“We have to get to the floor,” Crow said he and others explained to Zelenskiy. “That's the challenge.”
Ukraine supporters on both sides of the divide House votes to release billions of dollars in aid to Kiev, bypassing Republican leadership, which has rejected measures to fund several national security imperatives We are looking for ways to enforce this.
The Senate's passage this week of a $95 billion aid package that includes money for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and other U.S. allies poses a huge dilemma for House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Speaker Johnson's precarious grip on the position is under threat from some recalcitrant factions. The Republican caucus vehemently opposed further war spending. Mr. Johnson (R-Louisiana) has vetoed the Senate bill outright, but has so far provided little clarity on the path forward.
The situation is complicated by a number of factors, but one of particular importance to Johnson and other Republicans is former President Donald Trump's influence. He has opposed bipartisan compromises on Ukraine funding and immigration that were initially proposed by Republicans in return.
House sponsors of the Senate bill also face growing challenges from left-wing Democrats who say they cannot support continued aid to Israel after months of civilian bloodshed in Gaza.
The standoff has angered lawmakers from both parties, who say time is running out for Ukraine in the face of dwindling weapons stocks, and some in the lower house are pushing for a new solution that capitalizes on overwhelming support for President Zelenskiy. I'm looking for a solution. government.
At this week's Republican convention, Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), who was part of the delegation to Kyiv, made the plea: Colleagues called for an end to making funding to Ukraine so “complicated”; Officials at the closed-door meeting reiterated long-standing claims that U.S. support is essential to preventing Russia from expanding the war beyond Ukraine's borders. I said as we gathered.
Rep. Mike Walz (R-Florida), who serves on three of the House National Security Committees, said during the meeting that Republican leadership would remove billions of dollars in humanitarian aid from the Senate bill and overhaul the border. asked whether they would consider including the Republican measure. Policies to make the bill more favorable. Those in attendance said Johnson appeared to be taking notes.
Meanwhile, Democrats are considering whether they can force a vote on the Senate bill through a process called a “removal petition,” which would require 218 signatures. That way, when newly elected Tom Suozzi (N.Y.) is sworn in later this month, only four Republicans will need to sign on, but rather than oppose funding for Israel. Democratic leaders said they feared liberal lawmakers might withdraw their signatures.
“The question is, if it's lost, how many rupees do we have to pick up?” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a Republican. “And what do I have to sacrifice to get it?”
Moderate Republicans have indicated, at least for now, that they have no intention of colluding with Democrats to force a vote. “Let's build some momentum before we talk about hypotheticals,” said Rep. Zachary Nunn (R-Iowa). He was among the lawmakers meeting with Zelenskiy.
But while some in the Republican Party have privately derided Mr. Johnson as “indecisive” or too green to lead effectively, he is simply concerned about how to move forward on difficult issues. Some say they simply tend to seek feedback from the entire meeting before making decisions. His allies seem intent on giving him time to maneuver.
“Leaders are going to decide what path we take going forward. That's their role. It's not mine,” said Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.). , said a year ago that it “remains steadfast in its support of Ukraine's fierce fight to maintain its independence,” while calling for greater accountability for aid funds. asked On Wednesday, Whitman said, “I support the chairman,” on whether he still thinks aid to Ukraine is important.
Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also defended Johnson, saying, “Mr. “We have made it very clear that we support the Asia-Pacific component of security.” package. “Republican Turner: “I'm sure we'll do it'' he said, adding that he didn't want to guess how.
Johnson said this week that House Republicans would “work through the issues” in the Senate's national security bill and that the process would begin “in earnest now.” He has also called for a meeting with President Biden to negotiate border security policies that could come with foreign aid, a proposal that has been rejected after bipartisan talks in the Senate finalized a conservative border deal. The Republican Party's abrogation has infuriated the Democratic Party and the administration.
Republicans were formulating immigration policy A review is called for as a prerequisite for supporting larger national security policies and support for Ukraine in particular.rear Trump spoke out for himself. A wave of Republicans turned against the bipartisan plan. Republican leaders soon concluded that the deal did not do enough to curb illegal immigration, and the Senate subsequently Passed national security legislation without border policy provisions.
The ultra-conservative ranks of the House of Commons make it extremely difficult for Mr Johnson to propose a way forward without facing internal backlash. He was plucked from relative obscurity after the previous speaker, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), was fired for collaborating with Democrats to pass other spending bills, leading to the turbulent session. It was decided to crack down on the Trump's representative, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), said she would seek to remove Johnson from the speakership if he sought a vote on funding for Ukraine. Stated.
“He has a choice, but it's not going to happen this week,” said one Republican lawmaker familiar with Johnson's thinking. Like several others, they spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions. “He will address it in time,” but he will not be “the one to bring the Senate bill to the table” for a vote.
This process comes as the prospect of a government shutdown looms and could occur as early as March 1 unless Congress agrees to a much larger spending package to fund the federal government. faces further challenges. The House of Representatives adjourned Thursday until the end of February, but once it reopens, it will have just two days to avoid a shutdown.
House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York told reporters this week that a “supermajority” of Democrats are ready to support the Senate national security bill. “The problem is not us,” he said, accusing Trump supporters of crowding the speaker.
But progressive Democrats say they aren't actually ready to do that.
“To me, it would be unconscionable to give the Israeli government any more money,” said freshman Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.), who has killed about 30,000 people in the Gaza Strip and 200 others. He cited the staggering sacrifice of millions of people who were displaced. And she is “children who eat grass to survive.''
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the bill “with no conditions or accountability” was designed to pressure Israel to exercise restraint and abide by international rules. “People” would not vote yes. Law.
The Senate bill includes funding for humanitarian aid to help these people. Ramirez added that the events in Gaza are both unconvincing and cynical, a sentiment echoed by other progressives. “So while Netanyahu's government is bombing children, they might be able to get something to eat for the first time that week?” Ramirez said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. he asked rhetorically.
Johnson has hinted at the possibility of splitting the Senate package to allow a partial vote on foreign aid provisions. Many Republicans have said they would prefer to vote on each issue individually rather than all at once, a policy that may be more palatable to some Democrats as well.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania), co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said several lawmakers will soon propose a “two-party solution.” It's unclear how their plans will take shape or when they will be announced.
“This whole situation is difficult,” Jayapal said. “There's no question about that.”
Leigh Ann Caldwell contributed to this report.
