Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 8035.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 8035, the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, as well as the other two national security supplemental bills and a fourth bill that is full of strong conservative policy priorities.
As we stand here today, a strategic military troika of evil sits over the horizon marching toward the destruction of the values that we and our democratic allies hold so dear.
We can either turn our heads away and hope to appease this great evil, or we can stand with our allies and confront this nefarious scourge.
History has taught us that appeasement does not work. It was attempted not that long ago through the failed Obama-Clinton reset with the Communist KGB thug, Putin. That administration believed that Putin could be satiated with Georgia and Crimea.
They were wrong, and today Putin's appetite has only grown. Now he wants all of Ukraine, tomorrow Moldova, the Baltics, and Poland?
Madam Chair, history repeats itself. I am reminded that in 1947, Congress provided military and economic support for Greece and Turkiye, keeping them out of the hands of the Soviet Union.
Today, this Congress has the chance to do the same by supporting these bills that confront the troika, and fully fund our security commitments to support Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine, which are confronting existential challenges to their very existence.
The only way to stand up to Putin and others like him, in the words of Ronald Reagan, is peace through strength. That is why every Member voting ``yes'' on these bills is standing for today.
This bill supports that principle, two-thirds of which will be spent here at home to investments in the U.S. defense industrial base and replenishing our military equipment.
The supplemental also provides critical security assistance to help ensure that Ukraine has the training and weapons it needs to stop Putin, such as additional artillery rounds and air defense systems.
Please take note of this, Madam Chair. This bill requires a clear strategy from the administration that defines and prioritizes U.S. national security interests in Ukraine.
It also includes unprecedented oversight and accountability requirements, including robust funding for our Inspectors General and end use monitoring of U.S. defense transfers.
Also, economic assistance to Ukraine is subject to extensive burden sharing and transparency requirements, including unprecedented cost matching by our European and other allies.
Madam Chair, in addition, for the first time ever, this bill requires that the funding we provide to Ukraine for economic assistance be subjected to repayment to the United States of America.
In sum, Madam Chairwoman, this is a critical bill that directly supports the national security interests of the United States.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Chairman, we may be nearing a dangerous inflection point in this war. If the thug Putin were to win, it would be a disaster for our national security; frankly, on par with the Biden administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Imagine how this outcome would embolden Russia's key strategic ally, Communist China, to undertake military coercion and aggression against Taiwan and the fateful consequences that would stem from that.
I remind my colleagues that appeasement never works. Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan both understood, as President Reagan said: ``We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted.''
It is time to be resolute. Let's heed the lessons of history and support this bill.
Finally, I thank Speaker Johnson for his principled leadership and his fortitude in moving forward with this bill. In the face of daunting obstacles, his resolve is a testament to his strength of character.
I also thank Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro for their leadership on this bill. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment from one of the people I most admire, a dear friend and colleague from Florida.
This is clearly a well-intended amendment. Frankly, when I was listening to her presentation, there were so many things I agreed with in what she said, but it would strike all funding in the bill, except for the foreign military financing.
As I mentioned, there are so many things I agreed with in what she said. I agree, for example, that over time the United States must focus our efforts on intelligence and essential military support. I totally agree with that.
She also talked about how we need to narrow the scope. I would argue that, unfortunately, the amendment needs to be narrowed a bit. It should have been narrowed a bit because it would be really counterproductive the way it is written at this time. Let me, respectfully, explain why.
First, the amendment would zero out funding to keep U.S. personnel in our Embassy in Ukraine safe. I don't think that is something that we should be doing right now.
Also, the funding to enhance the U.S. Government's presence in order to conduct oversight, which is something that I have been clamoring for, that a lot of us have been clamoring for, begging and pleading and working for, this would eliminate that, as well. By the way, it would also eliminate funding for the oversight of the military portion of the assistance.
Secondly, it would eliminate funding for the State Department's and USAID's inspectors general from whom we require unprecedented oversight plans. Obviously, we need to give them the resources for this critical work because we have to have oversight.
That is something that I know, at least on my side of the aisle, we all agree on, regardless of what you believe our role should be in Ukraine. Again, unfortunately, as I mentioned, this would eliminate the funding for that.
Third, it would also eliminate the funding for investigations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, as well as assistance to help secure Ukrainian nuclear facilities. We have seen those in the news under threat by the Russians. Also, it eliminates funds for potential clearance of Russian mines.
Finally, it would eliminate economic support for Ukraine, and that is something that the sponsor of this amendment is really focused on. I would argue even there that this is essential at this moment right now.
Look, it is pretty clear that Putin has been targeting farmlands, infrastructure, energy infrastructure, road infrastructure, and Ukraine's industrial base.
By the way, he is doing that for a reason. You see, crippling Ukraine's economy, and Putin knows this, has a direct impact on Ukraine's ability to stop Putin.
As chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee, I can assure you that not only do I understand the sponsor of this amendment's frustration, but I get it and share it. That is why, again, we need to have the language that is currently in the bill.
I understand her concern and frustration because of the lack of transparency and strategy on the funding that has already been provided. That is why this is very clear. That is why this legislation includes many of the critical oversight and burden-sharing priorities that I am very proud originated in the FY24 State-Foreign Operations bill. These include unprecedented cost matching requirements so that other donors step up. They must step up. The bill imposes layers and layers of conditions on the funding, including for in-person monitoring, for example.
This bill requires--I know, a novel concept--a strategy that must be developed and submitted so that Congress can evaluate the execution of aid and its alignment with U.S. national security interests.
Another significant change, by the way, from the Senate supplemental is a requirement in this bill that the economic support to Ukraine be repaid, transforming assistance from a grant to a loan.
I am so grateful to the sponsor of this amendment for her work. I appreciate the intent of this amendment, but we cannot afford to shortchange our oversight funding, our diplomatic security funding, and other strategic priorities.
Mr. Chair, for those reasons, with, again, great admiration and respect for the sponsor of this amendment, I must urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Duarte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Carey, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8035) making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source