Thursday 22 December 2022

Only 86 of 213 House Republicans Attended Zelensky's Speech at US Congress – Reports

Only 86 of 213 House Republicans Attended Zelensky's Speech at US Congress – Reports

Only 86 of 213 House Republicans Attended Zelensky's Speech at US Congress – Reports




©AP Photo






Only 86 of 213 House Republicans attended Volodymyr Zelensky’s address to a joint meeting of the US Congress, a US newspaper reported.







On Wednesday, Zelensky visited Washington to meet with US President Joe Biden and appeal to Congress for further security assistance for Ukraine.


According to the newspaper, the goal of Zelensky's visit was to secure support from Republicans as they are set to take control of the House next month.


Over a third of House members had active letters to vote by proxy on Wednesday, with many worrying about weather-related travel disruptions just before Christmas, the report said.


Even though Republican supporters of aiding Ukraine welcomed Zelensky’s speech, critics of this aid showed little openness to changing their minds even following the Ukrainian leader's address, the report said.







Prior to the speech, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie wrote on social media that he is in Washington but "will not be attending the speech of the Ukrainian lobbyist."


Rep. Warren Davidson, in turn, doubted that Zelensky should be speaking from the House floor. The United States "should be focused on trying to contain the war, not expand the war," the lawmaker argued.


Some Republicans, however, have been demanding more transparency from the government when it comes to helping Ukraine. “Sadly, what I didn’t hear tonight was a clear explanation of where the first $50 billion we sent to support their efforts went,” Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who attended Zelensky’s speech, said in a video message on Twitter. She said that she would “not support sending additional money to this war” until an audit was completed.


Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who spearheaded the bill to audit aid to Ukraine, was among those who ditched Zelensky’s address. “The American taxpayers are literally paying to prop up many countries all over the world in foreign aid, but America is virtually crumbling before our eyes,” Greene tweeted on Wednesday. She added that families in her district were struggling with growing food prices while the US was concerned with sending funds to Ukraine.







Meanwhile, Representative Chip Roy described Zelensky’s speech as “more of the theater” used by the Democrats to convince voters that the funds slated for Ukraine were “just going to be magically created out of thin air.”


On Tuesday, Congress rolled out a spending bill containing more than $44 billion worth of aid to Ukraine. But Republicans calculated that the money set aside for Kiev exceeded $47 billion, according to the New York Times.


The Pentagon has unveiled an additional $1.85 billion aid package for Ukraine, which includes the Patriot air defense missile systems, armored vehicles, and grenade launchers, as well as artillery and tank rounds. Russia has repeatedly said that foreign weapons would not change the course of the conflict and would only cause more deaths in Ukraine.









Among the biggest critics of Zelensky were Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) who tweeted that he would not attend the speech of a "Ukrainian lobbyist." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who also did not attend Congress, tweeted before the speech that global foreign aid is like Americans being "raped everyday at the hands of their own elected leaders."


According to the Hill pool, only 86 of 213 House Republicans attended the speech Wednesday evening. More than a third of House members had active letters to vote by proxy on Wednesday, with many worrying about weather disrupting travel just before Christmas.


Republican skepticism of and resistance to Ukraine funding is layered. Some members oppose aid altogether based on an “America First” or anti-war philosophy. Others support more military aid but less economic and humanitarian aid, and still others believe the U.S.-Mexico border should be prioritized more.


No comments: