On the recordJanuary 31, 2013
I rise in opposition to the amendment. Would that this amendment were as simple as the junior Senator from Kentucky described. His amendment would hinder our military assistance program and licenses for commercial sales of all major military equipment, including aircraft, ships, tanks, other armored vehicles, and so on. Ending these contracts would not only mean a loss of thousands and thousands of American jobs, it would incur more than $2 billion in contract termination penalties for U.S. taxpayers. We would also put at risk our access to the Suez Canal, the overflights of the U.S. Air Force over Egyptian territory, cooperation on the Sinai, Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa--a part of the world where we need all the allies we can get--and our emphasis on the ability to keep the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement going. Do I have problems with the way the Morsi government is going? Certainly. But removing our ability to be involved with keeping that peace agreement and our ability to influence, this is not the way to do it. It is shortsighted and harmful to U.S. security arrangements. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
