Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2913) to authorize support for Ukraine, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I think that is the pattern, 30 seconds.

You are almost there.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mackenzie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the question before this House is simple: Will we help Ukraine negotiate from a position of strength, or will we help Putin outlast American resolve?

The Ukrainian people, our NATO allies, and the United States national security cannot afford to wait any longer for this body to act against Russia's brutal war in Ukraine.

In the last 17 months, Russia has redoubled its efforts to break the Ukrainian spirit while waging its illegal war, and this body has failed to meet the moment.

Let me be clear: The administration could be doing more right now without waiting for Congress. President Trump promised to end the war on day one. Seventeen months later, this administration has stalled delivery of assistance that Congress has passed.

It has attacked Ukraine, the victim, while providing cover for Putin who continues to stall, delay, and outlast U.S. support.

We all want this war to end. The question is how? Will we abandon

Ukraine and force it into a terrible deal? That is what Vladimir Putin is counting on.

Or will this body live up to the commitments we have made since the start of this war, that we will support the brave Ukrainians fighting for their future, deliver them the weapons that they need to defend themselves, impose costs on the Kremlin for this immoral conflict, and hold Russia accountable for its war crimes?

This war ends when Putin concludes that prolonged conflict will cost Russia more than ending it. That means proving through action, not words, that the United States and our allies will not walk away.

That is exactly what this bill aims to do. It supports Ukraine's reconstruction, fights Russian malign influence, shores up security assistance for our Baltic allies, and provides Ukraine urgently needed foreign military finance loans to purchase the weapons it needs to defend itself against and push back Russian aggression.

Let me remind my colleagues. Nearly every dollar we invest in Ukraine's security assistance is spent where? It is spent right here in these United States of America supporting American workers, supporting American manufacturers, and supporting American communities.

Mr. Speaker, this is not one of those conflicts where there is a gray area. Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian thug who ordered the invasion of Ukraine for his own imperialistic ambitions. He has ordered the kidnapping of Ukrainian children and the murder of innocent civilians. And as the United States' support has wavered, the carnage has only grown. Mr. Speaker, 2025 was the deadliest year for Ukrainian civilians since the war began.

In the largest land war since World War II, we have seen over a million casualties that Putin chose. And if you believe his ambitions will end with Ukraine, you have not been paying attention at all.

History and Putin have told us otherwise. Some colleagues have raised parts of this bill that could be improved as justification for voting against it. Mr. Speaker, this bill should have gone through regular order, but unfortunately, my request to move Russia bills through regular order have been routinely rejected.

Republican leadership has opposed this bill and repeatedly blocked bipartisan efforts to hold Russia accountable. The Ukraine Support Act was introduced some 14 months ago, and we have forced it to the floor by discharge only because that was the only option left to us.

Now, before I finish, I just have some people that I really need to thank. For 14 months, our majority leader emeritus Steny Hoyer, he has been absolutely tremendous, working and getting this bill to this point today. He used to be the whip or so. He is no longer the whip, but he hasn't lost those whip skills on how to whip people and get them together. That is what he has done, and I have got to thank him and have to say and know that his commitment to the Ukrainian people and to our allies is unwavering and unshakeable. I thank Steny Hoyer.

Let me also thank Representatives Keating and Kaptur and so many other Democrats who have worked tirelessly and been instrumental in this process. Finally, I must thank Representatives Bacon, Fitzpatrick, and Kiley for courageously signing the discharge petition. This indeed has been a team effort and something that the Ukrainian people know that in a bipartisan way we support them in what we will do.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to do what is right: Support Ukraine. Hold Russia accountable. Show the world and show Putin that the United States does not fold to bullies. Putin's belief that bipartisan U.S. support will fade is as much a fantasy as he believes that he could take Kyiv in a week.

That is how we end this war, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is an original cosponsor on this important measure, the former whip, and the majority leader emeritus of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that I heard the President of the United States say that Ukraine should give up, basically, because they don't have the cards. He said to Vladimir Putin do what you will. These are words out of the President's office, not mine.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the bill raised by Chairman Hill, I want the public to know that I fully supported that bill. In fact, I voted for it in committee. I am on the Financial Services Committee also, and the fact that it hasn't hit the floor a year after it was marked up in committee tells you everything that you need to know about Republican leadership's willingness to put bills on the floor that hold Putin accountable. Because if they would put bills on the floor that would hold him accountable, we would not have had to discharge this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), the ranking member on the Europe Subcommittee and an original cosponsor of this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the co-chair of the Ukraine Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), a woman of courage, who has traveled to Ukraine many times and stands for the Ukrainian people, the distinguished Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), who is the co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and who has traveled to that war zone over five times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the original cosponsor on this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the camera of history is rolling, and history will show where each Member stands at this time as Ukraine's war rages on. It will show who stood with Ukraine and with democracy and who stood with Vladimir Putin and his evil regime.

Putin believes he can outlast American resolve. I don't believe he can. Today, we have the chance to prove him wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to stand with the people of Ukraine and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Meeks, who is ranking member of this committee. I thank all those who had the courage to stand up and sign this bill. I would say to my friend who just spoke, whom I have

great respect for: Nothing in this bill contradicts the concerns that he raised. They are consistent with the concerns he raised, and, in fact, they present a forward movement on the concerns that he raised.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase General Eisenhower, the eyes of the world are upon us. Since Putin launched his perfidious invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the House has taken 12 votes to support the Ukrainians in defense of their freedom, of their sovereignty, and of international law.

Over all 12, an average of 80 percent of this House--80 percent of this House--has voted to hold firm to the principle that Ukraine must win this war and Putin and his war crimes must lose it, 12 bills, an average of 80 percent of the House of Representatives voting for it, and, in addition, that America has a pivotal role in supporting Ukraine.

The last time, however, that we voted on a Ukraine assistance package was April 2024. My friend said he was for Ukraine, but not today. I have heard so many times: I am for Ukraine, but not this bill; yes, I will be with you on Ukraine, but not now.

In 2025, American aid to Ukraine fell by 99 percent. Thankfully, international aid to Ukraine stayed close to 2024 levels because European allies stepped up and delivered a 67 percent surge--not a 2 percent, not a 4 percent, not a 5--67 percent surge in military assistance and a 59 percent rise in humanitarian aid.

Europe is carrying its weight in helping Ukraine.

In the 2 years since we last approved a package, Ukrainians have endured two bitter winters of war.

It is time for us to act. Russian drones have continued to rain terror on civilian neighborhoods. Driven, in part, by their extraordinary advances in drone technology, however, Ukraine is carrying the day.

A generation of young Russians have been sacrificed for Putin's pride. In this moment at the end of my tenure in Congress, I hear echoes from its beginnings when the Cold War was in terminal phase.

Ronald Reagan traveled to Berlin in 1987. Standing in front of the Berlin Wall, just 2 years before it fell, he told of how the Soviets tried to outlast the West during that decade's nuclear-arms surge.

The Soviets had dug their heels in, but Reagan declared the alliance held firm. This is about the alliance holding firm.

Today, we can declare to Vladimir Putin, just as President Reagan did, that our alliance holds firm and that America holds firm. President Reagan had said earlier in 1983 our adversaries ``must be made to understand we will never . . . ''

President Reagan said in 1983 our adversaries ``must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards [nor] ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire.''

He was talking about the Soviet Union and Russia today.

``To do so would mean abandoning the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a moment. This is a moment to choose between right and wrong and good and evil, not tomorrow, but today, tonight. This is a moment to stand with those who are fighting on the front lines for democracy, sovereignty, and international law.

This is a moment for all of us, together, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and our allies, to hold firm.

Let's hold firm and vote ``yes'' on this bill and send a message to the world and to the Ukrainians.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is his time, and I appreciate that.

I congratulate--I am not sure I like the way he did it--

--but what he did was get the Europeans to understand they needed to carry their part of the load. I congratulate him for doing that.

However, why they have surged is because they see the proximate, immediate danger caused by Russians' avaricious appetite for more land and empire. That is why they surged, and we ought to stay with them because we also need to be concerned about a leader in Putin who wants to create another empire.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because there are not people on the floor of the House that support Putin. There are not people on the floor of the House tonight that support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I rise to speak, however, in opposition to H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act, and explain, in my judgment, the flaws in this bill. I stand here concerned and somewhat sad that I am here because no one has been a more steadfast supporter of Ukraine than I have, in my judgment.

I thank my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle who have been so passionate.

I have consistently advocated and voted in support of Ukraine. I have consistently advocated for increased sanctions on Russia. My record of supporting Ukraine is strong. I have made two trips to Kyiv and two other trips to the region, all to rally support in rejection of Putin's stand in Ukraine and call for his defeat.

I led the design and successful passage of the REPO Act in this House and in this Congress to convert billions of dollars of Russian foreign assets for use in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, today, we are confronted, as my good friend from New York noted, with a flawed measure.

First, this bill is 14 months old, and therefore, it doesn't recognize all the changes that have happened over the past year. It actually cuts $100 million in authorized funding for Ukraine annually. The funding cuts do not reflect what the House agreed to in our bipartisan NDAA.

It does not reflect the commitment that our NATO allies have made and only calls for a 2 percent pledge of their GDP in support of NATO when, in fact, President Trump has gotten our NATO allies to pledge 5 percent of their GDP in defense spending. We would be walking back from our own spending plans here, and we would be walking back from the commitment we have gotten from our European allies.

But the bill has other issues that I am concerned with. It lists ``Iran provisions'' in the document rather than refer to Russia.

The bill includes poorly written sanctions policy, including duplicative sanctions that are already in place.

It mandates certain sanctions without any link to a strategic goal of what those sanctions would achieve or meaningful behavioral change in Moscow.

It includes sanctions on financial messaging services like SWIFT, which I think are exaggerated, and in my judgment, could cause countries to move to a Chinese messaging system rather than a Western- based system.

So there are others, and that is why I have disappointment today that I am on this House floor in opposition to it.

I agree with my friend from New York, too, that this House should take up a bill that can pass and have bipartisan support to counter Putin and send a message from both Chambers in this Capitol that we reject Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the murderous regime that he leads.

My better alternative is the Financial Services bill passed almost unanimously by Zach Nunn called the PEACE Act. It would cut off Russian energy revenues, channel billions from Moscow's sovereign assets to Ukraine to defend itself, and it is past time for that bill to be on this House floor. I have urged House leadership to bring the PEACE Act to the floor. I again ask House leadership to bring the PEACE Act to the floor.

This is a well-crafted bill that will hold Putin accountable, hold Russia accountable, and will demonstrate that on a bipartisan, bicameral basis this Congress is for Putin leaving Ukraine, Ukraine having a sovereign nation, and this country having a great new friend on the Continent of Europe.

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.