House Republicans want lethal weapons to be a priority in the $6.4 billion aid package President Biden requested to help Ukraine fend off Russian invaders.
The lawmakers said the U.S. must help Ukrainians defend themselves. That means lethal aid, not just humanitarian aid, said Rep. Mark Green, Tennessee Republican.
“That includes not only weapons like Stingers and Javelins but also ammunition,” Mr. Green told The Washington Times. “They have a weapon system that is a Soviet bloc weapon system, so you’ve got to be a little bit innovative there.”
Mr. Biden last week asked Congress for $3.5 billion in Pentagon funding and $2.9 billion for foreign security and humanitarian assistance. The White House has authorized almost $1 billion in military assistance in the past year for Ukraine, including $350 million in arms including Javelins and Stingers missiles, which are man-portable antitank and antiaircraft missiles, respectfully.
Defense officials said the new package will also include Javelins and Stingers, though the speed of delivery remains uncertain.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr. Biden railed against Russia’s aggression and emphasized American solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
SEE ALSO: Ukrainians morph into a dangerous fighting force in the face of Russian invaders
“Putin’s latest attack on Ukraine was premeditated and totally unprovoked,” Mr. Biden said. “He rejected repeated, repeated efforts at diplomacy. He thought the West and NATO wouldn’t respond. He thought he would divide us at home, in this chamber, in this nation. He thought he could divide us in Europe as well. But Putin was wrong. We are ready.”
Rep. Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin Republican, said the White House already delayed sending weapons to Ukraine, which were requested several months ago while tensions rose with Russia.
“They need armaments now,” Mr. Tiffany said. “He needs to act promptly because he was too late in responding to them requesting these armaments months ago when they knew this buildup was going on with the Russians. President Biden did not deliver at that time.”
Others are skeptical about spending more money at a time when the U.S. faces crises at home with massive illegal immigration and rising inflation.
Rep. Matt Rosendale, Montana Republican, said he would oppose the package as a whole. He said U.S. intervention should be limited to push European allies to pay their share.
“That $6.4 billion would give us the ability to complete the [border] wall and build out all the technology that’s associated with it,” Mr. Rosendale said. “Where we need to focus right now is to allow the rest of the NATO countries to continue delivering weapons they can get into Ukraine.”
SEE ALSO: Russia escalates in Ukraine as global opposition mounts
Negotiations over the aid package are ongoing in Congress and lawmakers are debating whether the funds should come out of existing military spending or an emergency spending bill. Democrats said they are prepared to provide any aid needed for Ukraine, with some suggesting that $6.4 billion isn’t enough.
Sen. Chris Coons, who chairs the committee overseeing the State Department budget, said the U.S. should provide a minimum of $10 billion.
“I would be supportive of an emergency supplemental of at least $10 billion perhaps more to meet these vital national security and humanitarian needs,” said Mr. Coons, Delaware Democrat.
• Mica Soellner can be reached at msoellner@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.