Ukraine Support Act
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from Mr. Hoyer, and I want to touch on them for a moment.
He made the point that military spending from Europe has surged 67 percent and aid from Europe has surged 59 percent. I am exceptionally glad to see that take place.
However, let's make sure that we give credit where credit is due. There is a reason that military spending in Europe didn't surge by 67 percent in 2024 or 2023. There is a reason that aid didn't surge 59 percent in 2022.
President Trump forced Europe to raise the spending. He said that the burden is going to be on you, Europe, to carry your weight.
In addition, he did something. He demanded something from Europe: that they defend their own backyard.
We should all be praising President Trump for getting them to carry the burden of the war going on in the European backyard. I am glad to see them spend it, and I hope they spend 10 times more, but let's give the credit where it is due.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I think that is the pattern, 30 seconds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. You are almost there.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I was happy to yield to the gentleman a few moments, and I absolutely affirm what he said. I agree with what the gentleman said, and I think Secretary Rubio has affirmed this no less. Secretary Rubio said: We are not neutral, a neutral arbiter in the war between Russia and Ukraine. We believe in Ukraine. We want Ukraine to win. We are not neutral in this.
Absolutely, they see the threat. Europe sees the threat, and we are glad that they are now stepping up in a much more substantial way.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee that he said that we should give Ukraine--they just want a little bit of help. The United States of America, to this moment, is giving them far more than just a little bit of help, and that should not be ignored.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to just begin with the final comments of the ranking member. He said that it is a chance to prove you stand with Ukraine.
We could do absolutely nothing in this Chamber today, and all of us would still be standing with Ukraine. We have been standing with Ukraine since the onset of this war, which began under President Joe Biden. We have been standing with Ukraine.
A vote for this bill doesn't prove that you are pro-Ukraine. I believe that analysis of this bill proves that you didn't take a look very well about how it does affect citizens of the United States of America.
As Secretary Rubio said and as I mentioned already, we are not a neutral arbiter in the war between Russia and Ukraine. We have sent tens of billions of dollars in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of the war. We continue to share intelligence to this very moment. We continue to send arms. We have levied countless sanctions against Russia that are still in place today.
I could tell you that I personally cheer every single time Ukraine hits a Russian target.
This bill is not about helping Ukraine defeat Russia. This bill is about trying to stop President Trump and trying to tie his hands and limit his ability to negotiate.
President Trump has successfully ended longstanding conflicts around the globe. In just the last 18 months, he has ended the October 7 war between Israel and Hamas; the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which had been a 30-year-long conflict; between Egypt and Ethiopia, a longstanding diplomatic crisis that risked all-out war; between Pakistan and India, who were on the verge of all-out war, which could have turned nuclear if not stopped; war between the DRC and Rwanda; between Kosovo and Serbia; and between Cambodia and Thailand.
President Trump has been working on conflicts successfully across the globe. Those are just some of the successes that he has been able to accomplish in the last 18 months, despite Democrats really fighting him every step of the way.
I think the reality is that in order to end this war, we have to bring Russia to the table. I think we all know that.
I personally would much rather prefer that our coalition--and it is a strong coalition that includes the United States of America--bring Vladimir Putin to his knees, but as long as Vladimir Putin has nukes, the coalition is not going to do that.
Why? Let's explain it very clearly. The only reason that there is not more being done militarily in response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine is because they have nuclear weapons. The only reason that there is not a United States of America bunker buster through the ceiling of the Kremlin is because Russia has nukes. It is the only reason that Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia--take your pick--don't have heavy armor rolling all the way to Siberia: It is because Russia has nukes.
In fact, this is why Iran absolutely should not have a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been apparently forgotten by my colleagues. We do not want to have to negotiate with a terrorist state that proves to be an imminent threat to the United States of America every single day and have them be armed with a nuclear weapon.
That is why I find it so interesting that Democrats want to pull out all the stops against Russia while doing absolutely nothing to stop Iran, which, in the 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning, attacked the United States of America over 350 times. That, to me, is amazing.
What this bill would do is tie the President's hands. I have mentioned that already. It would prevent him from negotiating an end to the war. The President has tried his best to get my colleagues to read between the lines about how they would be affecting the United States of America domestically by pushing this policy. He laid it out yesterday in his Statement of Administration Policy, which speaks very specifically about the far-reaching provisions, like the sanctions on SWIFT and the imposition of mandatory sanctions without the appropriate waivers for their limits.
To bring this back domestically and what that memo was about in part is this: Sanctions on this bill would be a kill switch on American nuclear power. Under President Trump, we are finally weaning off nuclear fuel, but that does take time. The truth is, Russia has a stronghold on global enriched uranium supplies, and Russian suppliers are intertwined in our nuclear energy supply chain as well as that of Europe's.
Recently, Russia accounted for nearly 30 percent of enriched uranium purchased by United States reactor operators, underscoring both the continued dependence on foreign-controlled enrichment capacity and the need for an orderly transition to secure domestic supply chains. That number is now lower than it was, thanks to President Trump, but the sanctions in this bill would strain an already vulnerable U.S. nuclear supply chain overnight.
These sanctions don't just impact us here at home, as I mentioned already. They would have devastating consequences to European energy. As Europe realized through oil and gas, they are highly dependent on Russia. They have been working to wean themselves off, which President Trump warned them about in his 45 administration, saying why is the United States of America paying all this time, troops, and treasure to protect Europe through NATO when they are so intertwined with Russia, and they are highly dependent in Europe on Russian enriched uranium.
In addition--this has been mentioned numerous times--the bill is filled with outdated measures and basic errors. To give a few of those examples that have already been mentioned, the bill includes funding for Ukraine security assistance that was already passed as a part of this year's NDAA. In fact, the bill would provide $100 million less per year than what was passed in the NDAA. That is a pretty important oversight.
It has been mentioned that the bill calls for 2 percent of GDP military spending from NATO. It was already congratulated by some of my colleagues that the President has worked to make sure that NATO spends 5 percent of their GDP in terms of military spending, and he has been wildly successful in making sure that that takes place.
This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill to attack President Trump that was crafted basically a year and a half ago, while he was actively engaged in the high-stakes negotiation to end this war since it started.
I do believe that people on both sides of this bill want to help Ukraine, but supporting this bill does not somehow say you are stepping away from Ukraine or that you all of a sudden stand beside them.
Again, we could do nothing here today, and the status quo that we have been supporting Ukraine since the onset of this war would continue. I believe that this is about a cudgel to fight against President Trump and tie his hands, as I have said already.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source