As Speaker Mike Johnson opened the floor to questions at a closed-door fundraiser in New Jersey last month, Jacquie Colgan asked how he planned to handle aid to Ukraine in the face of fierce opposition within his own ranks.
What followed was an impassioned monologue from Mr Johnson in which he explained why he believes continued American aid to Kiev is vital – a message completely at odds with the far-right views that have taken hold in his party. Citing his political roots as a Reagan Republican, he denounced Russian President Vladimir V. Putin as a “madman” and acknowledged that the issue had forced him to walk a “delicate political tightrope.”
Ms. Colgan, a member of the American Coalition for Ukraine, a nonprofit advocacy group, reminded him of the saying that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and replied that he had a copy keep the quote framed in his office.
“It won’t be us,” he assured her. “We will do our job.”
The exchange reflects what Mr. Johnson has said privately to donors, foreign leaders and other members of Congress in recent weeks, according to extensive notes taken by Ms. Colgan during the New Jersey event and interviews with several other people, who spoke to him.
While the speaker did not comment on any option, he repeatedly expressed a personal desire to send aid to Ukraine – something he had repeatedly voted against in the past – and now appears to be looking for the least politically damaging option, to do that .
The challenge for Mr Johnson is that any combination of aid measures he puts on the ballot is likely to anger the growing isolationist wing of his party, which sees the issue as toxic. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, who has repeatedly said she would call an early vote to remove the speaker if he allowed a vote on aid to Ukraine before imposing restrictive immigration measures, filed one on Friday Resolution calling for his removal, saying it was meant to send him “a warning.”
Even if Ms. Greene carries out her threat, Mr. Johnson could keep his job. New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, said he believed “a reasonable number” of Democrats would vote to save the speaker if he faced a Republican mutiny over his response to the Senate-passed relief package had reacted. Jeffries said that was “an observation, not an explanation.”
In a lengthy statement on Friday after Ms. Greene filed her resolution and the House of Representatives left Washington for the Easter recess, Mr. Johnson said that when lawmakers returned in two weeks “they would take the necessary steps to pass the request for additional funding.” edit”. ”
“We have done important work discussing options with members,” he said, “and are preparing to finalize our action plan.”
Privately, Mr. Johnson has expressed interest in tying Ukraine aid to a measure aimed at forcing the Biden administration to lift its moratorium on liquefied natural gas exports, according to three people familiar with his deliberations who were not authorized to do so , talk about it. Mr. Johnson pressed the issue last month in a White House meeting with President Biden and congressional leaders, arguing that by banning new exports of domestic energy, the administration is increasing its reliance on Russian gas, effectively enriching Ukraine’s enemy.
According to a person familiar with the comments, at that meeting Mr. Johnson raised the case of Calcasieu Pass 2, a planned export terminal that would be located on a shipping canal connecting the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Charles, La., which would be the existing export terminals of the country will dwarf it. The Biden administration suspended its approval decision in January.
He has been debating whether to vote in the House on the aid, which is bundled with aid to other U.S. allies including Israel and Taiwan, or whether to allow lawmakers to vote on it separately to express their support for each individual country.
With many Republicans intent on blocking aid to Ukraine, any bill doing so would have to consider a special process that bypasses House rules and requires a two-thirds majority for passage, which is strongly opposed relies on the votes of the Democrats. But a combined aid package for Ukraine and Israel, like the one passed by the Senate last month, could be derailed by a coalition of right-wing Republicans who oppose the money for Kiev and left-wing Democrats who oppose aid to Israel be condemned.
Mr Johnson has considered imposing new sanctions on Russia. And he has debated how the money should be structured – direct aid rather than a loan – and whether it should be used exclusively for lethal aid, a type of aid more broadly supported by his conference, or whether it should also include non-military aid should.
“In the eyes of many people, there is a big difference between lethal aid to Ukraine and the humanitarian component,” Johnson said at a news conference at the Capitol last week.
Both he and Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, have publicly floated the idea of paying for some aid through the sale of Russian state assets frozen by a law called the REPO Act.
Mr. Johnson has faced increasing international pressure to allow a vote on aid to Ukraine and has received almost weekly visits and calls from NATO allies and pro-Ukraine activists at his offices in Washington and Louisiana. When Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk visited Washington earlier this month, he had a clear public message for the speaker.
“This is not a political skirmish that only matters here in America,” Tusk told reporters. “Mr Johnson’s failure to make this positive decision will actually cost thousands of lives there – children, women. He must be aware of his personal responsibility.”
At a private meeting with Mr. Johnson in his Capitol office, Polish President Andrzej Duda appealed to the Louisiana Republican’s respect for President Ronald Reagan, whose portrait hung next to the speaker during the meeting. Mr. Duda quoted Mr. Reagan at length and praised his willingness to proclaim good versus evil during the Cold War, according to a person familiar with the comments, who asked for anonymity to describe them.
Some skeptical Ukraine supporters, both on Capitol Hill and outside, worry that Mr. Johnson’s pleasant comments merely reflect his penchant for telling people what they want to hear. Early in his term as speaker, MPs noted that he had a habit of giving listeners from rival factions the impression that he agreed with each and every one of them.
But at the fundraiser in New Jersey last month, he was pretty open about his calculations.
Mr. Johnson told the audience that he was “working to find the best path forward,” Ms. Colgan recalled, adding that he said half of Republicans in the House wanted to do it as a package with Israel and Taiwan, and the other half wanted to do it alone.
At a separate fundraiser in Binghamton for a congressman in New York’s Hudson Valley last month, Christina Zawerucha, the executive director of the Together for Ukraine Foundation, and Anatoliy Pradun, the group’s Ukrainian-born and raised president, made the request speaker to urge him to hold a vote.
Mr. Pradun had hoped to appeal to Mr. Johnson’s faith by telling him about Ukraine’s strong evangelical Christian community. However, realizing that they had little time to make their arguments, Ms. Zawerucha and Mr. Pradun instead gave the speaker a pin with the Ukrainian and American flags, showed him their poster announcing an upcoming interfaith vigil for Ukraine, and implored him to arrange a vote on aid to Kiev.
“He didn’t turn us away,” Ms. Zawerucha said. “He pointed to our poster and said, ‘I’ll take care of it. I’ll take care of it.'”
When Ms. Zawerucha relayed the interaction to other activists after lunch, they asked what they thought he meant.
“And at this point, I don’t know,” she said. “It has been over a month since Speaker Johnson said he would look into this. And a vote for Ukraine has still not been allowed.”
Julian Barnes contributed reporting.
Source link
2024-03-25 18:56:16
www.nytimes.com