Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Policy Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committees pass resolutions urging continued U.S. support for Ukraine after mixed public testimony
Summary
Senate concurrent resolution 159 and Senate resolution 129 urging continued U.S. support to Ukraine passed the committees with non-substantive amendments after public commenters in Hawaii largely opposed further funding.
The Senate committees considered SCR 159 and SR 129, resolutions urging Congress to continue U.S. support for the Ukrainian military, and adopted the measures with technical, non-substantive amendments.
Committee members reported a split in submitted public testimony: the clerk read that roughly 25 people submitted testimony, with the committee's tally described as "about 7 of them are in support and 18 or so are opposed." Several in-person and Zoom testifiers told the committee they opposed additional federal military support for Ukraine. Mary Healy (via Zoom) said she stood on her written testimony and asked the committee to "prioritize the citizens of Hawaii over petitioning Congress for any more funds for the Ukrainian war." David Asins said he opposed "giving any more money to Zelensky and to Ukraine," characterizing the conflict as more complicated than an unprovoked invasion.
Alice Abalenita of Battle Beach also opposed the resolution and cited local needs: "Hawaii has a lot of issues. There's a lot of homeless people...I cannot in the life of me understand why we are sending money overseas to another country" while local infrastructure needs remain.
Committee leadership recommended passage with technical amendments. The committee recorded votes on the resolution as: Chair — aye; Vice Chair — aye; Senator DeCoite — excused; Senator Richards — excused; Senator Fevella — no. The committee's recommendation was adopted and the companion committee on Transportation, Culture and the Arts adopted the same recommendation.
The amendments were described as technical and non-substantive; the resolutions themselves urge continued Congressional support but do not appropriate funds or direct state expenditures.
Because public testimony in this hearing skewed toward opposition and cited local needs and accountability concerns, committee members explicitly characterized the amendments as technical before adopting the recommendation.
