Ukraine Support Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to return our attention to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2319.

I am not sure we want the eyes of the world on this bill. I would, Mr. Speaker, like to ask my colleagues across the aisle who discharged this bill: Do you want to see an end to this war?

It is increasingly obvious that it will end, and when it ends, it will be through negotiations. If my friends support this bill, then clearly they are not interested in peace because the consequences would tie the hands of this President and could lead to future hostilities that would bleed over into Europe.

As the chairman of the Europe Subcommittee, I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, how much I believe that, but they offered no solutions. It went into the spectrum, they have not offered us an AUMF or a declaration of war. At the other end, they choose to support an unserious bill that would constrain the President's ability to negotiate that peace.

Or is this a simple messaging bill against President Trump?

The Ukraine Support Act is filled with mandatory sanctions provisions that would significantly constrain the President in his negotiations with Russia. This includes congressional review requirements, mechanisms that tie the hands of the President rather than afford him the leverage to pursue a settlement agreement.

My colleague across the aisle and the ranking member typically emphasize the importance of diplomacy, dialogue, and development. Yet, by supporting this bill, they are going back on their words. Successful diplomacy requires flexibility, yet this bill provides the opposite.

The Ukraine Support Act is also riddled with problems that my colleague Mr. Hill has already mentioned, problems that call its credibility into question.

It contains provisions that are already addressed elsewhere in law, including redundancies with the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. It includes outdated provisions, cross-referencing errors, and language that does not reflect current policy. Iran? Really?

In one section, the bill extends the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative at $300 million per year for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, yet Congress has already authorized $400 million. The legislation would, therefore, authorize a lower amount than current law.

I ask my Democrat colleagues: Do you support cutting assistance to Ukraine in addition to tying the President's hands?

The bill also includes a sense of Congress encouraging NATO allies to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. This has been a magnificent achievement to get to 5 percent, 3.5 percent on defense and 1.5 percent on infrastructure.

Is your intent to reduce the commitment of NATO member nations? They are watching this debate right now, and they are advocating for 2 percent. Regardless of what they say, the bill has 2 percent in it. Vladimir Putin would love you for that, especially after President Trump successfully worked with our allies to raise their commitment to 5 percent.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and many others, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ukraine Support Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source