, to replace the equipment given away. Who was deciding that small towns and rural counties needed grenade launchers and tanks? Was anyone monitoring this program?

The apparently wasteful Pentagon program serves as a quick reminder of the fact that the Defense Department has never passed an audit and is the only federal agency that cannot produce auditable financial statements. The impression is that the Pentagon has so many bilions of dollars sloshing around that it cannot show where the money is going, or why. Without a clearer financial picture, taxpayers cannot know if their money is being spent wisely — and military contractors might prefer it that way.

More than 20 years ago, Congress passed legislation requiring the Pentagon to pass a financial audit. The deadline came and went with no audit of military spending. The deadline has now been pushed back to 2017.

The Pentagon give-away program and Homeland Security funding of equipment look like two well-intentioned proprams that got out of control. It’s time for Congress to rein in the flood of military gear going to police departements, most of which have no need for such gear.